Dear Editor,
Grizzly bears, wolverine, mountain goats, salmon, steelhead, other wildlife would be put at risk.
A massive ski resort proposal near Squamish, British Columbia would threaten the quality of life for area residents, wildlife, and the environment. The planned development, Garibaldi at Squamish (GAS), first submitted to the BC’s Environmental Assessment Office in 1997 and recently resurrected, would cover an area roughly half the size of Squamish. The development would:
*Include two golf courses, 25 ski lifts, 98 km of roads, hotels, and nearly 6,000 new homes, apartments, and condominiums.
*Include 500,000 square feet of commercial space that would compete with Squamish businesses.
I'm writing to rebut the critics of Independent Power Producers who have recently claimed that NAFTA will expose our government to liability when water use leases expire. The decisions of the 6 NAFTA panels on the issue of expropriation do not support such a contention, and I'd like to demonstrate this to your readers.
It is true that government acts "tantamount to expropriation" could expose our government to fines, but the natural termination of a lease is almost certainly not going to qualify as "expropriation." No NAFTA panel has found expropriation to occur after a lease has lapsed and was not renewed, and it is very doubtful that any panel would ever consider the expiration of a contract to be a "government action." A water use lease is a contract to borrow a small percentage of water for a definite period of time, so the expectation of each party, signed on the lease, is for it to terminate at the specified date. Any improvements to the land -- such as a run-of-river installation -- would normally be surrendered to the province. This is how commercial leases are commonly handled, such as with a lease for office space; the tenant has no rights to improvements made to the building or surrounding land unless they negotiated for that when they signed the lease.
Under NAFTA, the unquestionable trend has been towards upholding the sovereignty of government. The only panel that has found for expropriation did so after the Mexican government passed a law outlawing development on land owned by an American company, just days after that same company had completed a very expensive phase of development on the land -- in reliance on previous governmental approval.
No lawyer worth his salt would ever argue that the expiration of a lease, negotiated between sophisticated parties, would leave one with expectations of continued occupation. That doesn't make sense, and history says that a NAFTA panel is likely to agree!
Two of the biggest challenges facing our planet today are global climate change and the need to find new sources of clean, renewable electricity. Both of these challenges are worthy of the best, most intelligent discussion we can generate.
But rather than engaging in intelligent discussion of the green energy issue, many opponents of independent green energy projects have chosen to indulge in a relentless campaign of inaccurate claims and misleading statements.
In many ways, the green energy issue has emerged as a defining issue in the provincial election campaign, and the positions taken by each of the parties could not be clearer. Shamefully, the NDP leader and NDP candidates have all chosen to turn a blind eye to climate change and B.C.’s energy future by coming out against green energy projects based on shallow ideological grounds.
The Greens, I might add, are not far behind in this respect.
The BC Liberals are the only party that has grasped the enormity of the environmental and energy challenges we face and brought forward intelligent, rational responses.
If left to the NDP, the security of our future supply of clean, renewable electricity will become increasingly uncertain and unreliable. The NDP would also put an end to a vibrant new sector in the B.C. economy and kill thousands of new green energy jobs and the prosperity they create.
In stark contrast to the NDP, the BC Liberals have created the necessary conditions to secure B.C.’s clean energy future and leave a legacy of clean, renewable energy for future generations.
So if you care about the future of this planet and this province. And if you care about future generations, then your choice on May 12th will be clear because only one party has demonstrated that they have the insight, integrity and vision needed to take us forward.
Bruce Sanderson, Co-spokesperson
B.C. Citizens for Green Energy
I’m writing to encourage your readers to vote for the BC Liberals on May 12th, to secure our future and the future of our children in these tough economic times. Now is not the time for a dalliance with Carole James and the NDP; Ms. James has no economic experience, and the NDP have a track record of destroying investor confidence in the province, raising taxes, and wasting taxpayer money on projects that never come to fruition (anyone remember fast ferries?).
Under the BC Liberals, we’ve seen our taxes go down to put money back in our pockets, we’ve seen businesses take up residence and create jobs through gaining confidence in our economic stewardship, and we’ve seen the provincial government reach out to make connections with other regions for trade, knowledge sharing, and group initiatives like addressing climate change with California.
We need proven experience now more than ever. The NDP candidates are not bad people, and Carole James seems like a great person, but I cannot even consider voting for a party that makes policy decisions – like opposing the carbon tax – for cheap votes. Let’s keep BC strong and vote for the party that will take care of our taxpayer dollars and invest in our future and the future of our children.
NDP candidate Scott Fraser's remarks about run-of-river hydro show the NDP to be nothing but opportunistic contrarians on the issue. Just like the flip-flop on the carbon tax, the NDP were at first in favour of run-of-river hydro before they were against it. Squamish residents, along with the rest of British Columbia, deserve better.
Run-of-river hydro makes sense, according to Mr. Fraser, if the environment is protected, local communities benefit, and the resources are retained by BC Hydro. But when faced with the real world facts on the ground, what reasonable objections to run-of-river power could he raise?
Letters to the Editor
