Saturday, July 4, 1992 @ F i PAGE = = = P Dave McCullough Publisher Scott David Harrison Editor Mickey Read Composing Room Foreman Warren Chernoff Accountant Heather Hadiey Circulation Manager OurWiEWS AdrianRAESIDE Canada Day, eh? all it the Sunfest blues, or call it the pulp strike woes, but Canada Day celebrations in Castlegar left a lot to be desired. With the exception of flag-raising and cake-cutting ceremonies at the Community Complex, Canada Day was nothing to write Ottawa about. Funny, 30 minutes in either direction of Castlegar, the Canada Day celebrations were in full swing as Trail and Nelson ushered in our country’s 125th birthday in style. Even Silverton and Nakusp staged events worth singing O Canada for. Why, if not for the initiative of the Castlegar Recreation Department and the local multicultural society, our fair city would have missed out on Canada Day altogether. What a shame. ; Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that next-to-nothing transpired in Castlegar. The general absence of Canada Day celebrations says something about our community and it’s not all that flattering. Canada Day is as much a celebration of the nation’s history as it is Castlegar’s. - Castlegar has a lot to be proud of, - but you wouldn’t know it from the way it chose to celebrate one of the most significant events of our time. To those who attended Canada Day celebrations, perhaps it’s time we put our collective heads together and came up with a way to duly honor our nation and our community’s place in it. After all, we shouldn’t rely on the recreation department and the multicultural society to do it for us.— Street WALK ypotidddincerittiHl rr a_ és ieee Ootischenia gets dumped on? Garbage is big business. its plan. I told you That much is clear to anyone flipping through the Regional District of Central Kootenay’s options for its new Solid Waste Manage- ment Plan. That’s the plan that has Ootischenia residents upset over the possible expansion of the Ootischenia dump, but more on that later. First, let’s take a look at the plan itself. It came about when, in 1989, the old Social Credit government gave regional districts the authority to develop regional solid waste management plans then told them they must reduce solid waste by 30 per cent for 1995 and by 50 per cent by the year 2000. So the RDCK hired the Kamloops firm of Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd. to prepare a 20-year plan. (Neighboring Regional District of Kootenay Boundary has also contracted Stanley Associates for in| j Nas Ron NORMAN or garbage is big business.) Not only is garbage big business — it’s big money. Stanley says the total projected cost for the waste management plan will be $2.75 million to $3.5 million a year. Or $1.11 to $1.35 per | $1,000 of assessed value Comments _| for residential property from the Crossroads owners. That’s a significant difference from what we — now pay. The Ootischenia dump cost about $110,000 a year to operate which translates into only a few dollars per household. The $110,000 figure isn’t really appropriate because it includes only the cost of the Ootischenia dump, which is paid for by Castlegar, Area I, Area J and part of the Slocan Valley. A more accurate figure would be $920,000 a year, which is the total cost for continued on page 7 Burt C. Publisher Emeritus L.V. Campbell Aug. 7, 1947- Feb. 15, 1973 — Question: How did you celebrate Canada’s 125th birthday? by Kathy Street Castlegar “I worked in my garden.” Jill Conroy Castlegar “I played with my friends.” Yvonne Hawkins Robson “I stayed at home with my family.” June Paige “I visited my husband in hospital.” Tom O'Brian Slocan Pass Creek “I slept.” @ Saturday, July 4, 1992 OtherVIEWS: Please address all letters to: Letters to the Editor Castlegar News P.O. Box 3007 Castlegar, B.C. V1N 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 reached between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. The writer’s name and city or town of residence only will be published. Only in exceptional cases will letters be published anonymously. Even in those cases, the name, address and phone number of the writer MUST be disclosed to the editor. The News reserves the right to edit letters for brevity, clarity, legality, grammar and taste. Letters tow iM E Et ITO a Dry Grad must be an alternative Recent coverage in The News of the Stanley Humphries Secondary School after grad activities prompts a reply. No matter what way it is twisted, viewed, rationalized, the parents who organized such a grad drinking party broke the law. They did so not once but two times. Firstly, in aiding and abetting minors in the procurement and consumption of alcohol. Secondly,; by trespassing onto private property. We, as concerned parents and organizers (along with the student body), of grad celebrations in our area on that same night, had a very successful party. In keeping with its inception of four years ago, 96 per cent of grads enjoyed a full evening of friendship, fun, entertainment, food, and, notably, no alcohol. Student response was very appreciative of our efforts. Their involvement in several fund raising projects — such as, car wash, coat check, etc. —was essential to it’s success. We had a good working relationship with the RCMP and ICBC, tremendous support from local businesses, organizations, local city and village councils, drug and alcohol centre, media, and the school district. All in all, it was a night to remember. The parents and students of Grad ’92 can look back on this event knowing that we did our best to ensure the safety of our grads, that we did not break the law, did not flaunt negative behavior, but set a positive example for our young people to follow in future years. Congratulations to the grads of Castlegar who chose not to join the drinking melee you, too, have something great to remember about your grad celebrations. Good luck in the future. The Trail and Rossland Dry Grad Organizing Committees Constitution a betrayal