How interesting that our MLA, John Slater, says in relation to the proposed national park (Western News letters, May 9) that the “level of local support is insufficient …” and that … “solutions are needed that can be agreed upon by all concerned.”
Is this need for agreement by all coming from the same Liberal government that sold B.C. Rail even when there was significant opposition or that gave away our rivers for overly expensive power in so-called run-of-river power installations when in fact numerous citizens opposed that giveaway?
Another example is the recent approval of the Jumbo Glacier Ski Resort in the Kootenays where opinion polls showed the project lacked public support. The list goes on. Oh wait, those issues were different — their business friends were involved on the receiving end of those decisions; no need for agreement there.
Does this national park decision now set a precedent — unless everyone agrees on something the Liberals are not going to go ahead with anything? I suspect not — it simply means business as usual — if the Liberals like the idea, it will go ahead no matter what public opinion says, and if they don’t like it, then again, it doesn’t matter what level of support it has in the community.
Mr. Slater goes on to say that many local residents felt they needed more information before they could make an informed decision.
Well it turns out (Globe & Mail, May 15) that the B.C. government admits it had the park feasibility study in its hands well before withdrawing from the initiative in January and they could have released it so that the residents in fact would have been fully informed. Unfortunately, however, the feasibility study showed that the level of opposition was in fact quite low, that solutions were available for many of the issues that had been raised and it went on to recommend that a park be established.
Damn, Mr. Slater, don’t you just hate it when the facts get in the way of your ideology?
Robert Handfield
Kaleden