Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Letters to the editor

To clarify once again… There has been some misunderstanding around the implications of a "yes" or "no" vote in the treaty principles referendum.

To clarify once again…

There has been some misunderstanding around the implications of a "yes" or "no" vote in the treaty principles referendum.

British Columbians have been asked whether the province should adopt principles to guide its participation in treaty negotiations. As a matter of law, the answer to the question on each principle is binding on the government if more than 50 per cent of the validly cast ballots vote the same way. Under the Referendum Act this means that the government is required to take steps that it "considers necessary or advisable to implement the results."

If a principle receives more "no" votes than "yes" votes, the province will not adopt that principle as a guide in treaty negotiations. In the event of a "no" vote result, the province would advance negotiating positions that are consistent with the provincial public interest without necessarily being linked to any particular principles.

The use of a binding principle to guide treaty negotiations does not pre-determine the outcome of the negotiations. There could be a variety of agreements that would be consistent with all of the principles. A "yes" vote does not mean that the government is legally prevented from considering possible exceptions to a principle. For example, in rare circumstances the expropriation of a parcel of private property may be the difference between reaching agreement or not, and the public interest in achieving certainty, finality and equality may require a limited exception to the principle against expropriation. In all cases the preferred course will be to seek agreements that are consistent with the principles. Ultimately, the voters will hold us to account for our own adherence to these principles. I believe we will make better progress with principles supported by a direct electoral mandate, than without them.

Spoiled ballots are not validly cast within the meaning of the Referendum Act and do not count as "no" votes for the purpose of determining the outcome of the referendum.

Geoff Plant

Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations

 

We have become frequent visitors to Whistler in the last few years and have always been impressed with the world class airport at Vancouver and the great facilities at Whistler both in winter and summer. The road link connecting the two is not up to the standard of either and your Opening remarks column about a proposed rail link in the April 5 edition of your publication prompted this letter.

We live in Hong Kong. While Hong Kong is about as different a place from Whistler as you can get, the highly developed integration of transport systems in place here could offer insight into the best ways to improve access to Whistler. Many visitors to Hong Kong will comment on the convenience, value and efficiency of the transport. This is the result of effective strategic planning to integrate air, rail, road and sea transport systems. A planned approach is essential for this integration to occur and I would suggest a similar methodology be adopted in looking for solutions to the transport issues between Whistler and Vancouver.

I don't feel a rail system is the only solution necessary for an effective transport system and whatever is done with a rail link does not obviate the need for an improved road between Vancouver and Whistler. Aside from stretches of road near Squamish and Whistler itself, the road is not only limited in carrying capacity, it is downright dangerous. I don't need to remind your readers of this as you live with the current situation every day.

The point of my letter is that as a visitor, I would find a rail link from the airport to Whistler a preferred mode of transport. A rail link for my convenience to get to Whistler would not likely be justified in terms of capital costs so I would suggest additional benefits a strategic rail link might result in:

1. Extending the rail link south to the ferry pier to Victoria and adding a stop at the Horseshoe Bay ferry pier would enhance transport integration.

2. Locating train stops at strategic locations in Vancouver would enable visitors and residents alike to have an alternative access to the airport (and ferries) as well as park and ride options to travel to Whistler.

3. Locating stations in Squamish and Pemberton could stimulate resort type developments improving both local economies and relieving pressure on further development in Whistler. A peripheral benefit would be an easing of upward pressure on Whistler real estate values. Believe me, in Hong Kong we know the cost the bursting of a real estate bubble can entail as residential prices have declined here more than 50 per cent in the last five years. We would all have preferred, in hindsight, to have stable value growth and not the skyrocketing values we experienced and which currently seems to be happening in Whistler.

4. A combined rail and road bridge would reduce pressure on the existing Lions Gate Bridge and alleviate traffic congestion.

Determining the way to pay for such schemes is up to the citizens of B.C. but a combined partnership between public funding and private operators would be a logical approach to consider. You have a great location and great facilities and I hope you can expand this quality to include an efficient and environmentally friendly transport system.

