PAGE

inton

Op

Aug. 7,
Feb. 15, 1973

OurWiEWS

Clark falls
victim again

If Canada’s unity effort fails — not a
likely scenario, but still a possibility —
Manitoba Tory MP Dorothy Dobbie will
have to accept much of the responsibility.

Dobbie, one of the co-chairmen of the
parliamentary committee on the
Constitution, was given a mandate to
gather views, and to help ordinary
Canadians play a part in rebuilding our
nation. She was to tour the country and to
report back to Ottawa with her findings.

But everywhere the committee has gone,
it has been followed’ by — or it has created
— controversy. Dobbie’s inept leadership
has caused organizational foul-ups and
internal bickering to make the headlines,
and most Canadians have lost interest in
the real purpose of the proceedings.

creates more uncertainty about the future
of a great nation, but also because it
tarnishes, by association, the reputation of
a truly great Canadian.

Joe Clark, Dobbie’s boss in this
undertaking, established his claim to
greatness when he became prime minister
of Canada back in the late 70s.
Circumstances, many of them beyond his
control, brought his tenure to an abrupt
end, but the magnitude of his achievement
cannot be disputed.

Clark did something even more
remarkable in the 1980s when he set aside
the disappointment of losing the

i to

> SQ Y | ¢
2 Sw

That’s unfortunate-not only because it |

estioned

Melvin McAffe d

up his thoughts in his
wheat field eight kilometres
from the Hanford
Plutonium extraction plant
near Richland, Wa. He has
prostate cancer, his wife
has thyroid cancer, and two
of his four children have
thyroid disease.

In 1986 he had learned
that thousands of curies of

et. ciatae dh

leadership of his party and c

d 131 had

serve Canada at the side of the man who
defeated him. If anything, his stature is
now greater than it ever was when he was
prime minister, and Canadians have
finally come to appreciate Clark’s strength,
dignity and courage.

Now, circumstances beyond his control
are threatening to derail his greatest
contribution to Canada. Dorothy Dobbie is
doing to him today what his party whip did
during the dying days of his government.

If, through her persistent bungling, she
succeeds, all of us will be losers. The

_| saddest part of all will be the fact that a

great Canadian will once again be denied
the tributes he deserves.

fallen on his and his
neighbors’ farms since he

Lyle KRISTIANSEN

Ottawa

from cancer. Of these 25
people, 15 have died. All
lived in eastern
Washington”, he concluded.

Until the release in 1986
of confidential documents
detailing decades of
accidental and intentional

at the Hanford Nuclear
facility, the U.S.
Department of Energy’s
official position was that
the Hanford operation had
caused “no observable

from

settled there in the 1950s.

“A lot of old timers have had cancers,” he
said. “I have worried about Hanford a lot.
They should have been more careful and
they should have warned us.”

Laverne Katuz, a wheat farmer from
Ritzville, about half way between Hanford
and the Canadian border, was a little more
blunt. “I am furious about Hanford. They
said there were no observable health effects
— but how do they know? In the past 15
years I have had 10 cousins, five aunts,
nine close friends, and my mother suffer

health effects.”

All that changed in 1986. At that time,
the U.S. Centre for Disease Control
reviewed 19,000 pages of previously
lecetMaa & ie and luded that

heric rel of radi ive iodine-
131 from Hanford were the largest
documented from any nuclear facility to
date. The CDC also found evidence that
radiation doses to the thyroid gland of
people living in the pacific northwest were
large enough to cause health problems,
please see KRISTIANSEN page A7

Open house doesn’t equal open government

6, 1991

A7a

I hate to rain on Premier
Harcourt’s parade for the
second time so soon into his
mandate, but what is this
nonsense about “sending a
signal” to the people of British
Columbia?

In what can be interpreted as
little more than a bit of public-
relations malarkey, the New
Democratic Party invited some
1,000 British Columbians to
witness the swearing-in
ceremony of Harcourt’s first
cabinet.

The event was not to take
place at Government House, the
traditional venue for the
Queen’s blessing of the new

ower brokers, but at a
niversity of Victoria
auditorium.

