Comments prepared by the Working Group on the DMP, by topic:
This document is in response to a request for comments contained in the Draft Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan (DMP) Fact Sheet circulated on April 11,2015 and is respectfully submitted by the Pender Harbour Working Group composed of concerned residents of Pender Harbour who are opposed to the implementation of the DMP as tabled.
A. Historical Background and Rights
1. Pender Harbour (PH) was originally settled by Europeans in the late 1800s with the first child of European heritage born here in 1897. The European settlers and their Native neighbors have since that time shared the right of free and unfettered access to deep water from their waterfront properties. These rights are referred to as riparian rights. These rights existed then and still do today and have been recognized by the Crown for centuries.
2. For thousands of years PH’s residents have considered travel by water as essential due to the layout of the harbour itself, relatively recent introduction of usable roads and the threat posed by no roads or depending on a single trail or road to service our properties and communities. Even today, in many situations, it is still quicker to travel by boat than to travel by car around the harbour. PH is unique in that is one of the largest protected harbours along the Sunshine Coast and has the largest concentration of foreshore leases in the Province.
3. Access to the water in PH continues to provide for recreational activities, tourism, safety, access to food and other goods and services, commercial fishing as well as general commerce and transportation needs. With 60 kilometers of inland coast it is no wonder that PH has become reliant upon access to the water and that one of the primary purposes of buying/owning waterfront property in the area is for that very purpose.
4. Prior to the moratorium imposed by the Province over a decade ago, owners of waterfront property could be reasonably assured that they would be granted a foreshore lease to allow them to attach their docks to the foreshore so as to more easily access the water. PH has suffered from the uncertainty arising from the moratorium only to be presented with this DMP which clearly does not respect the historical rights of the waterfront property owners.
Summary - For historical land use reasons, their ongoing belief in their common rights and a lack of compelling evidence that it is necessary for the public good, Pender Harbour residents are not prepared to accept that their access to deep water from their waterfront properties should be blocked.
B. Lack of Due Process
1. Without getting into the merits of the DMP, we are shocked at the lack of meaningful consultation that has gone on with the people who are most affected by the DMP, being the residents of PH. We have suffered through a decade long moratorium without being given the benefit of knowing what the issues were or how they may be resolved.
2. Introducing a complicated DMP containing many new concepts as well as proposing to eliminate our historical practices and rights and then severely limiting the “question and comment” period is not acceptable. Further evidence of the government’s failure to properly consult is as follows:
a. Notices were only sent out by the Province to current tenure holders and so waterfront owners looking to become tenure holders as well as those who own waterfront property who will be greatly affected were missed. Moreover, PH is a seasonal community with the majority of land owners residing elsewhere and coming here for the summer/warmer months only. They likely did not receive notice.
b. We did not and do not have a “place at the table”. We were not asked to participate in any negotiations with the Sechelt Indian Band (SIB). Our MLA was closed out of any negotiations and our representative with the SCRD was sworn to secrecy with respect to any information that may have come to him “in camera”. Residents were not asked to participate nor were we consulted until the draft DMP was tabled on April 11th yet we are the people most affected by it.
c. The government has not followed its policy as described in Amending Strategic Land and Resource Plans Policy concerning public participation in land and resource management. We consider this DMP to be a major amendment which is subject to a more rigorous decision-making process and requires an enhanced approach for both consultation and analysis.
Summary - It has not been explained to Pender Harbour residents why the moratorium was put on, why it has lasted so long, why there are new conditions they are expected to accept before it will be lifted and why a meaningful consultation has not been described and initiated. Accordingly, we believe there should be sufficient time allocated before the close of consultation with this community. We have waited over 10 years and have a right to be heard with respect to this important issue.
C. Lack of Reason/Science/Evidence
1. There have been absolutely no reasons given in the DMP or the associated Fact Sheet for the division of PH into 4 distinct zones:
a. The fact sheet says the 4 zones are based on ‘levels of impact to environmental factors. Given that persons applying for tenure must identify any critical habitat within the project footprint and a plan for protection of same the zones are unnecessary.
b. There has been no evidence given that there is any detrimental impact to the environment arising from the existence of docks properly constructed.
c. The development of zones seems to be arbitrary and not justified.
d. We have not been given any information as to how the existence of docks interferes with the interests of the SIB.
e. “Cultural Resources” have not been identified.
2. As a result we have a plan being forced upon us which takes away our historical rights with no reasonable explanation for the same.
3. There is no scientific basis for the four zones and we have not been advised how the current DMP safeguards the interests of the SIB.
4. Any decision concerning the granting of foreshore tenures should be based on a site by site analysis which will include the identification and preservation of any critical habitat as well as the preservation of any archaeological assets discovered.
Summary - We cannot accept the conditions as proposed as there appears to be a Lack of Reason/Science/Evidence behind them.
