Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

This week's letters

Call it what it is In last week’s feature article (Bringing ethnic diversity to the slopes, Pique March 24), Ralph Forsyth writes: "Until 1967, non-white immigration to Canada was suppressed, by a mechanism of place of origin preference.

Call it what it is

In last week’s feature article (Bringing ethnic diversity to the slopes, Pique March 24), Ralph Forsyth writes: "Until 1967, non-white immigration to Canada was suppressed, by a mechanism of place of origin preference. Because of these predilections our European cultural heritage remained predominant." In fact, the suppression of non-white immigrants to Canada was more than a predilection – it was largely due to government and public support for systemic racist immigration policies.

That the term racism never enters into this article confuses me, particularly since Forsyth goes on to refer to our collective European cultural heritage. Certainly the many Canadians whose ancestors came from places other than Europe and those of First Nations descent would object to this statement.

While I appreciate the attempt that this article makes to address issues of ethnic diversity, I feel that the author's reluctance to speak accurately about issues related to racism within Canada undermines the strength of his article.

Adrienne Watson

Ottawa

 

A series of unfortunate events

You might think that I am referring to our bad winter seasons, weather-wise or business-wise, but I am actually referring to a community thousands of miles away from us. I am talking about the community we are planning to adopt and establish our 20-year socio-economic relationship with, under the sister city program, the island of Nias.

It is still fresh in our memory how the news about the tsunami dominated the headlines and people all over Canada began sending their donations. Now, three months later, we haven't heard much about the rebuilding process and how people are coping with their everyday life – and yet another big earthquake shook the island of Nias Monday, with the death toll reaching 300 people. No words can describe how devastating this disaster is to the life of the people there, and no explanations can be offered as to how such things can happen at the same place just three months apart. This time, the destruction was not widespread; Nias is the hardest hit in the whole area affected.

Since Mayor O'Reilly approached me last December and asked me to prepare a proposal to the council of Whistler for a sister city relationship with Nias island, I have made several contacts with the locals. The history of this island and its people is actually as remarkable as their endurance through a series of unfortunate events. The struggle to repeal the Dutch soldiers from the island, their conversion from their head-hunter lifestyle to a civilized society, their status as one of the poorest communities in Indonesia and now two of the biggest earthquakes recorded since 1900 hit their homeland.

Imagine being the least developed society in a nation that enjoyed 10-20 per cent annual growth in the last 30 years. They never got any opportunities when things were rosy and suffer the most when people from their own country have a limited ability to help.

If their history was not dramatic enough, imagine now that they are the only place that suffered direct death tolls from the last earthquake. And this is happening while they are still grieving from last December's tsunami, in the middle of rebuilding efforts and yet still waiting for international aid to come to their shore.

To establish a relationship with this community requires not only a great deal of time and effort from our part but also our compassion. They have gone through many broken promises and been left behind by their fellow countrymen for ages. It is a community that endured the worst natural disasters as well as man made ones. To give them yet another promise is not going to do them any good. They have lost their livelihood through a series of unfortunate events.

Jay Wahono

Whistler

 

Support CTC move to Vancouver

I am writing this letter in support of the Honourable David Emerson, Minister of Industry. Recently it was reported by the media that the minister’s decision to move the Canadian Tourism Commission west, to British Columbia, was potentially ill-advised. I couldn’t disagree more.

I would like to publicly offer my complete support of his position. The cost of this move to taxpayers would be minimal, and the benefits far outweigh the few points critics have raised. In just four years, Vancouver/Whistler will welcome the world to our doorstep, as we host the 2010 Winter Games. A once in a lifetime event, we should not miss the opportunity to leverage off this world-class event and gain the most exposure from it that we can.

First and foremost, job creation in B.C. is an obvious benefit. Surely on that point alone, we all stand in agreement. The government has pledged to build stronger bridges with B.C., and the minister’s push to move the CTC to B.C. is an ideal opportunity to work towards that promise.

Canadian corporations move their head office locations all the time to gain a greater economic advantage, why shouldn’t the government? The move to Vancouver is just good economics, and makes sense. It will provide lasting benefits to Canada’s tourism industry long after the 2010 closing ceremonies.

I have spoken at length to many constituents in my riding, and their support of this initiative has been overwhelming. I applaud the minister’s courage in petitioning this change to the CTC, and urge British Columbians to write a letter of support to the Ministry of Industry. It is my hope that B.C. will welcome the CTC to British Columbia in due time.

Blair Wilson

Past Candidate, Liberal Party of Canada

West-Vancouver/Sunshine Coast/Sea-To-Sky Country

 

All workers deserve living allowance

Whistler Municipal Workers who work for the Bylaw Services, Whistler Wastewater and Treatment Plant and the Utilities Department are the most highly skilled and trained in the province.

These workers live and raise their families in the Whistler community and throughout the corridor. They have lived in this community a long time and have contributed to the community over many years.