of Canadian workers I would like to express my grave concern that federal and provincial politicians, meeting behind closed doors, have come to an agreement that will seriously undermine any principle of equality among the provinces. “The Rolling Draft” on the constitutional negotiations released by Joe Clark, records that agreement has been reached on making labor market programs the exclusive jurisdiction of the province’s under Section 92 of the Canadian Constitution. This will make it almost impossible to develop or ensure national standards for training workers or secure equity of access for all Canadians and immigrants. What is even worse, however, is that the ministers responsible for the constitution have also arrived at an agreement to provincialize the administration of Unemployment Insurance. This is buried in the rolling draft under a reference to the ‘harmonization’ of labor market programs, but Employment and Immigration Canada is already discussing its implementation. Under the provincialization of UI, workers across the country could be facing unequal benefits in different parts of the country which will only increase the disparities between the have and have-not provinces. There will be much greater difficulty for workers to move from one part of the country to another. " One of the most disturbing aspects of these negotiations has two of our largest provinces — currently governed by New Democrats — heading the power grab for provincial control. As this will leave us with a system that “harmonizes” us with the fragmented U.S. labor market and social programs, where the Canadian Labor Congress says only two out of five unemployed workers receive unemployment insurance benefits. This appears to be both shortsighted and in opposition to these government’s professed values. Most Canadians are unaware of this agreement which will endanger a Canada- wide training system and_ our Unemployment Insurance program, though some have begun to act. Nineteen national women’s organizations and 10 provincial training coalitions met in Ottawa June 12 to 14, passing a resolution rejecting the proposal to make labor market training the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in Canada outside Quebec. These groups were attending an Annual Consultation on Training held by the Women’s Reference Group to the Canadian Labor Force Development Board. The provincialization of labor market programs for Canada outside Quebec makes no sense from the perspective of either equality or economic efficiency. Far better the federal and provincial governments learn to cooperate and collaborate more effectively. For Quebec, let us recognize and accommodate their distinct qualities and not destroy the rest of the country under the cry “if Quebec gets it, we get it too.”, not recognizing the devastation that will mean for all of us in the long run. Canadians concerned about a high quality, accessible system of labor market training must make their opposition to this misguided constitutional amendment known before it is too late. A change as profound as this one requires much discussion and a strong voice for the people who will be affected. In fear for our great country. Marcia Braundy Winlaw continued from page 6 in solid waste isn’t in recycling or tischenia will be getting no more operating all the regional district dumps. Even at that, the new system will still cost us about $2 million more a year. Here’s how the costs break down according to the plan’s four Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle and residual management): Reduce: It will cost about $300,000 to reduce our waste, which would include hiring a full- time staff person to administer all aspects of the plan and hiring peo- ple to charge fees for using the landfill site. (12 cents a year on $1,000 of assessed value) Reuse: Salvaging material at dump sites at a capital cost of $40,000 per site and $15,000 a year. Add another $5,000 a year for staff time for a materials ex- e. Recycling: This could cost anywhere from $275,000 to $640,000 a year (11 cents to 26 cents per $1,000 of assessed val- ue), depending on the program. Staffed collection stations are more costly than unstaffed collec- tion depots. Costs are also higher for curbside collection. Residual Management: A nice word for dumps. The consul- tant presented five options, but is recommending the regional dis- trict choose the options where it would operate four sub-regional landfill sites. The sites would in- clude Ootischenia, Creston, Salmo and Nakusp. The cost would be $2.38 million a year or 96 cents per $1,000 of‘assessed value. An interesting part of the plan is that the biggest potential saving reusing material. It’s in reducing what we use. Done properly, we could see our solid waste fall by as much as 30 per cent simply through reducing. Compare that to the less than 10 per cent decline in solid waste through recycling and 12 per cent drop through better management of our landfills. - As for the concerns of the Ootis- chenia residents — they are gen- uine, but only if the regional dis- trict throws out the consultants’ recommendation and chooses an- other option. (One of which in- cludes making Ootischenia the sole regional landfill site — Ootis- chenia residents’ worst night- mare.) However, if the consultants’ recommendation is followed, Oo- truck traffic than it does now — and probably even less. That’s be- cause the collection area would be virtually the same as it is now. Some Ootischenia . residents have taken the opportunity of this regional plan to lobby to have the dump moved from their backyard. Fair enough. But that’s a different issue alto- gether. And while I have some sympathy for those who had the dump dumped on them 20-odd years ago, I have little sympathy for recent newcomers to Ootische- nia. They knew what they were getting into. It’s a bit like moving next to the railway tracks and then agitating to have the tracks moved because the trains keep you awake at night.