D. Costly/Burdensome/Unworkable/Unfair
1. The implementation of the DMP as written shifts an enormous burden on a waterfront land owner applying for a foreshore lease. As many as three experts must be hired by the applicant all requiring on site visits and follow up reports. We estimate the cost of getting the required reports to be in the neighborhood of $5-6000. This is before any materials are purchased and the first nail driven. We believe the government and or the SIB should be the parties bearing the cost for, at the very least, any archaeological assessment. They are the ones who are interested in obtaining it and in fact are the parties demanding it.
2. The “Fact Sheet” circulated on April 11th discloses that even if the applicant jumps through all the hoops laid down there is no guarantee of dock approval because there are “other important steps in the review process”. When are we going to be told what these other important steps are?
3. There is a suggestion that group moorage will be “encouraged” in certain zones. Unless the Province is prepared to donate land to facilitate this process it will be virtually impossible for neighbors to arrange for a group facility bearing in mind access and other legal issues. Who is going to offer up there front yard to the community to access a semi-public dock?
4. The DMP and the restrictions on new docks is patently unfair to those land owners who have done everything in their power to access a foreshore lease and have been told to be “patient” for the last decade.
Summary - Based on our observations above we currently believe the Draft DMP is Costly/Burdensome/Unworkable and Unfair and we cannot accept it as currently proposed.
E. Inflexible yet Uncertain
1. As currently drafted the four zone approach is totally inflexible. There is no appeal process contemplated. Certain activities such as filling, dredging etc are banned outright. There is no provision for applying for a permit. The minister has not reserved any discretion to allow variations to the DMP in meritorious circumstances.
2. Notwithstanding this seemingly inflexible approach, the SIB (we think) has labeled the document “without prejudice” which suggests that they have not waived any of their “rights” to withhold consent to any foreshore application.
3. The “other important steps” of the review process have not been delineated nor have any time lines been established for approval by the Province and the SIB.
4. Even under the current administration it is taking as long as two years to get approval which is ridiculous!
5. There is no review provision in the document and it is defined to be an instrument of “policy”. With no legislative protection presumably the policy can be changed at the whim of the government. Again, lack of certainty.
Summary - Based on our current understanding of the Draft DMP we consider it to be Inflexible yet Uncertain. We cannot accept it as currently proposed.
F. Summary
1. It takes away historic common practices and rights that have been enjoyed by the residents of Pender Harbour and enabled by the Crown for centuries.
2. The current DMP has been tabled without meaningful consultation with the parties who are going to be most affected by it.
3. No reasonable explanation has been given for many of the recommendations.
4. The excessive costs and underlying uncertainty will no doubt have a lasting effect on property values and development in the PH area.
5. It appears that the residents of PH are being asked to shoulder the cost of the SIB land claims.
6. Our rights are not being respected and property values are being devalued with no suggestion of any compensation being given to the aggrieved parties.
Accordingly we are dead set against the implementation of this DMP and demand that the Province and the SIB conduct some meaningful consultation with the residents of PH so that a mutually beneficial program may be implemented which addresses every ones concerns.
All of which is respectfully submitted to:
The Honourable Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources
by the Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan Working Group
This document is in response to a request for comments contained in the Draft Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan (DMP) Fact Sheet circulated on April 11,2015 and is respectfully submitted by the Pender Harbour Working Group composed of concerned residents of Pender Harbour who are opposed to the implementation of the DMP as tabled.
A. Historical Background and Rights
1. Pender Harbour (PH) was originally settled by Europeans in the late 1800s with the first child of European heritage born here in 1897. The European settlers and their Native neighbors have since that time shared the right of free and unfettered access to deep water from their waterfront properties. These rights are referred to as riparian rights. These rights existed then and still do today and have been recognized by the Crown for centuries.
2. For thousands of years PH’s residents have considered travel by water as essential due to the layout of the harbour itself, relatively recent introduction of usable roads and the threat posed by no roads or depending on a single trail or road to service our properties and communities. Even today, in many situations, it is still quicker to travel by boat than to travel by car around the harbour. PH is unique in that is one of the largest protected harbours along the Sunshine Coast and has the largest concentration of foreshore leases in the Province.
3. Access to the water in PH continues to provide for recreational activities, tourism, safety, access to food and other goods and services, commercial fishing as well as general commerce and transportation needs. With 60 kilometers of inland coast it is no wonder that PH has become reliant upon access to the water and that one of the primary purposes of buying/owning waterfront property in the area is for that very purpose.
4. Prior to the moratorium imposed by the Province over a decade ago, owners of waterfront property could be reasonably assured that they would be granted a foreshore lease to allow them to attach their docks to the foreshore so as to more easily access the water. PH has suffered from the uncertainty arising from the moratorium only to be presented with this DMP which clearly does not respect the historical rights of the waterfront property owners.
