Airport land Issues stil unresolved Insults instead of answers ‘Dear Sir: ] have asked hard questions about the costs of the acquisition of the airport lands and the planning for ‘the airport lands without success. Instead of ans- wers I have been called a fool and a liar, and other Vague responses, To even suggest that the lands were acquired for $10 anda little paper woxg is irresponsible. _: What about the study"#om Horizon Pacific, com- missioned in 1996 and completed in 1997, costing $19,000, and the “subdivision possibilities’’ study , that was done and what about the innumerable trips to Victoria for education and lobbying? What were they charged to? Snowplowing? -All the vagaries and verbal abuse aside the ques- tion of planning still is unanswered. What is pro- posed for these lands? Pulp mills spewing smoke and steam over the end of the active runway? Cop- _ per smelters with their stink and smoke? “An asphalt plant on the north end of #14? Saw- mills with the attendant dry kilns and steam chang- ing the already unstable October air? The ultimate would bea drum debarker that council won’t get rid of. ; ‘What will happen to the timber resources there? Who will log them? What about the very high mushroom resource there. Will that be left? Will there be restrictions on their picking. Questions, . questions and no answers. ~ Every user of that airport needs to see a plan that guarantees that whatever is located near the airport will not be a detriment to the operation of that air- port. There is no such plan, never was such a plan and may never be such a plan, But it is vital, “There is one glimmer of light. There has been some new “information’? come out recently. The CNR switching yards may moved from downtown _ lo the airport, via some ‘ ‘brilliant planning”. When that suggestion was put to the CNR crews, _ the mirth was instantaneous. Knee slapping and vo- cal and did not entirely disappear for three days. Even then the mere phrase *‘switch yard’’ set off new convulsions of laughter. There would be no revenue from there, there is the one approach, Skeena bridge to negotiate, and the weight restricled Queensway Hill to puli and the uphill grade to complete from the crossing at the Old Remo Road to the airport bench. Allis possible, but perhaps not practical, Jt would lake ““brilliant planning”’. Where that would come from, considering we can not even get planning, is not known. A gem of information. The airport footprint, un- der the ownership of the federal government, had an assessed value of seven and one half million dol- lars (excluding the hull hangar, the old Ford hangar and other private properties) and paid no taxes. They paid, instead, a grant in Heu of taxes'in the amount of 235 dollars. °°" 7" wee es These ‘are questions of planning 10 make this air- port safe, affordable and useable. They need ans- wers, Les Watmough Terrace B.C, This twit’s responsible Dear Sir: Claudette Sandecki’s column about search and rescue costs for backcountry hike/skier/snowboarder ‘‘twits and jerks”? (“‘Make the culprits pay’’, March 17, 1999) deserves a response. { am one of those twits/jerks who goes out of bounds onto Crown land to go backcountry skiing, I have been doing this for about 25 years, so I have becn a twitjerk for quite some time now. I have been a summertime twit/jerk for even longer. I have yet to need a rescue, and I would certainly volunteer to help rescue fellow twits/erks in need of help, ‘Ms. Sandecki should remember we live in Canada where an individual is free to be a twit, jerk or both in any number of ways which could require search and rescue assistance. We could choose to snowmobile, hunt, pick mushrooms, go fishing, climbing, mountain biking, two-, three- and four-wheeling, etc. These are all activities that can and do take place out of bounds in the backcountry where the very same people go to hike, ski and snowbeard. As proof that skiers/snowboarders aren’t the only twits/jerks who occasionally require help, look at this winter’s North American avalanche incident stalistics. There have been 14 ski/snowboard, 13 snowmobile, four industry/town, and four hiking/snowshoeing incidents. And a couple in- volving dogs. Egad, twits and jerks are everywhere, If Ms, Sandecki is so worried about search and rescue costs, maybe everyone should be banned from doing everything in the backcountry. There bas yet to be a skier/snowboard search in this area, but mushroom pickers can’t say the same thing. The use of boats and planes should be banned, too, because those searches are way more ex- pensive than a land search for a lost of injured twitjerk. Just about every town in B.C., Terrace included, The Terrace Standard, Wednesday, April 28, 1999 - A5 CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE TERRACE STANDARD ‘The Mail Bag GITANYOW hereditary chief Guy Morgan paints to a map of Gitanyow traditional territory in the middie third of the Nass River valley. The Gitanyow wanted their overlap with the Nisga’a resolved prior to the implementation of the Nisga‘a treaty. has a group of people who volunteer their time to provide search and rescue services to their com- munity. They do a great job. Regardless of what re- quires the search, these people will help when needed, The Provincial Emergency Program oversees these volunteer groups. Part of its job is to train ’ “volunteers in minimizing risk to themselves. Ironically, Ms. Sandecki’s ‘‘most dangerous ter- rain in this province”’ in terms of accidents and fa- talities may be the highways and roads the sear- chers use to get to the search marshalling point, not the backcountry where the search takes place. Ms. Sandecki suggests banning twits/jerks from