As seen in many other situations similar to Whistler, it is very difficult to keep qualified and experienced people in our community. When a private operator takes over this proves to be an even more difficult task.

Many employers pay out living allowances to their workers. Employers such as the Royal Bank, North Shore Credit Union and B.C. Hydro. These employers understand what is required to keep qualified and experienced people within their organization and their community.

Whistler's sustainability plan calls for 75 per cent of all employees to be able to afford housing in Whistler by the year 2020. This plan will never happen if the municipality does not put into action what they say they need to have a sustainable community.

Whistler's municipal administrators and managers earn between $85,000 and $205,000 per year. These wages are some of the highest paid to municipal administrators in this province. This is due to the cost of living allowance they have built into their wage that they feel is necessary to live in this community. Now it is time for them to give the same benefit to the lower paid workers within the same organization.

CUPE 2010 says all workers in Whistler deserve a living allowance. It is the most expensive municipality in the province. We are proud to belong to a union that gives us the protection we need to speak out and say so.

Pete Davidson

President

CUPE 2010

 

Keeping the faithful

We visit Whistler once or twice a year. This year we decided to spend March Break in your wonderful resort, sharing the fun with two other families who travelled with us. We have always been tremendously impressed by the exceptional service that extends from the lift attendants on the hills, to the restaurant workers in the village. We have always felt truly valued and indeed this is one of the reasons we continue to visit year after year.

This year’s visit was, however, marred by an incident I wish to relate to your readers.

Visiting one of our friends for dinner, we parked in the well marked visitor’s lot for the lodge. After dinner we were forced to walk home, and make arrangements to pay for release of our vehicle which had, of course, been towed to the vehicle impound lot by Whistler Towing. I had failed to read the small print on the sign requiring the display of a parking sticker.

Now I know it was my fault, and Whistler Towing was acting within the terms of its contract with your town, but my point is this – the lot was completely empty, there was no snow anywhere (the reason there were so few of us tourists), and the tow truck driver freely admitted watching us park in the lot, waiting 10 minutes, then grabbing the car.

That is a rather hostile way to treat one of the few faithful visitors who stuck it out with Whistler this year in the face of all the negative reports on snow conditions.

I understand the need for vehicle control in a congested, snowbound area like Whistler, B.C., but there was no need for us to be treated this way. Too bad Whistler Towing is out there undermining the commitment of so many others to make your visitors feel welcome and valued.

Lorne Martin

Oakville, Ont.

 

Making Whistler Card a winner

The Whistler Chamber would like to respond to articles that appeared last week in both local papers that made reference to the Whistler Card. We are pleased that the Resident Affordability Task Force views the program as an opportunity for increasing affordable options for residents within the community. We want to thank the RMOW for their support with respect to the development and implementation of the program. The Chamber would like to make clear that the program is much more than a discount card.

The genesis of the program was to encourage an increase in local trade and give local business a voluntary opportunity to be part of the program. We currently have over 100 businesses participating in the program and to that end the business community has made their commitment to the program within their business models.

In spite of this commitment by the business community, the participation rate by the community has not been as successful and the Chamber has had to look closely at the program. In particular we need to look at the affordability aspect of the card and a variety of other factors to ensure that the program is a winning proposition for everyone involved.

We are currently finishing up our research phase of the program and you can look for some modifications to the program within the next 60 days. If you have any comments about the Whistler Card or want to find out more about the program, kindly contact the Chamber or visit our website at www.whistlerchamber.com

John Nadeau

Interim President

Whistler Chamber

 

One vote, one choice

The proposed transferable vote cannot achieve proportional representation. In spite of what some are saying, this is the same system tried in B.C. in the early ’50s and found wanting. People do, in fact, vote for a political party when they put their mark by someone's name who is running for a political party and when elected will prove it.

Who could have a second or third choice? My first choice vote would of course be my second, third or more choices. This is not a referendum on electoral reform. It is a vote on take it or stay where you are. When we were promised electoral reform there was no way to believe that we were not going for proportional representation.

With all of Europe to look at why, for instance, could the assembly not have chosen the system in Denmark? It is as though the assembly tried not to make a good choice but only to be different. What kind of fuzzy thinking or coercion could cause anyone to say STV is a good idea when there were so many good proportional representative systems from which to choose?

Terry Smith

Garibaldi Highlands

 

Where is the recreation in this proposal?

This letter is in response to the proposed $3.5 million community center in Pemberton by the SLRD and Village of Pemberton and the unusual manner it has been presented and the way it is to be voted on.

First off the proposed community centre is a beautiful looking building, but unfortunately, that is one of the few things it has going for it.

The current plan does not take into consideration the needs of the community. It is easy to see how this could have happened. There was a lack of notice about the planned meeting and only one meeting for such a large capital project. Residents either did not know about it, or did not receive a notice until the day before or after. D’arcy, a large part of our community, did not even have a meeting in their area. It seems as if the SLRD and Pemberton Village want to railroad this project past the community. The SLRD has already scheduled a special meeting for April 6 to proceed with this project after the voting deadline of April 4.