Summary - For historical land use reasons, their ongoing belief in their common rights and a lack of compelling evidence that it is necessary for the public good, Pender Harbour residents are not prepared to accept that their access to deep water from their waterfront properties should be blocked.
B. Lack of Due Process
1. Without getting into the merits of the DMP, we are shocked at the lack of meaningful consultation that has gone on with the people who are most affected by the DMP, being the residents of PH. We have suffered through a decade long moratorium without being given the benefit of knowing what the issues were or how they may be resolved.
2. Introducing a complicated DMP containing many new concepts as well as proposing to eliminate our historical practices and rights and then severely limiting the “question and comment” period is not acceptable. Further evidence of the government’s failure to properly consult is as follows:
a. Notices were only sent out by the Province to current tenure holders and so waterfront owners looking to become tenure holders as well as those who own waterfront property who will be greatly affected were missed. Moreover, PH is a seasonal community with the majority of land owners residing elsewhere and coming here for the summer/warmer months only. They likely did not receive notice.
b. We did not and do not have a “place at the table”. We were not asked to participate in any negotiations with the Sechelt Indian Band (SIB). Our MLA was closed out of any negotiations and our representative with the SCRD was sworn to secrecy with respect to any information that may have come to him “in camera”. Residents were not asked to participate nor were we consulted until the draft DMP was tabled on April 11th yet we are the people most affected by it.
c. The government has not followed its policy as described in Amending Strategic Land and Resource Plans Policy concerning public participation in land and resource management. We consider this DMP to be a major amendment which is subject to a more rigorous decision-making process and requires an enhanced approach for both consultation and analysis.
Summary - It has not been explained to Pender Harbour residents why the moratorium was put on, why it has lasted so long, why there are new conditions they are expected to accept before it will be lifted and why a meaningful consultation has not been described and initiated. Accordingly, we believe there should be sufficient time allocated before the close of consultation with this community. We have waited over 10 years and have a right to be heard with respect to this important issue.
C. Lack of Reason/Science/Evidence
1. There have been absolutely no reasons given in the DMP or the associated Fact Sheet for the division of PH into 4 distinct zones:
a. The fact sheet says the 4 zones are based on ‘levels of impact to environmental factors. Given that persons applying for tenure must identify any critical habitat within the project footprint and a plan for protection of same the zones are unnecessary.
b. There has been no evidence given that there is any detrimental impact to the environment arising from the existence of docks properly constructed.
c. The development of zones seems to be arbitrary and not justified.
d. We have not been given any information as to how the existence of docks interferes with the interests of the SIB.
e. “Cultural Resources” have not been identified.
2. As a result we have a plan being forced upon us which takes away our historical rights with no reasonable explanation for the same.
3. There is no scientific basis for the four zones and we have not been advised how the current DMP safeguards the interests of the SIB.
4. Any decision concerning the granting of foreshore tenures should be based on a site by site analysis which will include the identification and preservation of any critical habitat as well as the preservation of any archaeological assets discovered.
Summary - We cannot accept the conditions as proposed as there appears to be a Lack of Reason/Science/Evidence behind them.
D. Costly/Burdensome/Unworkable/Unfair
1. The implementation of the DMP as written shifts an enormous burden on a waterfront land owner applying for a foreshore lease. As many as three experts must be hired by the applicant all requiring on site visits and follow up reports. We estimate the cost of getting the required reports to be in the neighborhood of $5-6000. This is before any materials are purchased and the first nail driven. We believe the government and or the SIB should be the parties bearing the cost for, at the very least, any archaeological assessment. They are the ones who are interested in obtaining it and in fact are the parties demanding it.
2. The “Fact Sheet” circulated on April 11th discloses that even if the applicant jumps through all the hoops laid down there is no guarantee of dock approval because there are “other important steps in the review process”. When are we going to be told what these other important steps are?
3. There is a suggestion that group moorage will be “encouraged” in certain zones. Unless the Province is prepared to donate land to facilitate this process it will be virtually impossible for neighbors to arrange for a group facility bearing in mind access and other legal issues. Who is going to offer up there front yard to the community to access a semi-public dock?
4. The DMP and the restrictions on new docks is patently unfair to those land owners who have done everything in their power to access a foreshore lease and have been told to be “patient” for the last decade.
Summary - Based on our observations above we currently believe the Draft DMP is Costly/Burdensome/Unworkable and Unfair and we cannot accept it as currently proposed.
E. Inflexible yet Uncertain
1. As currently drafted the four zone approach is totally inflexible. There is no appeal process contemplated. Certain activities such as filling, dredging etc are banned outright. There is no provision for applying for a permit. The minister has not reserved any discretion to allow variations to the DMP in meritorious circumstances.
2. Notwithstanding this seemingly inflexible approach, the SIB (we think) has labeled the document “without prejudice” which suggests that they have not waived any of their “rights” to withhold consent to any foreshore application.
3. The “other important steps” of the review process have not been delineated nor have any time lines been established for approval by the Province and the SIB.