Ron Adrianse

Hong Kong

 

Members of the British Columbia and Yukon Hotel Association have serious concerns about the provincial government's recent proposals to make sweeping changes to British Columbia’s liquor licensing laws.

The Hon. Rich Coleman, B.C.’s Solicitor-General, introduced this legislation in mid-March under the guise of "public safety" but we’re not buying this rationale.

Our members are at a loss to understand exactly how public safety will be enhanced in any way when access to alcohol is about to be made easier; and when ICBCs CounterAttack program is about to be discontinued.

Our members believe this legislation does little else than open the door to problems of over-licensing, extended operating hours, cheap drink specials, over service and public disturbances.

Our members also ask:

• How is it possible for communities to become more peaceful and secure – and for streets and highways to become safer – when restaurants will be permitted to stop selling food in the evening, turn themselves into bars and stay open until 4 a.m.?

• How can police and liquor enforcement officers cope with more outlets and longer operating hours when their operating budgets are diminishing?

• How can municipal councils be expected to deliberate on complex licensing issues when they’re already adjusting to shrinking budgets and a rising workload?

With the host of other issues set in motion by the B.C. government our members fear that this legislation will be lost in the shuffle despite the huge negative impact it could have on every B.C. community.

Most Municipalities are adopting a "wait and see" attitude. While they wait, they might consider the fact that Alberta has legislation very similar to what is being proposed here – and their impaired driving rates are almost double those of British Columbia.

We have no hesitation in branding this legislation as a very real threat to public safety. More than a dozen B.C. municipalities agree with us and they’ve made their discontent known in Victoria.

We urge all other like-minded municipalities, community groups and concerned citizens to register their objections to this legislation as soon as possible, by fax or e-mail, with Premier Gordon Campbell, ( premier@gov.bc.ca ) Solicitor-General Rich Coleman, ( rich.coleman.mla@leg.bc.ca ), your MLA and your mayor and council.

James Chase,

Executive Director

British Columbia and Yukon Hotels Association

 

While I applaud Ms. Stang for her tenacity to get her event off the ground, I really have a problem with the way in which she is trying to promote "safe snowmobiling" (Snowmobile competition returns — at Brohm Ridge, Pique April 5, 2002). As a past member of the executive of the British Columbia Snowmobile Federation representing over 10,000 members in this province, I personally cannot support such an event. Promoting an event centred around a gap jump of some 70 or 80 feet where riders risk personal injury to compete for the title of best "Freestyle Snowmobiler" certainly does not help to promote the image of safe, responsible snowmobiling in the backcountry. This event is clearly on the outer fringe of what one could consider as recreational snowmobiling.

I agree with her statement that Whistler is already a snowmobiling destination. We are lucky to have some of the most spectacular backcountry snowmobiling opportunities in North America right out our back door. With the development of quieter, more efficient, and environmentally friendlier snowmobiles, this sport will continue to grow. It has proven to have had a huge economic impact on other communities around B.C., such as Revelstoke and Valemount. Whistler would do well to tap into this popular sport and add yet another feather in its cap of world class opportunities.

Dave Ward

Associate Director,

British Columbia Snowmobile Federation

 

In light of all the controversy about the WEF, I was just wondering if the Campbell government might be willing to take the $15 million slated for conference centre renovations, our reward for hosting the WEF, as I understand it, and reconsider investing it in the real future of this community and province – our children.

School Boards all over the province our cutting budgets to meet the financial pressures of the day. I think that I would rather see Ms. Denbak fund-raising for the new building instead of parents pressured and pulled away from their families trying to fund-raise for some basic needs necessary for their children’s education. Heck I bet even the slated amount for the security of the WEF participants would help school boards tremendously.

Andree Vajda Janyk

Whistler

 

I wanted to write a brief note in support of Whistler hosting the WEF in 2004, and hopefully beyond.