ND y Evan Lloyd

said the government wants to

Hubert BEYER

Victoria

send a signal that it intends to
make good on its promise of
open government.

“We want to open the doors of
government to British
Columbians on our first day in
office,” Lloyd said.

The media widely reported
this little stunt as a “precedent”

and a “sharp break from

tradition.” Well, it isn’t. When’

Dave Barrett’s NDP was elected
in 1972, he was sworn in as
premier at Government House,
but his cabinet convened in the
legislative chambers to be
sworn in.

Purists, at the time, argued
that it was totally inappropriate
to use the chamber for that
purpose, because it’s the
legislative chamber, not the
executive room.

Be that as it may, Harcourt
obviously has his own bone to
pick with convention which, as

joned before, is rh

kettle at the whim of one man
or one party. What’s wrong with
swearing in the cabinet at,
Government House? Isn't it the
most appropriate place, as long)
as the Queen is our head o:
state?

Following the official’
swearing-in ceremony, to be
witnessed by up to 1,000 invited
guests, including all B.C.

ment, native leaders,
religious, educational and
community ps, a wing-ding
was to take place at the
Parliament Buildi

dering his often
respect for

surprising consi!
proclaimed
parliamentary tradition.

So call me picky, but frankly,
I don’t like it when traditions
are turned rear-end over tea

Ata lied “open house”
all newly-elected Members o
the Legislative Assembly
to ble at the legisl
buildings to meet “the public’
There were to be refreshment

please see BEYER page

7
tl

Other VIEWS

Letters oWHE EDITOR

Party has right idea

Like many Canadians I am watching
Preston Manning’s movement closely. There
is much about it that appeals to me and I
am looking forward to learning about its
platform in more detail.

In the Reform Party’s current fund
raising campaign (Castlegar News, Nov, 2) I
like the direct approach to party members
that is being used. We should, all of us, be.
prepared to put our money where are
mouths are.

Reform’s Kootenay-West Revelstoke vice-
president Ron dvises that donating to
a political party is an excellent tax write-off
if the donations are spread over two years.

“People can give $100 each year and it
costs them only $25 (each year) because
they get a $75 tax credit,” Ross said.

This is quite correct as long as the donor
does have to pay income tax: the tax credit
is of the non-refundable type that can be
claimed only by subtracting it from federal
income tax payable. :

The principle of this tax credit is sound.
It enables those of modest means to make
available to whichever political party they
support a sum of money somewhat greater
than the out-of-pocket cost to the donor, and
yet it does demand a noticeable something

from the contributor. It multiplies the value
of the widow's mite.

It is a disappointment to me that the
Reform Party, if it achieves power, intends
to abolish the federal political contribution
tax credit. Cliff Fryers, the Reform Party's
chairman, has explicitly stated “. . we will
take away the political tax credit if we ever

have the opportunity to do so.”

Use it until you lose it.
Fred G. Marsh
Castlegar

Otters appreciate pool work

On behalf of the River Otter Swim Club,
I would like to express our appreciation for
the assistance received from the Castlegar
and District Development Board.

Early this fall, the Board sponsored a
work crew who went up to the Coralee
Schuepfer pool and spent three weeks doing
landscaping around the pool.

The work crew did an excellent job and
the area around the pool is much improved.

All users of the pool will benefit from the
work.

Terry Harrison
Secretary

Let’s talk taxes

Dean Smith
THE CANADIAN TAXPAYERS FEDERATION

The Greeks have often been referred
as the Fathers of Democracy. By 400 B.C.
every Greek who was considered to be
bonafide citizen had the right to vote in
the Popular A % 8
that certain Gree
may be making a comeback. The Greeks
had a provision in their system that

md ry

pr P m too
powerful. Called ostracism, it worked as
follows: by holding a vote, the people
could banish unpopular politicians from
the nation for a period of ten years.

In a vein similar to what happened back
in the days of Greek democracy, a limitation

is g larity in the U.S.
and Canada.

Inthe U.S., ad hoe citizens’ groups such as
LIMIT and Eight is Enough are calling for
limits on how long a politician can hold of-
fice. In most cases the proposed limit is eight

years.

