Whedtaproeense 12711992 tf inionPAGE Op OurViEWS AdrianRAESIDE Degrees of change n Saturday, Castlegar voters will be asked to stand up and be counted. On that day our normally apathetic public will be asked to swagger to the polls to select one of three candidates running for Castlegar’s vacated council seat — Dave Gairns, Doug Green or Renee Read. This vote represents many things to different people. For some, it’s another byelection. For others, it is everything. The Coalition Unaccepting Rash Bureaucracy will no doubt be crossing its fingers this Saturday. The upstart citizens group has hedged everything on this byelection, going so far as to back Green as its candidate. Saturday’s vote could decide CURB’s future as a force on Castlegar’s political scene. It could also signal the end of Castlegar’s first grassroots rebellion. The selection of Green to council for a one-year term will legitimize the issues CURB has struggled to bring to the forefront. Green’s rejection can only be seen as a rejection of CURB and everything it stands for. Castlegar voters must make a decision this Saturday on their future. They must decide whether to endorse the status quo or branch out in a new direction. In their own ways, Doug Green, Dave Gairns and Renee Read offer us an opportunity for change... the degree of this change rests entirely with the voters. StreetTALK RCMP building takes backseat Castlegar voters head to the polls this Saturday to decide on two questions. One is to choose a new member of council. The other? I'll give you a hint: it has to do with those people in the red uniforms and the snazzy round hats. That’s right; it’s the referendum on the proposed $1.7 million RCMP building. I’m surprised how the RCMP building question has taken a backseat to both Ron NORMAN Comments from the Crossroads city byelection (in that order) when he asked how I would be voting on the referendum. My response? “I’m voting yes. They need a new RCMP building. The one they have has been around for eons. It was built when we only had a couple of RCMP officers and they lived in the small residence above it. Besides, it won't cost us a cent.” the council byelection and the constitutional referendum. Even more surprising is how Castlegar voters — at least the ones I’ve spoken to — take for granted approval of the new RCMP building. It’s as if it’s a given. Let me explain. My neighbor and I were talking about all the important goings-on in our world of late: the Blue Jays, the Canucks and the His response? “Huh? Oh that. Oh yeah, that’s necessary alright. I mean THE referendum. The constitutional referendum.” My mistake. We shoved the RCMP building question to the far corner of the conversation and talked about the constitution. I mention this simply to show how the RCMP building referendum isn’t exactly on the tips of everyone’s tongues these days. please see NORMAN page 7 Question: Will you vote in favor of a new RCMP building in Saturday’s referendum? Manuel Rodrigues Castlegar “Yes. I think they need it.” Lawrence Shumey Castlegar “Yes. It has to be done so they might as well do it now.” SS 2 Walter Ingertila Castlegar “Yes. I’'d rather have it downtown.” Susan Armstrong Castlegar “Yes. I think we need a bigger one.” Laura Teeling Castlegar “I just moved here so I don’t know.” - @ Wednesday, October 14, 1992, Other VIEWS | Please address all letters to: Letters to the Editor Castlegar News P.O. Box 3007 Castlegar, B.C. VIN 3H4 or deliver them to 197 Columbia Ave. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and not longer than 300 words. Letters MUST be signed and include the writer's first and last names, address and a telephone number at which the writer can be will be published. Only in exceptional cases will letters be published anonymously. Even in those cases, the name, address aid a phone number the writer MUST be disclosed to the editor. The News reserves the right to edit letters.for brevity, clarity, legality, grammar and taste. Letters to the ERITOR Byelection coverage disappointing Many are disappointed with the general level of media coverage of the Castlegar council byelection to be held Saturday. With the notable exception of the Oct. 7 editorial in The News, both papers seem determined to concentrate on those who are more interested in questioning the candidates’ credibility than what each has to offer. Also, why would “StreetTalk” ask two Thrums residents who they are going to vote for, since it’s unlikely that either is entitled to vote in the by- election. This problem seems to be fairly common in “StreetTalk.” News readers may be interested to know that the province has just put out a discussion paper on proposed changes in local government election law, with a Nov. 30 deadline for comments. Copies should be available for reference at city hall and the Library. Among the changes is a reduction in the voting from 19 years of age to 18, consistent with federal and provincial voting ages. It is not proposed to change the section that now allows.a person who does not live in the community to run for office as long as they are on a current list of electors for any municipality or ional district in the province. The discussion paper points out that a person may not live in an area, but be prominent and have many pc noah in br Paap It so points out t requiring a person to live in the jurisdiction in which he or she is running seriously restricts a fundamental principle of the electoral process — allowing electors the maximum choice of their political representatives. If you have a problem with that, or anything else in the Fe try let B.C. Municipal airs know about it. By the way, it is proposed to remove many of the current reasons for disqualifying a candidate, including having a disputed account or an interest in a contract with the local government, while corporations and non-resident taxpayers would lose the right to vote as electors. For the benefit of Bill Strilaeff (letter to the Editor, The News, Oct. 7th), CURB, and any others who have similar hang-ups, how about asking CURB or its candidate whether he has any conflict of interest. Then, to put in a more familiar context the now-famous and overblown draft copy of the Price Waterhouse report (which the mayor admits contains many errors), consider the following. Let’s. imagine that the Castlegar Rebels have a very poor record and someone who is asked to find out why discovers that the team’s coach (who was also