For the past 20 years Whistler has been promoting itself to many parts of the world as something special, and seemingly wanting to be considered a major player in the destination tourism arena. Well congratulations! Whistler is now being considered to host one of the most prestigious gatherings on the planet every two years. How can we say no?

This annual meeting brings together the world's foremost business leaders, environmentalists, artists, academics, scientists and world leaders, all to Whistler for one week every two years. We all should be proud to be offered this opportunity. We have finally made it to the world stage, which will benefit all Whistler businesses and home owners in the future and set the entire community up for long term economic growth.

Let's make it happen.

Murray Kelsey

Whistler

 

There are many valid points on both sides of the WEF debate. Fears of community disruption and resort "branding" confusion (what business are we in?) versus economic and marketing needs and perceived opportunities to influence world leaders.

The kicker for me is the risk to the 2010 Games. I'm a self confessed keen supporter of the Olympic bid.

If we say no to the WEF, we will generate ill will federally and provincially. Ottawa can easily shift their "keen support" to the 2012 Toronto Summer Games bid. Only one of us can hope to host the Olympics within the span of a decade or two. This is the stick to the conference centre carrot.

The 2010 Winter Games will be awarded in the summer of 2003, and the WEF timing is perfect. If we say yes to the 2004 WEF we benefit from the recognition associated with hosting this significant event, without having yet to prove if we can do it well.

I propose we say maybe yes.

Let's invite the WEF here, but in the third week of September. It's a lovely time of year and a time when the business we are in IS conferences. For many local businesses, including most of the accommodation sector, the short four months from Dec. 15 to April 15 accounts for 65 per cent to 95 per cent of their year's earnings. Let's not interrupt that successful season if we don't have to. We've never wanted a non-ski/snow-related event mid-winter before.

While we're at it, let's exercise our host's prerogative to press the forum to formally recognize the need for balance between economic, environmental and social considerations.

Let's make sure the local community bears no inappropriate costs.

The 2004 WEF is a single, isolated event, and it promises to leave a $15 million "tip" in the form of a new, fully functional, world class conference centre. Whether one visit leads to regular repeat hostings is entirely a separate issue for us to decide later, and has nothing to do with the current debate.

Gordon McKeever

Whistler

 

This letter was addressed to the World Economic Forum in Whistler Committee

I am writing to your committee because of your important role in inviting the WEF to Whistler, and because of the responsibilities I feel you have as promoters of this event. One of these responsibilities, in my opinion, is to open communication with the community about the invitation. A great deal of uncertainty and speculation has captured the public mind in the face of this forum which is perceived to challenge what many Whistlerites cherish about their community. Council has solicited comments to aid them in their decision, but without two-way consultation with the community, important issues that separate people for and against the WEF have not had a chance to be addressed. As a result, the WEF issue has been a divisive one in our community.

Your committee's approach of trying to win people over to your side through a marketing campaign has done nothing to heal this division. We are a small community. We want a participatory role in such issues. This is true for the Olympics and it is also true for the WEF. Not that community consultation guarantees community support, but it at least leads to a more grounded debate instead of the divisive for-or-against rhetoric we are now hearing.

Taking the time to consult with the community is also an issue of sustainability. If this community is to move towards sustainability, business must take the responsibility of looking at the "triple bottom line," where environment, economy as well as community are considered. Business and community need to work together. We must move away from the model where groups within our community only consider their own interest, leaving our municipal council with the difficult job of finding a compromise between the needs of one group and those of others. In a sustainable Whistler, we need the promoters of ideas and initiatives to take on that responsibility, before they go to council.

If proper communication took place, many issues would get the deliberation they deserve. I suspect many of those issues would centre around security. For instance, what is the "security plan" your committee refers to? How will this security plan impede freedom of movement for workers and guests of the resort, and how might that affect businesses? Based on the large police presence in New York and the violent confrontations that took place in Davos resort in 2000 and 2001 (see www.WhistlerWEF.com for photos), Whistlerites have valid reasons to be concerned. How can the community potentially say yes to an event for which no plan is available to address the most contentious issue?