4. Even under the current administration it is taking as long as two years to get approval which is ridiculous!
5. There is no review provision in the document and it is defined to be an instrument of “policy”. With no legislative protection presumably the policy can be changed at the whim of the government. Again, lack of certainty.
Summary - Based on our current understanding of the Draft DMP we consider it to be Inflexible yet Uncertain. We cannot accept it as currently proposed.
F. Summary
1. It takes away historic common practices and rights that have been enjoyed by the residents of Pender Harbour and enabled by the Crown for centuries.
2. The current DMP has been tabled without meaningful consultation with the parties who are going to be most affected by it.
3. No reasonable explanation has been given for many of the recommendations.
4. The excessive costs and underlying uncertainty will no doubt have a lasting effect on property values and development in the PH area.
5. It appears that the residents of PH are being asked to shoulder the cost of the SIB land claims.
6. Our rights are not being respected and property values are being devalued with no suggestion of any compensation being given to the aggrieved parties.
Accordingly we are dead set against the implementation of this DMP and demand that the Province and the SIB conduct some meaningful consultation with the residents of PH so that a mutually beneficial program may be implemented which addresses every ones concerns.
All of which is respectfully submitted to:
The Honourable Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources
by the Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan Working Group
Questions prepared by the Working Group5/11/2015
Questions prepared by the Working Group on the DMP, by topic
(revised and updated June 5, 2015):
1. Are any of my constitutional rights being impacted by the proposed Dock Management Plan?
2. Does Canada have a role in treaty negotiations in B.C. and decisions regarding Crown land and foreshore?
3. Does the Province of B.C. have to obtain Federal Government approval to develop and implement this Dock Management Plan?
4. Why was SCRD not involved in development of this plan?
5. Why is this DMP (draft Dock Management Plan) being developed now? What will happen to existing private moorage facilities in the “yellow zone” where the intent is to limit new dock tenures to shared facilities or commercial use?
6. What triggered the Draft DMP development?
7. What was wrong with the dock management system in place previously?
8. Why did this Province single out one small area, Pender Harbour, for discriminatory treatment under this new dock management plan?
9. By not consulting with the people of Pender Harbour are you practising reverse racism?
10. Is it fair to ask an isolated group of British Columbians to abide by special and unique policies and suffer new fees that are different than those in other parts of British Columbia?
11. There was no prior consultation and accommodation with the general public although years of consultation were provided to the SIB. Why did the Province fail to consult the with the public, including Pender Harbour residents and land owners,(98% of the people affected by the Draft Plan) when it was under development and before the draft was issued?
12. Why was our elected representative, Nicholas Simons not included in the Draft DMP negotiations?
13. Who was in attendance at the table when the DMP was drafted?
14. Why were negotiations conducted at the operational level without input from local residents or elected representatives?
15. Why aren’t you discussing the Draft DMP issues with the Pender Harbour Chamber of Commerce, a corporate body representing the businesses of Pender Harbour?
16. Where are the minutes of the Draft DMP consultations and will they be made available to the public?
17. What criteria and data sets were used to determine the Dock Management Plan and zone specifics?
18. Are the Criteria and Data sets used to determine the Draft DMP available to the public?
19. Are existing docks, tenured or untenured, grandfathered within the Plan?
20. If Pender Harbour held an additional Town Hall meeting, would representatives of the SIB and the Province attend to answer questions?
21. Can the period for comments and questions be extended?
22. When is the Dock Management Plan likely to be finalized and implemented?
23. Will new tenure rates and length of tenure be applied province-wide?
24. Are some long-term residents without docks, whose property values are based in part on the ability to have a dock, are going to lose that ability under the draft Plan?
25. Who will compensate long-term residents, whose property values are based in part on the ability to have a dock and then lost that ability under the Draft DMP for the decrease in their property value?
26. Isn’t the governance over water a federal issue?
27. What authority does the Province have to propose a Dock Management Plan, when oceans are a federal government responsibility?
28. Has the SIB asserted a formal land claim over Pender Harbour, or is there a formal Land Claim Agreement in place?
29. In the absence of a claim or a formal Land Claim Agreement, does the Province of British Columbia have the authority to negotiate a reconciliation agreement with SIB?
30. The Province negotiated this agreement with the SIB. Why wasn’t the Pender Harbour Indian Band involved?
31. A resident, who has been in Pender Harbour for 72 years, during which members of the SIB did not live here, asks “What does the SIB have to do with docks in Pender Harbour?” Can you answer this question?
32. We have heard that in Haida Gwaii and Campbell River, the Province consulted with all stakeholders and partnership agreements were put in place. Why doesn’t the same process apply in Pender Harbour?
33. Why is a DMP being proposed only for Pender Harbour, when SIB’s land claim area includes other harbours and docks?
34. Why is a DMP proposed only for Pender Harbour, when there are similar harbours elsewhere on the coast of British Columbia?
