Recent statements from MLA Linda Larson that she has named an anonymous focus group to review public submissions to the province on a possible national park have prompted controversy and suspicion.
It hasn’t helped that there have been inconsistencies in the explanations of how this five-person group was chosen and what exactly it will do.
Supporters of a national park reserve in the South Okanagan tend not to trust Larson, who has been a staunch opponent and in the past has said she would rather have one rancher than four tourists.
If this anonymous group is screening public submissions and if its membership is made up by people sharing Larson’s views, who is to say they won’t skew their summary to fit Larson’s desired outcome?
Larson, however, insists the group is made up of “upstanding citizens” who are representative of the different interests around this issue.
She says the role of the group is simply to summarize public submissions for the Ministry of Environment and not to make recommendations.
She defends keeping their identities secret saying they would be harassed if their names were made public.
On Monday, Chris Walker of the CBC Radio program Daybreak South interviewed Larson on the role of the focus group and why the names of its members aren’t being made public.
It was a testy exchange.
“You seem off-put at concerns around transparency,” Walker told her. “I’m curious about why.”
Larson responded that she thought people were attacking or questioning her integrity and that of the volunteer focus group.
Larson has consistently said the role of the group is simply to summarize the public submissions. If that is true, why is it necessary to have a group representing various interests do that? Isn’t that a more clerical function?
Originally Larson suggested the group was doing the summary for the ministry. Now it emerges that the ministry staff are doing their own review. So why is it necessary to have two groups – the one chosen by Larson and ministerial staff – do duplicate summaries?
Larson previously said the members of the group were “vetted” by the ministry. If this was the case, it suggests they are acting in a formalized minstry capacity – something Environment Minister Mary Polak insists is not the case.
“(Their) input doesn’t carry more or less weight than anybody else’s input in this process,” the minister insists, suggesting that Larson is just doing her job as an MLA in seeking input from her riding. “This isn’t some kind of formalized ministry committee.”
If it is the case that the role of the focus group is to provide input to Larson, then why was the minister involved in the selection? And why are they simply producing a summary?
It is perfectly legitimate for Larson to set up a focus group to offer her candid advice. And it would be perfectly reasonable that the members of such a group would not be publicly named.
But if the group is, as Larson previously suggested, summarizing the input for the ministry, this would be a more formal role and its members should be named. The fact that the minister was involved in picking the group suggests this is the case.
Minister Polak exceeded the expectations of some in producing a credible and balanced Intentions Paper and seeking public feedback on it. She restored integrity to the process.
It would be a shame if that goodwill was squandered by a ham-fisted follow-up that is lacking in transparency.
