Brian Lee
Folks in Area A now have three reasons to mistrust the “consultation” processes adopted by various levels of government. After the closure of the Pender Harbour landfill and the delivery of Pender Harbour’s dock management plan — controversial decisions that survived overwhelming local opposition — some feel Area A has been snubbed again. The Area A official community plan review committee, the Area A advisory planning commission and the P. H. Advisory Council have all come out publicly in opposition to the inclusion of a prominent five page-reference to the Shíshálh Nation’s “Strategic Land Use Plan” in our OCP. (See story p. 5.)
When I read it in July, I didn’t see a problem with the OCP’s SLUP inclusion. As the largest single landholder in Area A outside of the Crown, the Shíshálh Nation deserve a seat at the table — which they received in the form of SIB resource director Sid Quinn on this and the last (1998) OCP review committee. SCRD planner Andrew Allen found himself in a tough spot and did an excellent job referencing the document without over committing to it.
But it’s hard to ignore the optics of yet another issue in which the objections of three local planning groups are ignored. After all, the SLUP is a bold document dictating the SIB’s vision for their traditional territory with unwavering terms — and it’s written without any other stakeholder input. Within that territory is at least one community that has shown it doesn’t always align with their vision. And that community is in the process of completing its OCP.
If nothing else, the SLUP inclusion unnecessarily politicizes the document at a time when people are unsympathetic to its author. The SIB has caused real damage in the Pender Harbour community through the dock management plan. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that their SLUP is tough to swallow for many Pender Harbour elders who are looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars lost in property value and unnecessary dock rebuilding.
And is the SLUP inclusion actually useful in planning? The entire document can be found online if staff don’t already have a copy on their desk.
So, is it symbolic?
Is it politics?
Or is it a suck-up?
Maybe it’s all of those.
If a three-page reference worked for Halfmoon Bay’s OCP, what does it mean that Area A’s OCP now has five? It’s left some wondering what it might take before governments refuse a demand from the SIB or, perhaps at the same time, acknowledge a duty to provide non-Indigenous residents a fair say in guiding community values.
Yes, sometimes government must ignore the wishes of citizens to accomplish tasks for the greater good. But now that we’re 0 for 3 on the only serious issues to pop up in recent memory, a pattern has developed. Perhaps the prospect of amplifying our community’s voice is another reason to take a look at incorporation. The topic of applying to the Province for a feasibility study always pops up at election time but seems to get shelved once a director gets surrounded by new friends at the SCRD.
Maybe it will be different this time.
Comments