35. Why was the SCRD not involved in the creation of the DMP when it affects so many of their constituents?
36. Why is the Province dealing with dock management but not addressing equally serious issues such as pollution in the harbour, derelict vessels both sinking and sunk, sewage outfalls and dumping from boats?
37. Were there biological and cultural studies done in order to set up the zones? If yes, why do those studies need to be done again?
38. Why was there a moratorium in the first place?
39. The word “should” is used repeatedly in the DMP, why is it not defined? Does this mean it is not compulsory?
40. The word “Encourage” is used repeatedly in the Draft DMP, does this mean not compulsory?
41. Why has the Province not been transparent with the Public during the development of the DMP?
42. Why is the government proposing to remove the last legal means of access to residential properties located in the red zone? (they have no legal road access)
43. Does the term “collaborative management” in the Draft DMP mean co-management of Pender Harbour docks by the Province and the Sechelt Indian Band?
44. Is there an underlying agreement between the province and the S. I. B that defines terms of reference and definition for co-management?
45. Is it a requirement that we negotiate with or even contact SIB before submitting our applications?
46. Does the Crown have to work with SIB to develop a DMP?
47. Will the Dock Management Plan allow the SIB to collect a tariff on all dock construction?
48. Does the SIB receive a benefit from water lot taxes now or under the terms of the new Pender Harbour Draft DMP?
49. Does the SIB currently receive funding from the Province to perform consultation within their claimed territory?
50. Will the S.I.B receive funding from the Province to perform consulting on Dock Management in Pender Harbour under the terms of the new Draft DMP?
51. Does the SIB currently receive funding from the Province to allow docks in their claimed territory?
52. What is the Province paying SIB for their role in the review of dock tenure applications? If yes, is this a conflict of interest?
53. SIB islands are not part of any zone, why?
54. Will there be other Bands besides SIB that will be part of this DMP?
55. Should negotiation through reconciliation be going on when the SIB is engaged in a dispute over jurisdiction with the Pender Harbour Band?
56. The Province has entered negotiations with S.I.B. as if they are the sole Band in the Pender Harbour area yet there is another group of status Indians who have applied for Band Membership and this has not been dealt with. Should Aboriginal Canada be consulted as to the legality of this?
57. The Province’s duty to consult doesn’t mean it has to enter into agreements that might later be overturned in a Court of Law.
58. Why is the Province entering into agreements with Indian Bands before their Land Claims are decided in a Court of Law?
59. Lease Holders were not informed of Government Policy changes until they applied to renew their Leases. They were never informed of the reasons for these changes, why?
60. If you comply with all of the provisions of the DMP does the SIB still have the ability to block your application?
61. Is “without prejudice” coming off the plan once it becomes policy?
62. Is the DMP a tool for getting a reconciliation agreement?
63. Why does the Pender Harbour DMP differ from policy governing other areas in the Province with docks?
64. Why do Best Practices contained in the Pender Harbour DMP differ from those used in other parts of BC?
65. Will other areas of the Province feel an impact if this draft plan for Pender Harbour is approved and implemented?
66. As the Draft DMP says it is to provide guidance, does the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and/or the SIB retain some discretion to hear each application on its merits?
67. Can we build a dock or a launching ramp if we don’t touch the ocean floor below the high water mark now or under the terms of the new Draft DMP?
68. Can the Province restrict or deny access to deep water to satisfy SIB land claims or promote reconciliation?
69. Can the Province deny access to deep water for reasons other than the Navigable Waters Act, critical habitat, or to stop a dock from blocking the general public’s right to access deep water?
70. Can the Province establish a DMP that is exclusive to Pender when there are other Harbours on the Sunshine Coast, in other areas of the Province and around Canada with similar political, natural and environmental characteristics?
71. What is the scope of the Preliminary Field Reconnaissance assessment of archaeological resources and will it extend beyond the foreshore or beyond the physical footprint of the dock and ramp?
72. How will the Draft DMP affect the conditions of my current lease?
73. The Draft DMP says that there must be a minimum distance of 1.5 metres of water under the dock. It is estimated that 90% of the docks in Pender Harbour do not meet this requirement. This is impractical in a lot of cases and if it iss enforced what will happen to the current docks that cannot meet the 1.5 metre requirement?
74. What will happen to my existing dock if it doesn’t meet the 1.5 metre requirement but I could move or reconfigure it at great expense? Would I have to do that?
75. I had tenure under existing rules, but it expired a short time before the moratorium was imposed. During the 10 year moratorium, the rules changed, including consultation with the SIB. I applied and met all the new rules except for the need to get SIB approval, which was denied, because of the moratorium. Now you are proposing to add a new rule that says I cannot have a dock unless it has tenure today. Is that fair?