its captain) has been playing both centre and right wing, the team only has one defenceman and a part-time oalie, the Zamboni is broken own so the ice hasn’t been resurfaced for two months,.and the lighting in the arena is so poor the players can’t always see the puck. Now, if the report points out that there aren’t enough players on the roster, some players need better equipment and more training to play in the league they are in, and the Zamboni poe the arena need immediate repair — and that the team had pointed out all of these problems to the owners six months to a year earlier — would it be fair to place all of the -blame for their poor performance on the head coach, or any of the team? I really don’t think so, especially if the team’s board of directors then immediately hired a right wing, another defenceman, and a full-time peaie fixed the arena, and ought the team a bunch of new equipment with increased revenue from the sale of season tickets to a single corporate sponsor for half the seats in the arena. Think about it — and then get out and vote on October 17th. Dave Gairns, City council candidate and ex-head coach of city hall team Charlottetown Accord is far from a functional agreement Response to Scott David Harrison’s editorial Sat., Oct. 10: For some time I have silently endured the indirect derision of the Prime Minister because I intend to exercise my democratically assured right on Oct. 26 and vote ‘no’ to the Charlottetown Accord. However, when a self-important pompus ass calls me a “narrow-minded, self-centred, closet-bigot” because I choose to disagree with the Charlottetown Accord, I can remain silent no longer. There is much in the agreement that has merit and should be retained, but there is too much wrong with it to give my unrestrained support. The new Senate is to be equal, elected and effective. Yet, entrenched in the agreement are provisions that make the Senate none of the three. To pereprere the agreement, Senators are elected by the population of the provinces or by the members of their prereset legislatures. The election of enators is entirely at the discretion of provincial legislatures. Senate patronage appointment move from the federal to the provincial level. The equality of the chamber is also questionable in that the territories receive one-sixth the representation of the provinces. The effectiveness of the Senate chamber is laughable. Of the four categories of parliamentary bills, the Senate may veto one (fundamental changes to tax policy) is undefined by the agreement. The Senate may not block revenue bills and any “ordinary” bills stopped by the Senate triggers a joint seating of Parliament. The Senate holds 62 of 399 seats. This Senate, our government wotsheng, is toothless. The aboriginal right of self-government is unquestioned, but the powers of this “third arm of government” as well as its representation in both parliament and the joliclary are undefined and will require a constitutional amendment to establish. Under the new amending formula, changes to constitutional provisions related to parliament and the judiciary require the unanimous consent of Parliament and the provincial legislatures. It will be difficult indeed for the aboriginal peoples to acquire the powers and.representation they need and deserve. New provinces will encounter the same resistance because the same unanimous consent is required to create them. The Charlottetown Accord uarantees Ontario and Quebec three upreme Court appointments each while the remaining three seats are divided among eight provinces, two territories and the aboriginal peoples. I wish my ‘no’ vote could reflect the spirit of its intention, not to destroy the agreement, but to re-work it. Sadly, my choices are limited. I can support the deal in its entirety or reject it completely. I can not support this “flawed but workable” document, so I must reject it. After all, a constitution is the foundation on which countries are built, the bare for all that comes later. I ask you, Harrison, would you live in a house with a flawed foundation? Richard Coyle, Robson Norman continued from page 6 But unlike past referenda, the brary and city hall, to name a few. But I have a feeli tocouncil. this RCMP And if it doesn’t, and if Read is Just as Doug Green, the third RCMP building question also seems to have the support of vot- ers. Here’s another instance: I was stopped in one of the local super- markets and the discussion came around to local issues. Without any prompting on my part the person I was speaking with men- tioned that “I guess we'll have to give them the RCMP building. They really need it.” It’s been like that everywhere I go. Castlegar voters traditionally haven’t been keen on spending referenda — just take a look at the proposals that have been de- feated over the years: paving, li- building will go ahea The concern about Castlegar council candidate Renee Read’s ible conflict-of-interest is real- ly just political posturing. Certainly, Read, as part-time manager of the Castlegar and Dis- trict Chamber of Commerce, would be — in a conflict dur- ing any discussions concerning the chamber. But let’s stop and think how of- ten that occurs? Once a year the r contract comes up for re- view. It takes all of about a few hours of council’s time. Other than that, I can’t think of another time the chamber appeals elected, she would just have to step outside while the rest of council makes the decision. ~ This type of thing happens all the time in municipal politics. Someone always has an interest in something. That's the way it is in smaller communities where people who run for office are ac- tive in local groups and organiza- tions. I would expect, for instance, if the Rotary Club made a request for funding from council that Dave Gairns, another candidate would have to excuse himself from the discussion — he being Rotary president this year. candidate, would have to excuse i from any di: ion about property that he may own or have an interest in. Two other things on conflicts of interest. Firstly, it’s ironic that CURB president Mike O’Connor was one to raise the conflict issue. he was chamber president for years. Secondly, prohibiting Read from running for council would like prohibiting the fellow who dri- ves the garbage truck, or the car- penter who works for the contrac- tor building the new works yard or any of hundreds of other em- ployees of companies from which the city contracts work.