Only if these issues are discussed is there a chance to bridge the gap that separates those for and against.

No matter what council's decision is on April 22, the community will remain divided over this issue because of the process. Even if the forum ends up here and turns out to be none of the things people feared, the process that brought it here will remain flawed. What if your committee could satisfactorily address many of the community's concerns? This invitation would be all the more successful if it had community support. Perhaps it is not too late to delay the invitation and enter into a community consultation process now. Otherwise, I think this sets an unfortunate precedent for the level of public consultation we need to have if our community is to successfully travel through the minefield leading to the 2010 Olympics.

The community must be involved, as labourous a process as that may be, if we want to do things right.

Stéphane Perron

Whistler

 

WEF? Why not!

Take a moment and think back to where we have come, to where we are today. There was a dream that was born with a lot of hard work and help. I remember the first years, in the ’60s, where there was absolutely nothing. There was not even a toilet to be seen. I spent many hours on the highway going to and from the city for work. It was a true pleasure to come back for weekends to enjoy the great outdoors.

In the ’70s, people realized what a wonderful place this was and started to build cabins and chalets. I considered myself fortunate to build my first home here in 1970. I recall, there wasn’t much to do in the summer, and in the winter there was only skiing. When Whistler was incorporated, our first mayor and councillors dreamed of a viable resort.

The years in the ’80s were filled with turmoil and hardship. We were saved by the foresight of the provincial government or we wouldn’t have a convention centre today. We were desperate to have anyone come to Whistler, let alone the WEF.

We have to look at the bigger picture for a true four season resort! You ask how we made it? Tourism. If it wasn’t for every conference and every person wanting to come here, we wouldn’t be who we are today. In order for us to succeed in the future, we need to do what we do best, and that is host conferences. With our past influencing to a great extent both our present and our future, the value of WEF is an opportunity.

The exposure and publicity would be wonderful for our resort, and will benefit us for many years to come. We are not a small skiing, mining, logging, or fishing community. Whistler is a resort, which can benefit from people that attend the WEF.

We need to give our heads a shake. The WEF is not coming for free. They pay for everything and more.

I do not have a blind eye to the demonstrators. I can only say that there is only one way in and one way out. I believe our authorities will take the appropriate measures to ensure safety. They have also learnt a lot from other events in the world and close to home.

I believe this is a choice of a legacy. We can show the world how it can be done with the Whistler spirit. I know Whistler is a more exciting resort than Davos. If it worked in New York — it can work better here! The advantage is that we have many enthusiastic people to make it a success.

Heinz Wango

Whistler

 

Whether you are for or against the World Economic Forum coming to Whistler, there is another issue that deserves our attention amid this turmoil – how we have chosen to treat our mayor and council during this debate.

I am the first to encourage debate and not afraid of controversy. In fact, healthy debate often produces an improved end result. As elected officials, this debate has been expected and welcomed by our mayor and council. However, such debate should always, in my view, be both thoughtful and respectful. Sadly, on many occasions in the last several months, such respect has been lacking.

Mayor and council were faced with a difficult task – considering whether to invite the World Economic Forum to Whistler. The task was all the more difficult because of the Forum’s request for confidentiality and concern over potential protocol offence being given to the Swiss government, who were not yet aware that the Forum was considering a new venue.

Despite these constraints, Mayor O’Reilly and council commissioned a telephone survey to solicit community input regarding large scale, high profile events. The survey question was balanced and reflected both upon the benefits and potential concerns such events would bring. Mayor O’Reilly and our councillors further met with a variety of local community groups including the Chamber of Commerce, One Whistler, and Tourism Whistler to solicit their input on a confidential basis. Every effort was made to solicit a variety of viewpoints given the constraints imposed by nation to nation protocol.

Once the opportunity to host the World Economic Forum was no longer confidential, Mayor O’Reilly and council have welcomed input from all sources and valued all points of view – exactly as they were elected to do.