76. Some dock owners have invested significant money to establish their docks and pay for a 10 year lease. Shortly into the lease period, the Province cancelled the lease and shortly after that, they presented the draft Dock Management Plan which is imposing new rules that will result in the dock owner having to spend a lot more money to keep that dock. Is that a fair or even legal way of doing business?
77. If property values decrease as a result of the DMP, how will the Province make up for the loss in tax revenue?
78. What assurance do we have that SIB’s requirements won’t change over time and result in very high lease fees?
79. Can dock tenure be inherited or transferred? Can you provide details on how this would be done?
80. Who is going to enforce the DMP and how?
81. Will government approve dock licenses that are being held up because of SIB’s failure to respond in a timely way?
82. Could the community work with the Government and SIB in revising the draft DMP?
83. Reconciliation is a new term and new way to deal with Native claims and appears to be the reason the government and the SIB put this together in secret. Is this true?
84. Was it the governments intent to alienate us (Pender Harbour) and create bitterness towards SIB that could last for generations by proposing this Draft DMP?
85. What are the penalties if we as individuals or as a community decide to not abide by the additional guidelines proposed under this Draft DMP?
86. Why is this Draft DMP proposing to make all of Gunboat Bay a “red zone” where no new tenures will be granted?
87. What process will be followed in the “red zone” of the plan when it has been determined that an existing or new dock must be removed?
88. Are existing docks with tenure in the red zones to be grandfathered, and for how long?
89. Why are some untenured older docks, in need of replacement, not to be granted tenure under the plan?
90. What will happen to existing untenured docks if the Draft DMP is implemented as written?
91. How will the Province compensate residents when they are forced to remove docks because of this new DMP?
92. People with waterfront property in Gunboat Bay, and other red zone areas that until now have not had a dock, will lose about 50% of their property value if the draft Plan is implemented. Who will compensate them for their loss? G6 -being considered
93. What will happen to existing docks, tenured and untenured, in the “red zone” of the Plan where it is proposed to deny all new applications?
94. Will the Province donate the upland, or a road allowance, for a new dock tenure to be shared by multiple parties in the “purple zone” (zone 2)?
95. What will happen to existing private moorage facilities in the “purple zone” where the intent is to limit new dock tenures to those that can be shared by multiple parties?
96. Why is an archaeological assessment required for renewal of tenure for an existing dock?
97. What will be the cost of an archeological assessment for renewal of tenure for an esisting dock and when will those fees be set?
98. Why does the tenure applicant have to bear all the costs of meeting new requirements?
99. Why are license applicants asked to redo existing research at their own cost in order to complete an application?
100. What will happen to existing private moorage facilities in the “yellow zone” where the intent is to limit new dock tenures to shared facilities or commercial use?
101. Who will provide access and easement for multiparty docks?
102. What is the definition of “multiple parties” in the “purple zone”?
103. How wide are the zones indicated on the draft plan map? What is the space between the zone lines of demarcation?
104. When will the discussion about fees happen, and where?
105. Is it right that I have a lot that is one arbitrary lot line away from zone 1 but is included in zone 4?
106. Shouldn’t every tenure application stand on its own merit, not accepted or declined by arbitrary lines?
Questions prepared by the Working Group on the DMP, by topic
(revised and updated June 5, 2015):
1. Are any of my constitutional rights being impacted by the proposed Dock Management Plan?
2. Does Canada have a role in treaty negotiations in B.C. and decisions regarding Crown land and foreshore?
3. Does the Province of B.C. have to obtain Federal Government approval to develop and implement this Dock Management Plan?
4. Why was SCRD not involved in development of this plan?
5. Why is this DMP (draft Dock Management Plan) being developed now? What will happen to existing private moorage facilities in the “yellow zone” where the intent is to limit new dock tenures to shared facilities or commercial use?
6. What triggered the Draft DMP development?
7. What was wrong with the dock management system in place previously?
8. Why did this Province single out one small area, Pender Harbour, for discriminatory treatment under this new dock management plan?
9. By not consulting with the people of Pender Harbour are you practising reverse racism?
10. Is it fair to ask an isolated group of British Columbians to abide by special and unique policies and suffer new fees that are different than those in other parts of British Columbia?
11. There was no prior consultation and accommodation with the general public although years of consultation were provided to the SIB. Why did the Province fail to consult the with the public, including Pender Harbour residents and land owners,(98% of the people affected by the Draft Plan) when it was under development and before the draft was issued?
12. Why was our elected representative, Nicholas Simons not included in the Draft DMP negotiations?
13. Who was in attendance at the table when the DMP was drafted?
14. Why were negotiations conducted at the operational level without input from local residents or elected representatives?
15. Why aren’t you discussing the Draft DMP issues with the Pender Harbour Chamber of Commerce, a corporate body representing the businesses of Pender Harbour?