Several states have already held referen-
dums limiting the terms of politicians. In
each case, the citizens have voted over-
whelmingly in favor of the limit and it now
appears that 11 more states will be voting
on similar issues this fall.

In Canada, a move in a similar direction

please see TAXES page AS

Kristiansen

continued from page A6
particularly in infants.

now being conducted: A thyroid

the Hanford releases.

unacceptable and, for that

The exposure may have
ranged from 50 rems annually
to the thyroid gland in adults in
northern Washington and
southeastern B.C. to 2,300 rems
in infants living on the
perimeter of the nuclear
reservation. A rem is a

cancer study in 20,000 children
who were under the age of 19
between 1944 and 1953 and
who were born in communities
exposed to the Hanford
atmospheric tests; and a

diological dose uction
project of the early years of

used to determine levels of
exposure to harmful radiation.
U.S. guidelines today call for
withholding milk and produce
when thyroid doses of 1.5 to 15
rems are anticipated.

Based on its preliminary
findings, two U.S. studies are

Hanford op

Here in Canada, B.C. medical
authorities and the Canadian
Medical Association have urged
the federal government to join
these studies in order to
determine the level of exposure
of Canadians to the airborne
radiation contamination from

The Mulroney government’s
response has been appalling. It
has contended there is no
evidence that the Hanford
releases have ever had an
impact on Canada. Not
surprising! You can’t have
evidence unless you evaluate
the problem.

It's easy to have no
observable health effects when
you never look.

Such an evaluation the
Mulroney government has
refused to undertake, leaving it,
instead, in the hands of U.S.
authorities. This situation is

reason, a delegation of B.C.
New Democrat MPs will be
taking further action on this
important health concern. This
delegation is planning to meet
with U.S. authorities to
investigate further evidence as
to the possible health effects to
Canadian citizens from the
Hanford emissions.

Residents of southern B.C.
and Alberta deserve to know
whether or not they have been,
or continue to be put at risk
and, if so, the Mulroney
government has a responsibility
to act on their behalf.

Beyer

continued from page A6

and tours of the buildings. In
other words, a mingle-with-
your-MLA affair.

Give me a break. That's not
what open government is all
about. Aside from the fact that
it would have been somewhat
inconvenient for the Fort
Nelson or Williams Lake or 100
Mile House public to show up
for the tea and crumpets due in
Victoria, open government
involves a little more than a
friendly tete a tete with your
MLA.

Open government means
giving British Columbians an
opportunity to participate in the
decisions that affect them. It
means that neither government
nor special interest groups

dictate to the rest of us.

Open government means that
neither the forest companies
nor the environmental groups
have a monopoly on:our timber
resources. Open government
means that politicans stop lying
to us.

True, Harcourt has promised
a number of initiatives that
would bring us a lot closer to
the ideal of open government.
He has promised “the toughest

that would considerably
increase the powers of the
desman.

To do all that, of course, there
has to be a session of the
legislature, and that was the
first thing Harcourt put on
hold. No session until spring, he
said.

From a poliltical point of
view, I can understand
Harcourt’s reluctance to call an

conflict of interest laws in
Canada.”

He has promised to introduce
“whistle-blower legislation” that
would protect public servants
who rat on their masters.

Harcourt has also promised
to proclaim a number of

ions of the Ombud Act

early ion. Why should he
give Gordon Wilson's Liberals a
platform from which to attack
him before he’s ready? But if
you take that argument to its
ultimate conclusion, why call a
session at all?

Answering to the people and
to. her Majesty’s Loyal

Opposit in the glaring

limelight of'a legislative .
is part of the open government
Harcourt has promised.

And the new premier has
been‘in opposition long enough
to know that he would scream
blue murder if he were in
Wilson’s place and the premier
refused to call a session for
another four months.

It’s time Harcourt stopped
playing open government and
started delivering it instead.
Failing to do so will quickly
wear down an awful lot of trust
the voters invested in him.

Inviting a cast of thousands
to swearing-in ceremonies and
holding open houses in Victoria
just doesn't cut it.