Re: “Polak created sewage impasse,” editorial, July 13.
Your Sunday editorial hits on a problem that seems to plague politicians — re-election. You rightly point out that a politician voting for a sewage treatment site would likely not be re-elected, but that presupposes that a politician’s priority should be re-election and that voters are too shallow to reward politicians who do the right thing. Is this really the underlying problem?
We certainly see it nationally in North America, where opposition to term limits supports the contention. Remember what happened to Joe Clark when he did the right thing in a budget. Having said that, I agree with the votes against the McLoughlin Point site, which were principle-based.
Regarding the specific issue, since scientists point out that the one-size-fits-all Canada-wide regulation for sewage treatment is designed for inland rivers, not our specific situation, and we meet the parts of the regulation relevant to our tidal situation, have our local politicians approached Ottawa to get an exemption?
I remember being informed a few years ago that some coastal jurisdictions in North America have been granted exemptions to inappropriate national regulations. If so, what grounds were given for not providing exemptions and are they valid? If not, why has Ottawa not been approached?
With the likely cost overruns, this could be a billion-dollar project that we cannot afford when we are on the hook for all but $500 million, or so.
Roger Love
Victoria