16. Where are the minutes of the Draft DMP consultations and will they be made available to the public?
17. What criteria and data sets were used to determine the Dock Management Plan and zone specifics?
18. Are the Criteria and Data sets used to determine the Draft DMP available to the public?
19. Are existing docks, tenured or untenured, grandfathered within the Plan?
20. If Pender Harbour held an additional Town Hall meeting, would representatives of the SIB and the Province attend to answer questions?
21. Can the period for comments and questions be extended?
22. When is the Dock Management Plan likely to be finalized and implemented?
23. Will new tenure rates and length of tenure be applied province-wide?
24. Are some long-term residents without docks, whose property values are based in part on the ability to have a dock, are going to lose that ability under the draft Plan?
25. Who will compensate long-term residents, whose property values are based in part on the ability to have a dock and then lost that ability under the Draft DMP for the decrease in their property value?
26. Isn’t the governance over water a federal issue?
27. What authority does the Province have to propose a Dock Management Plan, when oceans are a federal government responsibility?
28. Has the SIB asserted a formal land claim over Pender Harbour, or is there a formal Land Claim Agreement in place?
29. In the absence of a claim or a formal Land Claim Agreement, does the Province of British Columbia have the authority to negotiate a reconciliation agreement with SIB?
30. The Province negotiated this agreement with the SIB. Why wasn’t the Pender Harbour Indian Band involved?
31. A resident, who has been in Pender Harbour for 72 years, during which members of the SIB did not live here, asks “What does the SIB have to do with docks in Pender Harbour?” Can you answer this question?
32. We have heard that in Haida Gwaii and Campbell River, the Province consulted with all stakeholders and partnership agreements were put in place. Why doesn’t the same process apply in Pender Harbour?
33. Why is a DMP being proposed only for Pender Harbour, when SIB’s land claim area includes other harbours and docks?
34. Why is a DMP proposed only for Pender Harbour, when there are similar harbours elsewhere on the coast of British Columbia?
35. Why was the SCRD not involved in the creation of the DMP when it affects so many of their constituents?
36. Why is the Province dealing with dock management but not addressing equally serious issues such as pollution in the harbour, derelict vessels both sinking and sunk, sewage outfalls and dumping from boats?
37. Were there biological and cultural studies done in order to set up the zones? If yes, why do those studies need to be done again?
38. Why was there a moratorium in the first place?
39. The word “should” is used repeatedly in the DMP, why is it not defined? Does this mean it is not compulsory?
40. The word “Encourage” is used repeatedly in the Draft DMP, does this mean not compulsory?
41. Why has the Province not been transparent with the Public during the development of the DMP?
42. Why is the government proposing to remove the last legal means of access to residential properties located in the red zone? (they have no legal road access)
43. Does the term “collaborative management” in the Draft DMP mean co-management of Pender Harbour docks by the Province and the Sechelt Indian Band?
44. Is there an underlying agreement between the province and the S. I. B that defines terms of reference and definition for co-management?
45. Is it a requirement that we negotiate with or even contact SIB before submitting our applications?
46. Does the Crown have to work with SIB to develop a DMP?
47. Will the Dock Management Plan allow the SIB to collect a tariff on all dock construction?
48. Does the SIB receive a benefit from water lot taxes now or under the terms of the new Pender Harbour Draft DMP?
49. Does the SIB currently receive funding from the Province to perform consultation within their claimed territory?
50. Will the S.I.B receive funding from the Province to perform consulting on Dock Management in Pender Harbour under the terms of the new Draft DMP?
51. Does the SIB currently receive funding from the Province to allow docks in their claimed territory?
52. What is the Province paying SIB for their role in the review of dock tenure applications? If yes, is this a conflict of interest?
53. SIB islands are not part of any zone, why?
54. Will there be other Bands besides SIB that will be part of this DMP?
55. Should negotiation through reconciliation be going on when the SIB is engaged in a dispute over jurisdiction with the Pender Harbour Band?
56. The Province has entered negotiations with S.I.B. as if they are the sole Band in the Pender Harbour area yet there is another group of status Indians who have applied for Band Membership and this has not been dealt with. Should Aboriginal Canada be consulted as to the legality of this?
57. The Province’s duty to consult doesn’t mean it has to enter into agreements that might later be overturned in a Court of Law.
58. Why is the Province entering into agreements with Indian Bands before their Land Claims are decided in a Court of Law?
59. Lease Holders were not informed of Government Policy changes until they applied to renew their Leases. They were never informed of the reasons for these changes, why?
60. If you comply with all of the provisions of the DMP does the SIB still have the ability to block your application?
61. Is “without prejudice” coming off the plan once it becomes policy?
62. Is the DMP a tool for getting a reconciliation agreement?
63. Why does the Pender Harbour DMP differ from policy governing other areas in the Province with docks?
64. Why do Best Practices contained in the Pender Harbour DMP differ from those used in other parts of BC?
65. Will other areas of the Province feel an impact if this draft plan for Pender Harbour is approved and implemented?
66. As the Draft DMP says it is to provide guidance, does the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and/or the SIB retain some discretion to hear each application on its merits?
