News Leader News
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR - July 12, 2005
Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to the dogmatic letter of Bud Godderis in the June 28th edition. Mr. Godderis begins his letter by complaining about my sending out a letter and survey to constituents. Ironically, it is people like Mr. Godderis who would be the first to claim that I never seek constituents' opinions if I did not do this.
In essence, Mr. Godderis raises two excuses for the NDP not supporting our efforts to protect children. The first implies that the NDP couldn't support our initiative to raise the age of consent from the current 14 years of age to at least 16 because they didn't know what would happen if two 14 year olds became sexually involved. The truth of that issue is that the NDP (and presumably Mr. Godderis as well) know full well that the legislation would be applicable when one participant is above the age of consent and the other is not. He then becomes even more absurd by suggesting that there is no point in seeking to write laws to protect our children because our society is too degenerate to enforce such laws.
Mr. Godderis then moves on to demand full implementation on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child in Canada. That declaration essentially provides such extensive rights to children that a minor child could reject virtually every decision of their parents on everything from medical treatment to schooling and of course, sexual consent at any age. They could file serious complaints on how they were treated because of the menu they were served and restrictions on the clothes that they were provided to wear. Discipline of any type could be challenged to the authorities by a six year old.
Next, Mr. Godderis moves to the thorny issue of child poverty and asks why Northern European countries have much lower levels of child poverty than Canada. Presumably, Mr. Godderis is making reference to the Innocenti Report Card on Child Poverty in Rich Nations 2005. The answer in part is that, according to the report's summary, "relative income poverty may tell us very little about actual material standards of living (e.g Poland has lower child poverty rate than Canada) ... 'may be argued, reflects 'only' greater degree of income equality in former communist countries where most children are, in a material sense, obviously poorer.' " In other words, the more standardized overall income levels are, the lower the most commonly accepted formula for child poverty would show. That formula measures how many children live in households that have an income of less than 40% of the average national income. In Canada, that works out to 7.7%. This reflects what I have always argued, namely that the term "child poverty" would be better served if we recognized that what we are really talking about is family poverty. The real initiatives needed are better job training, better employment opportunities, reduced employment taxes and initiatives to spur the economy in general. Solutions to these problems require sound economic policies, not socialist rhetoric.
Mr. Godderis ends his letter by suggesting that all would be well if only my party had supported the NDP backroom budget that according to him would move more money and resources to areas specific to his letter, specifically child care, health care and other programs that benefit children. Aside from a vague reference to housing, nothing that Mr. Godderis mentioned is in the NDP's backroom deal. Perhaps Mr. Godderis should have read the legislation before he wrote his letter. It isn't really that difficult, it's only half a page in length! One half of one letter-sized page committing to spend $4.6 billion of taxpayers' money. Even worse, there is so little detail that, according to on-record statements by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, the legislation simply enables the government to spend an additional $4.6 billion. The government may or may not spend that money as it sees fit within the vague outline of the Bill.
I would suggest that we would be in a much better position to help children and the poor if the NDP had acted more responsibly in working with us to hold the government to account for its corruption, waste of tax dollars and general lack of accountability. Instead, they have simply acted to keep in power the very government that caused the problems they complain about.
Sincerely,
Jim Gouk, MP
British Columbia Southern Interior
Dear Editor:
Although I don't subscribe to them, I read the Okanagan newspapers whenever I get the chance. In the same papers, in the last four years, I've read very little criticism of our provincial government so I thought I'd do a short historical review. There's something missing in the Okanagan newspapers. For some years now I've wondered what it was; then recently it all came together for me. There are at least four major items missing from the op/ed pages. Since we know that newspapers are always objective, only reflecting the views of its readers, I assume that the inhabitants of the region are responsible for these missing news items.
1) For the last four years we have stopped worrying about how far our kids walk to school even though they still walk as far as they did back then----however some students may have to walk even farther, due to public school closures.
2) Pre-election 2000, the NDP had a new floating bridge on the drawing board and ready for construction, no doubt largely due to the incessant Kelowna lobby. Today, four years later it still is just a promise, but I read no more lobbying in the media.
3) Four years ago, the biggest newsmaker was the Coquihalla shortcut. Even in Princeton we were asked to sign petitions against the twinning of the Aspen Grove to Merritt section. Yesterday, I drove that section of highway. After a four year delay, highway twinning is going ahead (no shortcut) just as it was under the NDP. The problem is, we have suffered another four year delay and added another three cent per gallon facilitating fee. No complaints in the Okanagan newspapers?
4) In spite of having as many as four health ministers, even one from the Okanagan (not in sequence, but all at once) we have seen only reductions in health services. We have seen all of BC's doctors rewarded for simply staying in BC and health care administrators rewarded for making service cuts. The last positive health care initiative for Kelowna was the NDP-built cancer clinic. Until that time, we had only Vancouver General to look after cancer patients for all of BC. In a few short years, the NDP built cancer treatment facilities in Surrey, Victoria and Kelowna. Funny, I don't remember the NDP using cancer treatment facilities as election propaganda.
I am willing to concede that I may not be as astute as the voters of the Okanagan and it is also entirely possible that I have overlooked something, but nevertheless I remain puzzled. How can we hate a political party so much that we would rather die than change our vote.
Sincerely, HPToews
The Editor;
You asked your readers to respond to your proposed name change from Princeton to Vermilion Forks - Yes or No. My answer is NO.
Readers - In the theatre of your mind picture the consequences of success for this romantic but utterly impractical suggestion. You would be sending change of address notices to all your friends and family, every credit card you hold, every government service you receive which would include replacing your drivers license, your Gold Card - need I go on?
For local government, service clubs and the business community, all existing stationary, forms, invoices, business cards, informational literature would be obsolete - a bonanza for the printing industry but a huge expense for everyone else.
Every map in existence anywhere, on a scale small enough to show Princeton, would be incorrect. Maps would take many years to fall in line. In the meantime Vermilion Forks/Princeton would be lost in space.
Even if, once upon a time, long ago, this area was known as Vermilion Forks, local folks of the time - for their own sentimental reasons, chose the name Princeton. I am looking at the first known "Map of Princeton" (Princeton, BC, Laurie Currie, 1990, pg. 5) dated 1898 - at least 107 years as Princeton - thatıs good enough for me!
Respectfully,
Karin Green, Princeton
(Editor's Note: Port Arthur/Fort William, Ontario changed their name to become Thunder Bay. More recently, Winfield/Oyama became the District of Lake Country. We still remember having to change paperwork when the then-BC Tel took away our 604 area code and replaced it with 250. However, we got through the change and quite like the 250 in front of our 295 phone number. We still like the idea of our address being PO Box 956, Vermilion Forks, BC.)