They were not elected to receive phone calls at home with constituents hurling insults at their children. They were not elected to be characterized as "crazy" or "on drugs." Such actions demean all of us in Whistler – a town that prides itself on its highly educated citizenry and its worldly sophistication.

I for one believe that Mayor O’Reilly and council have done an outstanding job managing a difficult situation. Regardless of their decision regarding the World Economic Forum, I support them and the process they have undertaken.

Suzanne Denbak

Whistler

 

As the main wee beastie behind the full-page ads and petition against hosting the WEF, I have done an awful lot of research in the last while. So I was amused to see proponents react to our ads with the charge of "misinformation." Especially in light of the fact that while our ads and Web site encourage people to explore numerous sources for further information (including the WEF’s own Web site), their material suggests one source of information only – the WEF.

And I guess that’s the problem. If you only have one book, and you keep reading it over and over, you start to believe that’s the only story. So let’s open a couple more books shall we?

First, this idea that the WEF is some sort of non-profit, philanthropic organization of visionaries with nothing in mind but improving the state of the world. In truth, the WEF is a private, invitation-only group of the "1,000 foremost corporations in the world" that seek to "proactively participate in shaping the global agenda" (the WEF’s own words).

But what about all those others who attend their annual meeting, you ask, the "visionaries" we keep hearing about – Bono, Bill Clinton (?), Desmond Tutu. Well, they’re not members, they’re guests . And as guests, they have no input into the agenda of the WEF.

Who does have input into the agenda? WEF "Partners" – about 40 corporations that can afford the $250,000 US/year it costs to be a partner. (Regular members pay $12,500 US/year, and there are also annual meeting fees of up to $78,000 US/year. The WEF collected almost $39 million US in fees from members in 2000/2001.)

Okay, so now let’s open another book. How accurately does this organization "committed to improving the state of the world" reflect the global reality? Well, the directors on its two main boards are over 98 per cent male (100 per cent male until 2001, when one woman was added) and over 75 per cent white. And since its general membership is the 1,000 wealthiest corporations in the world, the vast majority are naturally from the US, Europe and Japan. So basically we’ve got an invitation-only, private club of primarily rich, white males deciding what’s best for the world. Gee, that’s unusual, isn’t it?

Book number 3. We have been told their annual meeting is a "non-political" conference where "no decisions are made." Right, non-political. In New York this year 18 presidents, three prime ministers, three members of royalty, nine U.S. Senators, nine US Congressmen, and countless other politicians attended (including Premier Campbell and federal ministers.) In October 2001, Premier Campbell was Session Chair at a WEF Summit in Asia. And not only has this "non-political" WEF been involved in closed-door discussions for almost a year with the governments of Whistler, B.C., and Canada, but it also convinced those governments to keep those discussions secret from their citizens.

And what about that "no decisions are made" at their annual meeting bit. Well, at New York this year, before council had even discussed the issue in public, Premier Campbell decided to invite the WEF to use Whistler as a venue for its annual meeting. That’s a decision. Are we to assume it was the only one made between all those politicians and business leaders at the five-day meeting?

We’re getting quite a library now, huh? And I could go on and on (just ask my wife) but I wanna finish with one thing that really bugs me – the assertion that these are the only people who can really change the world. That all these wealthy, powerful people holding a lavish five-day "non-political" meeting where "no decisions are made" are going to be our saviours.

You know what? Give me the nurses and MDs on the front lines with Doctors Without Borders any day. Or the many fine people who go to developing countries and help dig wells, build housing and work for human rights. Or closer to home, lawyers who work pro bono for disadvantaged clients. Teachers who work in inner-city schools. People volunteering their time at crisis lines, food banks, and women’s shelters. They don’t need a lavish conference funded with $10s of millions of taxpayers’ dollars to figure out what needs to be done. They’re already doing it.

Contrast this with the WEF. Its motto? "Committed to improving the state of the world."

Its latest philanthropic thrust on behalf of humankind? It would provide ski passes and rentals for all delegates attending the annual meeting in Whistler.

Ahhh, Mother Theresa would have been proud.

Van Powel

Whistler