67. Can we build a dock or a launching ramp if we don’t touch the ocean floor below the high water mark now or under the terms of the new Draft DMP?
68. Can the Province restrict or deny access to deep water to satisfy SIB land claims or promote reconciliation?
69. Can the Province deny access to deep water for reasons other than the Navigable Waters Act, critical habitat, or to stop a dock from blocking the general public’s right to access deep water?
70. Can the Province establish a DMP that is exclusive to Pender when there are other Harbours on the Sunshine Coast, in other areas of the Province and around Canada with similar political, natural and environmental characteristics?
71. What is the scope of the Preliminary Field Reconnaissance assessment of archaeological resources and will it extend beyond the foreshore or beyond the physical footprint of the dock and ramp?
72. How will the Draft DMP affect the conditions of my current lease?
73. The Draft DMP says that there must be a minimum distance of 1.5 metres of water under the dock. It is estimated that 90% of the docks in Pender Harbour do not meet this requirement. This is impractical in a lot of cases and if it iss enforced what will happen to the current docks that cannot meet the 1.5 metre requirement?
74. What will happen to my existing dock if it doesn’t meet the 1.5 metre requirement but I could move or reconfigure it at great expense? Would I have to do that?
75. I had tenure under existing rules, but it expired a short time before the moratorium was imposed. During the 10 year moratorium, the rules changed, including consultation with the SIB. I applied and met all the new rules except for the need to get SIB approval, which was denied, because of the moratorium. Now you are proposing to add a new rule that says I cannot have a dock unless it has tenure today. Is that fair?
76. Some dock owners have invested significant money to establish their docks and pay for a 10 year lease. Shortly into the lease period, the Province cancelled the lease and shortly after that, they presented the draft Dock Management Plan which is imposing new rules that will result in the dock owner having to spend a lot more money to keep that dock. Is that a fair or even legal way of doing business?
77. If property values decrease as a result of the DMP, how will the Province make up for the loss in tax revenue?
78. What assurance do we have that SIB’s requirements won’t change over time and result in very high lease fees?
79. Can dock tenure be inherited or transferred? Can you provide details on how this would be done?
80. Who is going to enforce the DMP and how?
81. Will government approve dock licenses that are being held up because of SIB’s failure to respond in a timely way?
82. Could the community work with the Government and SIB in revising the draft DMP?
83. Reconciliation is a new term and new way to deal with Native claims and appears to be the reason the government and the SIB put this together in secret. Is this true?
84. Was it the governments intent to alienate us (Pender Harbour) and create bitterness towards SIB that could last for generations by proposing this Draft DMP?
85. What are the penalties if we as individuals or as a community decide to not abide by the additional guidelines proposed under this Draft DMP?
86. Why is this Draft DMP proposing to make all of Gunboat Bay a “red zone” where no new tenures will be granted?
87. What process will be followed in the “red zone” of the plan when it has been determined that an existing or new dock must be removed?
88. Are existing docks with tenure in the red zones to be grandfathered, and for how long?
89. Why are some untenured older docks, in need of replacement, not to be granted tenure under the plan?
90. What will happen to existing untenured docks if the Draft DMP is implemented as written?
91. How will the Province compensate residents when they are forced to remove docks because of this new DMP?
92. People with waterfront property in Gunboat Bay, and other red zone areas that until now have not had a dock, will lose about 50% of their property value if the draft Plan is implemented. Who will compensate them for their loss? G6 -being considered
93. What will happen to existing docks, tenured and untenured, in the “red zone” of the Plan where it is proposed to deny all new applications?
94. Will the Province donate the upland, or a road allowance, for a new dock tenure to be shared by multiple parties in the “purple zone” (zone 2)?
95. What will happen to existing private moorage facilities in the “purple zone” where the intent is to limit new dock tenures to those that can be shared by multiple parties?
96. Why is an archaeological assessment required for renewal of tenure for an existing dock?
97. What will be the cost of an archeological assessment for renewal of tenure for an esisting dock and when will those fees be set?
98. Why does the tenure applicant have to bear all the costs of meeting new requirements?
99. Why are license applicants asked to redo existing research at their own cost in order to complete an application?
100. What will happen to existing private moorage facilities in the “yellow zone” where the intent is to limit new dock tenures to shared facilities or commercial use?
101. Who will provide access and easement for multiparty docks?
102. What is the definition of “multiple parties” in the “purple zone”?
103. How wide are the zones indicated on the draft plan map? What is the space between the zone lines of demarcation?
104. When will the discussion about fees happen, and where?
105. Is it right that I have a lot that is one arbitrary lot line away from zone 1 but is included in zone 4?
106. Shouldn’t every tenure application stand on its own merit, not accepted or declined by arbitrary lines?