Even the way this project is to be approved is not right. The SLRD calls it "Alternate Approval Process" where if you don’t want it you have to vote "no" otherwise the SLRD assumes you are for it. This negative voting on such a large project reminds me of the Rogers negative billing stunt they tried to pull on their customers a few years back, which blew up in their face.

Some people have stated: "Can we please just get on with it?" This is apparently what the SLRD and village are hoping for, that people are frustrated with having such inadequate facilities for so long that they will accept anything.

The notices concerning the centre also seem as if they are trying to slip something by the community. As Mr. Wilson (Village of Pemberton interim administrator) says, "We had some signs up that indicated that we were building a recreation centre, but it is intended to be a community centre." The Infrastructure Canada Program website also states the funding is for recreational and sports facilities. If it is intended to be a community centre then why are they not saying so? Could it be that they realize this is not what the community wants? How does this centre help any of the Pemberton teens? It doesn’t.

For the last 15 years the community has talked about an ice rink, what has happened to this plan, and why is it now taking a back seat to the community centre? If an ice rink is part of the future plan, as the SLRD states it is, then let’s see it. Why are we voting on an incomplete plan?

The plan appears to be incomplete in more than just ignoring the citizens’ needs. There are no maintenance or operating budgets available for the centre. These costs can be five times more than the debt servicing costs and with no project revenues available it would be hard to guess if they will cover operating costs. The town is also going to be left with two operating costs to pay, as the existing community centre is still going to be the only place with a full size gym.

What are some possible alternatives? The Pemberton Agricultural Community Association has plans that taxpayers have already paid for, ready to go, for an ice rink at $2.8 million and outdoor pool for $280,000 more. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have a complex that integrated an ice rink, swimming pool, fitness centre and yes, community centre? At the very least we should have a plan to add the pool and rink to the community centre building, not all separate buildings. We will never be able to afford the plan as is.

A well planned integrated building will save on building costs, maintenance costs and most importantly staffing costs. This plan and proposed future plans as put forward by the SLRD would cost at least twice as much for staffing by having a separate building for the rink, pool and community centre. Having one main entrance instead of three separate ones will cut staffing costs substantially. Staffing costs can be twice that of other operating costs and this proposed plan will require staffing levels twice that of other recreation complexes.

Using what would normally be waste heat produced by the ice rink to heat the pool and community centre makes an integrated complex environmentally friendly. If you have a young family when you drop one off at hockey you can take the other one(s) for a swim and keep an eye on both of them without having to run across parking lots. It just makes sense to have everything under one roof.

Allowing private contractors to run a sport shop and pub would add to revenue and keep the place a real centre where people can go. Promoting the ice rink for summer hockey school would provide many spin off benefits to the community. The arena could be used for the annual barn dance which is too large and unsuitable for the proposed community centre.

If you feel this proposed community centre is the wrong way to proceed and that there hasn’t been proper public consultation or you don’t agree with this negative voting that the SLRD has put upon you, then you need to go and vote "no".

In order to vote "no" and send council a message that you don’t like the way this is being pushed through and that you want a real recreation complex, you must go down to SLRD office on or before 4 p.m. April 4 and complete the Electoral Response Form.

Ray Mason

Lorine van Voorst

Pemberton

 

Vote for what we don’t want?

I have been to many meetings regarding our new proposed recreation centre. I have voiced my opinion and that of my teenage daughter who asks, "What are we supposed to do there?" in regards to the proposed teen centre which appears to be about half the size of our existing room... and of course, no gym to play in.

Has my voice been heard? I don't think so because I don't see a new proposal from the SLRD which incorporates my opinion. To be told that this is the project unless I and 10 per cent of legal voters protest through the provided form seems sneaky to me. I, as a registered voter, want to be heard and rejecting this new centre proposal seems to be the path provided. Since when do we need to vote against what we don’t want rather than for what we do want?

Sandra Marti

Pemberton

 

More warm fuzzies, please

I agree with the letter from Sandi White (Pique March 24) in regards to the letters to the editor section of Pique being full of negativity.

I understand and appreciate Brian Finestone's letter since I can't remember the last time I've walked the Valley Trail and didn't either see or step in dog doo. If his letter reminds just one or two dog owners who haven't taken a serious look at not cleaning up after their dog, well that's a lot less sh*t right there!

As for so many others over the last few months, I'm starting to get depressed. The letter to which Dave Brownlie replied was a very nice change and so was his letter of appreciation.

In the letters about rezoning, government agendas and all the "issues" maybe instead of letters complaining, how about adding such letters to the article so it's all in one, both sides. Or get a reporter to do a piece.

After living in Whistler for 14 years, I know there are good, even great things happening around our area all the time. I for one have been having a hard season and could really use the "warm fuzzy" letters and less "cold prickly" ones.

Jenn Lyony

Whistler