News Leader News
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR - APRIL 26, 2005
Dear Editor;
I read with great interest, former NDP federal candidate Alex Atamanenko's rather convoluted attack on the Green Party, which appeared in your newspaper last week. In his mixing of federal and provincial politics, Mr. Atamanenko suggests that the provincial Green Party may not be as environmentally sound as the provincial NDP, because prior to the last federal election, the federal Green Party actually scored less on a Greenpeace environmental questionnaire than the federal NDP. On the matter of those ratings Mr. Atamanenko is absolutely correct. Indeed, the NDP received an A+, while the Green Party, due to the omission of one sentence, received only an A. The complete survey can be viewed online
greenpeace.ca/e/action/election2004/ReportCard.pdf
I would point out that the policies on the questionnaire to which Mr. Atamanenko refers to, and seems to base his entire environmental assessment of the Green Party on, were of course never implemented. It was simply a questionnaire asking what each party would do if they were elected.
Although this may seem rather petty and irrelevant, I think it is not. It is typical of what so many of us find distasteful about politics today. It's a constant attempt to make two and two equal something other than four, to make something out of nothing, and nothing out of something. Spin. If Mr. Atamanenko were truly concerned about the state of the environment in the midst of a provincial election, he would perhaps look not so much to what the NDP said they would do, but rather to what it was that they actually did!
Just a few examples:
In 2001, after 76 years of operations, the mill in Youbou, BC was closed. For many years, the BC government had a legal clause ("Clause7") in its agreement with TimberWest, protecting the people of Youbou. The provincial NDP waived that clause. TimberWest wanted to close the mill so that it could increase its raw log exports. After the mill was closed, local citizens staged a log truck count to track the number of trucks leaving the Cowichan Valley. Over four days, 450 full logging trucks were tallied. This represents about 9,000 cubic metres per day, or 1.8 million cubic metres per year, enough to keep a good-sized mill running for between three and four years, and provide 200 well paying sawmill jobs. Put another way, over a three year period these jobs could put as much as $90 million into the local economy. (The Youbou story, The Youbou Timberless Society,
www.savebcjobs.com/youboustory.htm.
According to a recent BC Federation of Labour leaflet "Count Me In - Facts About Raw Log Exports", between 1997 and 2001, under an NDP Government, the exports of raw logs increased from 200,000 cubic metres to 2.8 million cubic metres.
If you prefer report cards, I would refer you to the assessment by the Sierra Club Rio Report
www.sierraclub.ca/nation-al/rio/1996/rio_bc.html)
The Report rates past provincial governments performances on Biodiversity and Climate Change. In the years from 1994 until 2000 the provincial NDP government ratings were predominantly in the D- category.
Like Mr. Atamanenko, I would encourage everyone to examine the policies of each party, but that alone is not enough. One of the great positives in politics today is that technology now provides us with instant access to source information. If we really wish to have meaningful debate, then let's use this facility to find and base opinions on something that at least resembles reality, and hold politicians accountable when they attempt to skew facts and figures in an effort to convince us of something that is not.
In all fairness, Mr. Atamanenko did make one valid point about the federal Greens. He states that the federal Greens supported some voluntary environmental compliance measures in their platform, and he is right. This element of the platform was not something the Green Party should have endorsed. Jim Harris, leader of the federal Green Party, clearly acknowledged it as a mistake at the Green Party of Canada's AGM last summer in Calgary.
- Mike McLean, Green Party of BC Candidate for Yale-Lillooet
Campaign HQ 250-295-3524
Home 250-295-6295
Cell 250-295-2002
invioletlight@hotmail.com
To the Editor;
In 1993 the China Ridge Cross Country Ski Association erected a hut to be used by a public that appreciates natural beauty and beautiful vistas, in particular a non-motorized public, such as cross country skiers, mountain bikers, hikers, etc.
For our efforts we have received much positive feedback from many "out of town" visitors who take this information back to other potential visitors; and thus, Princeton benefits.
We had hoped that the integrity of the cabin would be respected by all. In the last year, some undesirable members of the public have violated that integrity. Irresponsible young adults have made access to this cabin a wasteland by using mud-digging, over-sized vehicles, and they have used the cabin as a hang-out for drinking and drug bush parties.
Members of the China Ridge Club have had to remove their garbage--beer, wine bottles and other paraphernalia.
People have defecated all around the cabin instead of using the outhouse provided for that purpose. All of this undesirable activity demonstrates the basest type of human behaviour.
I feel that the public should know of these "goings on" because it reflects badly on our community. It is of little use to sell the attributes of Princeton as a tourist destination when some of its residents behave in such a manner and ruin some of the very things that the town has to offer.
Yours truly,
M. Masiel CRC Member
To the Editor;
First of all allow me to congratulate Dawn Johnson on her editorial comments. Right on Dawn. As a Princetonite she fits the bill perfectly for her role. Why? Because her outspoken comments fit in well to the past history of Princeton when there were newspaper editors that were very outspoken on most any subject. I am referring to her April-12th editorial.
When I first arrived in Princeton on foot all the way from the prairies, yes I am a former stubble jumper, I had no idea of the glorious past history of Princeton and as time marched on I learned a lot from the many oldtimers who related their stories and what I read in books. To the people of Princeton I say hang onto the history and keep it alive and never let go. Let the tourists know who you are and why you are. To the young and old be proud of your history and those that do not like it there's Vancouver's east end for them to visit.
- Frank A. Vanyo, Duncan
To The Editor;
Re: Honourable
I wish to voice my opinion about a much misued title that has been bothering me for some fifty years.
I believe the word "Honourable" should NEVER be used when referring to our Members of Parliament in Canada.
"Honourable" defined means: worthy of honour, respectability and creditability.
I can't honestly recall even one that would truly qualify.
I think it's a farce to apply this "Honourable" title to our Members of Parliament who are charged with shop lifting, drunk driving, theft, fraud and misuse of public funds. Still "Honourable" should apply?
I THINK NOT. Get rid of this foolish handle.
- Alex Engel, Armstrong
Dear Editor;
I think the only one enjoying the ongoing airline debate is Jim Gouk, MP. I am also one of those people who believes that meaningless drivel amuses small minds.
So, cross my heart and hope to die---this will be my absolutely last word regarding the airline debate. You may notice however that I have limited my oath to one issue only. There is no way that I will stop criticizing politicians on any other topic that I deem appropriate.
That said: you may have noticed that while advocating for privately owned airlines Jim Gouk did not tackle the safety records of TCA versus the private sector airlines.
Once again, that was the gist of my letter. I am not qualified to debate the names of different grades of jet fuel---but to question my acquaintance (who had no political axe to grind) as to the grades of fuel he was asked to put in the various airplanes, would be disrespectful.
He did, after all tell me that his orders were to put a cheaper (therefore inferior) product into the tanks of the privately owned airlines.
Let me reiterate, I have no wish to debate semantics, and I have no reason to doubt the word of my acquaintance.
While I have Jim Gouk's attention, however, I would ask him how much longer he intends to collect a government paycheque? Upon retirement, will he also refuse his hefty MP's pension? Doesn't Conservative doctrine advocate 'less government'?
Dare I suggest that we could make a good start toward 'less government' with his resignation?
- Sincerely, HP Toews