ski hills for life. Good idea, as the accident rate per skier day is higher on the hill than in the back- country, so there must be a concentration of those pesky twils/jerks using the Lifts, right? If the in-bounds accident rate is higher than out- of-bounds (which itis), and lift tickets are pricey in part becanse true idiots sue ski areas because they are unwilling to accept responsbibility for theiz own actions, maybe the real solution is for everybody to become twits/jerks in the backcountry, where it’s stalistically safe to be. Oh darn, backcountry will be closed to everyone, so we'll have to stay at home instead. Hope I don’t slip in the tub. Keep up the good work, Claudette. Love reading your column. Rod Gee Terrace B.C. Treaty a blank cheque Dear Sir: In response to Peter Smith’s letter to the editor (‘‘Residents protected”, April 14, 1999), I expected Mr. Smith and others to say that paragraph 3 on page 217 of the Nisga’a Final Agreement concem- ing taxation does nol pertain to fee simple property owners, I hope this is true and there are no problems in the future on the issue of taxation. But the Final Agrec- ment docs read, “‘persons other than Nisga’a citizens on Nisga’a Lands.” These fee simple properties are ‘‘within’ or **on?’ Nisga’a Lands and that could become a prob- lem. It depends on who is doing the interpreting, Whoever wrote the Final Agreement bad a flare for side-slipping language. Just the fact that the book requires an interpreter is a good indication that it’s written in such a way as to mean anything or nothing or whatever a judge might deem as being correct, Chief Gosnell has given us all good advice: ‘‘read the book through from cover to cover.” At this time I would like to extend my advice, when you finish reading the Final Agreement and if you still do not completely understand it without any doubt then you are signing a blank cheque by voting in favour of the Nisga’a Treaty, ‘Five hundred years from now people might still be going lo court in an effort to gel a legal and binding meaning to problems that might arise fram items that are next to impossible for any one person to get an accurate meaning from. Judges do the best they can and we are bound by their decisions. A treaty that requires judicial deciphering cannot be a good treaty and actually defeats the very purpose of a treaty. Heads up folks, the times they are a changin’ and it’s buyer beware. Lloyd Brinson Nass Camp B.C, Overlaps should have _ been resolved first Dear Sir; B.C. Supreme Court Justice Paul Williamson has given a preliminary ruling in favour of the neigh- boring Gitanyow whose overlapping land claim of 84 per cent in the mid-Nass River was bargained right out of the Nisga’a deal by the negotiators privy to the pact, . It’s been an agonizingly long canoe trip for the Nisga’a, but I wonder how Joe Gosnell and the Crown’s dealmakers could truly say they did their fiduciary top duty to bargain implicitly in good faith, not in isolation, but for the-good of all Nass watershed First Nations? Right up to the Hon. Frank Calder, former Nisga’a leader and Atlin MP, in his landmark case of 1976, Mr. Calder was still clear on distinct boundaries with the Gitanyow, Gitxsan and Tahltans, contrary to those of the above treaty now before the legislature, and eventually the House of Commons, . Even the B.C. Freaty Commission accepted the full scope of the Gilanyow land claim areas in 1994. Logic says it’s doubtful the coastal faring Nisga’a, other than trading and hunting forays, ex- clusively occupied the whole Nass. Now with Justice Williamson’s ruling we have a special federal negotiator, John Watson and the B.C, Aboriginal Affairs minister saying theyll try to resolve this after the fact, that there’s a mechan- ism for dealing with this kind of impasse. Yet we've got a core Gitanyow territory claimed in treatied Nisga’a non-core wildlife management region of the Nass, not a simple co-managed model solution in the leastways, oe I must concur with the Gitanyow’s chief negotia- tor, Glen Williams, Gitxsan’s Neil Sterritt, the Tahitans and other critics that these problems ought to have been dealt fairly and forthrightly on the fronl-end of this process, To bea livable, workable, lasting final agreement, it must be a consensus accomodation of all princi- pal stakeholders’ values (including TNAC) at treaty ‘roundtables, * This treaty is fundamentally flawed for several reasons, Joe Gosnell and the Crown’s reps, the con- Summiate politicians, know this to be so, Crafted surreptitiously in poor faith, being unwilfully put to ratification, ‘it bodes thunderhead columns of om- nipotence to all Canadians, as it looms now. Gerry J. Bloomer Lakelse Lake B.C. Money doesn’t reach grassroots natives Dear Sir: MLA Helmut Giesbrecht says the cost of the Nisga'a Treaty is fair and affordable, The cash transfers to the Nisga’a total $312 mil- lion over 15 years, with Canadian taxpayers outside of B.C. paying 70 per cent of the costs, Each British Columbian will contribute $1.60 per year over the next 15 years, adds Mr. Giesbrechit. I do not belong to any political party, but the Reform Party of Canada’s report and its figures are more the truth. I’ve always held the view that what the First Nations native leaders are now calling Crown Lands and Indian Reserves as their Aboriginal Title, should be returned by Indian Af- fairs to the descendants of the original inhabitants with a cash settlement. They should then pay their taxes to the provincial government. There is no equality between native leaders and the general aboriginal public — the descendants of the original inhabitants — when it comes to dollars. Are the people going to pay taxes