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.