Anglican bishop’s march was justified
Re: “Bishop leads march to legislature in support of Wet'suwet'en,” Feb. 12.
“An Anglican bishop sides with anarchy,” letter, Feb. 15.
The criticism of the bishop, who stood in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en in their dispute over the LNG pipeline, is unjustified. The letter-writer stated that the hereditary chiefs have no legal standing, but he is wrong.
Elected chiefs were imposed on First Nations by the Indian Act of 1876, after colonists seized Indigenous land and applied their own system of land ownership. This made elected chiefs responsible for the band community only. The hereditary chiefs represented clans within each nation long before us white people came to North America.
First Nations had no concept of land ownership, but each hereditary chief was responsible for protecting the territory for succeeding generations.
This remains unchanged since the Supreme Court of Canada recognized Indigenous title to the larger land in 1997. The government then neglected to negotiate a treaty on this land.
In the dispute over the LNG pipeline, the government negotiated with elected chiefs, ignoring hereditary chiefs.
They also ignored the fact that the proposed pipeline does not run through a single community over which elected chiefs have authority. Hereditary chiefs even proposed to Coastal GasLink a more environmentally responsible route, but this too was ignored.
This has become a moral and ethical issue, not just political and economic. Bishop Logan McMenamie not only has the right to participate, he has a responsibility to speak out on ethical issues, just like the issue of climate change. I commend the bishop for this.
Geoff Strong
Member, St. Peter Anglican Church, Duncan
We need the royal hereditary chiefs
I don’t understand why people insist Justin Trudeau visit the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs. When the elected Wet’suwet’en band council has no rights but people in position because of heredity do have rights, clearly any elected person will be inadequate.
We need to call on Canada’s hereditary chief, the Queen.
I understand she’s got some family issues to deal with right now so perhaps she could send another unelected, highly qualified hereditary member of the Royal Family like Prince Andrew, who clearly understands the situation in our country far better than any common elected person could. Who knew feudalism would make such a big comeback.
Dave Connell
Saanich
What lies ahead: Anarchy in Canada
The Anglican bishop, in support of a group of protesters who professed to be in compliance of their own laws (which overrides Canadian common law), marches with his flock to the legislature. Poorly thought out!
A legitimizing of this hereditary law, if applied, would bring anarchy to a country that is financially supporting these hereditary chiefs.
If these few chiefs are not willing to be part of the common society which makes up Canada and wants their own laws to prevail, my suggestion is to disenfranchise them from all of the common services they enjoy as Canadians.
David M. Caul
Saanichton
It’s time for this nonsense to end
Apparently as long as protesters promise to block traffic (bridges and ferry terminals) for a defined short period of time, the police are not inclined to remove them.
This is despite the provisions of section 123 of the Motor Vehicle Act which authorizes police to order people to leave the road to ensure orderly movement of traffic.
Protesters may disrupt our lives with impunity in order to impose their views on the rest of us. What’s the good of a passive police force?
The police should do their job and remove the problem promptly when it arises. It’s time for this nonsense to end.
F. Kenneth Walton, Q.C.
Colwood
That’s nice, but what about all those potholes?
I am writing about Coun. Ben Isitt’s criticism of the Victoria Police Department’s actions and comments with respect to the protests at the legislature last week.
In my view, the police acted professionally in balancing the fundamental right to protest, while ensuring the safety of those involved — including the protesters. They are to be commended.
Isitt accused police management of spreading “fake news” and of “mission creep.” Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! If anything, it is Isitt’s mission that has creeped.
The sooner he realizes that the relevance of his opinions has an inverse relationship with his ego, the better we’ll all be.
To quote Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, “know your role” Ben, and fix some potholes.
Paul Lackhoff
Colwood
Big spenders at Victoria City Hall
Re: “Victoria proposal would add 21.5 full-time staff for about $2.3 million,” Feb. 14.
They just won’t quit. The citizens of Victoria emphatically rejected the idea of doubling council’s pay for the unnecessary work they’ve created for themselves, so they’ll hire more staff instead.
The plan works out to $109,523.81 annually per staff member, or $52.66 an hour. That’s pretty high-priced help.
There seems to be no end of ideas to gouge taxpayers and bloat the bureaucracy coming out of City Hall, and of course they are always “absolutely defensible.” What politician would say otherwise?
How long until we can vote these big spenders out?
Frederick Shand
Victoria
Impact of rental units in a condo complex
I live in a bare land strata whose insurance premiums have increased almost 20 per cent even though we haven’t had a claim in 30 years. This apparently is a very modest increase compared to some highrise buildings.
We insure our own homes but common property, which includes wall, sewers, clubhouse and gate are insured through strata fees.
And no, I do not think the government, as it seems some have suggested, should use taxes to cover our premiums.
We have “a no rental bylaw” — all homes are occupied by the owners. In the history of the complex we have not had a request for repairs and annual maintenance refused by owners. We also have the required depreciation reports and follow their direction in maintenance and keeping an adequate contingency fund.
Last year, the government considered not allowing a “no rental bylaw” in our type of strata in order to increase the number of units available for rentals. This would have made an undesirable change in our administration, maintenance, fees and possibly insurance.
I believe much of the cause of skyrocketing premiums in multi-unit condominiums is building deterioration and damage to infrastructure. Owners of rental units often do not approve repairs, in order to keep fees low. The tenants living in those units do not have any input and the owners may not take an interest — it is just an investment.
Builders and buyers need to take the responsibility for their buildings. Tenants often do not have much choice but should be required to carry insurance against damage to building and other units.
Trudy Thorgeirson
Duncan
Virus worries and cruise ships docking here
Cruise season is just around the corner. This is a challenging year for all due to the new coronavirus spreading around the world. Cruise ships have been quarantined in countries far from our shores. Unfortunately, this does not stop the spread from a ship unknowingly taking on infected passengers who have the potential to carry and spread this virus anywhere the ship may sail.
Is Victoria equipped to handle this type of quarantine should this happen at our port at Ogden Point.
Victoria has had as many as 12,000 visitors per day sailing into our city from April until October. What are the chances of someone being infected with this virus sailing into our city? We do not know that answer at this time. Should we bury our heads in the sand and declare no chance at all?
We know these ships leave behind their emissions and foreign garbage. Will they also leave behind a virus that the world is struggling with to control?
Linda Klein
Victoria
Send us your letters
• Email: letters@timescolonist.com
• Mail: Letters to the editor, Times Colonist, 2621 Douglas St., Victoria, B.C. V8T 4M2.
Letters should be no longer than 250 words and may be edited for length, legality or clarity. Include your full name, address and telephone number.