to their own Nisga’a Government? We have been told by reliable sources in the Gitksan area and, yes I am Gitksan and a very proud one, that when the Nisga’a deal is imple- mented, every aboriginal group in B.C. will have “self government’. Those who do not live on reserve when self-government arrives will be left out forever. Federal government Indian Affairs program fund- ing for job creation ‘‘on Reserve’? are for the ‘‘First Nation native leaders” and their chosen few. The poor are kept poor and will be poorer, this meaus aboriginal people are forced to live in a cost- ly cycle of poverty and dependency on Ottawa. The Minister of Indian Affairs is kept in the dark on many issues that concern the real ‘‘rank and file’ Indian peopte. We are used on a per capita basis in Ottawa as part of a money-making scheme. By the time the money reaches the rank and file, none is left. Mary G. Dalen Cedarvale B.C. Docs should take two aspirin and shut up Dear Sir: The recent week of reduced activity days by doc- tors (if they were workers this activity would be called the spring break strike} raises questions. There are 15 full time general practitioners and 18 specialists in Terrace; assuming each G.P. sees 25 patients per day and specialists see 5 patients per day the five day strike would have accounted for more than 2,300 visits. This number in itself is astounding considering is represents 10 per cent of greater Terrace or well . over 100,000 visits per year at $57,00 per visit. It is known that hospital emergency rooms see more patients during doctor’s strikes. Anecdotal evidence shows about 40 per day or 200 for a week. What is intriguing to this Labour Council is what about the remaining 2,100 people. Since there are no statistics showing mortality in- crease one must draw the conclusion that a vast number of doctors visits are unnecessary. Only patients with long term illnesses can sched- ule visits two weeks into the future. The rest it would appear fall into the following categories.: 1. Patient: “My nose is running, I must see the doctor,” 2. Doctor: ‘‘Come back in two weeks and tell me if you feel better.”’ 3. Doctor: ‘You must see me before you can see the specialist.” - 4, Doctor; ‘Come in and renew a prescription. you have used for years.’’ 5. Doctor: ‘You must see me for a referral slip for your lab test — and come back so that I can tell you the results of you test,’’ Etc, ctc, ete, The combination of the public's unnecessary visits and B.C, doctors’ procedures (that if they were workers would be called featherbedding) ” results in millions of dollars lost to hospital beds, nursing staff and in general to the people who really need health care. Ray Raj, vice-president Kitimat-Terrace & District Labour Council About the Mail Bag Letters to the editor can be malled to the Terrace Standard at 3210 Clinton St. Ter- race, B.C., VaG 5A2, You can also fax let- ters to us at 250-638-8432. Or you can emall your letter to us at standard@kermode.net Name, address and phone number Is re- quired for verification. Violent kids don’t belong in our schools Dear Sir: What does it take for a student to get ex- pelled from school in the Coast Mountain School District? J ask because of two separate incidents that have happened in our schools this ear, The first. happened at Thornhill Elementary School on January 11, 1999. An eleven-ycar-old student held a large folding hunting knife within inches of another eleven-year-old’s throat, Luckily this incident was brief and no physical Injuries occurred. The student was given an indefinite suspension, On =~ February i, 1999, this student was back at school at Thornhill Elementary. The sccond incident has happened recently ai Clarence Michiel School. A student with a knife was threatening an- other student, The principal stepped be- tween them and the student threatened the princlpal with the knife. Several concemed parents told me about this incident. Luckily again, there was apparently no injuries. Unless there is a double standard for how long a student is suspended for threatening a principal or teacher with 4 knife, this student should be back in school in the near future. One must look at the policy of the Coast Mountain School District. The purpose of the District Code of Conduct is to: Mi Provide a safe and positive atmo- sphere in all schools. Wi Maintain a school environment that is free of harassment, racism or prejudi- clal behaviour, violence or intimidation, possession or Use of Weapons, possession or use of liegal substances, a The School Act also says that children have the right to be safe at school. As a parent [ would like to’ know how the school board can provide a safe and positive atmosphere in our schools and protect our children when studenis who commit a serious violent act are allowed back into school. When does a student get expelled from school? Does a child have to be seriously hurt or killed before that will happen? Parents who are concerned for the safety of thelr children at school should call the principal, call the school board, ‘call your elected school trustee. Ask the principal what {s their policy of violence arid how does fic deal with it, -Ask the school board and the trustees why kids who use weapons at school on our children are allowed back into the school. Parents should attend parent advisory council meetings at their school, attend at the school board meetings. Ask ques- tions, gel answers. Voice your concerns. Parents have ihe right to have a say in what goes on In our schools. School boards do not have the right to take chances with the safety of our children by letting these violent kids back into otlr schools. - : _ Brian Shack | Terrace B.C.