The Editor,
Re. “McKinnon to gov.: Deny the pipeline” (The Tri-City News, Nov. 18).
I read, with depressing interest, the article in The Tri-City News about rookie MP Ron McKinnon having penned a letter to Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr about the government “lacking the social licence” to proceed with the Trans Mountain pipeline project.
MP McKinnon obviously missed the internal memo that would have told him that the government of Canada is tasked with looking after the interests of this entire country. I remind him that he is part of that government and, therefore, part of that task. This is in addition to his duties as MP for this riding.
I very much doubt he took the time to canvas a representative number of constituents in the riding before deciding to write to Mr. Carr. He is hiding behind whims of the green people and the greed of the indigenous peoples.
He represents a riding of working class people who see jobs and job security with utmost importance. Among these people are highly skilled engineers, technicians and tradespeople who are highly capable in providing industrial growth in all aspects of industry while respecting, maintaining and protecting our environment.
MP McKinnon, you disrespect the majority of your constituents and the interests of this entire country by choosing to question our abilities to successfully manage a project such as this.
You do this for votes and your taxpayer-indexed pension. We do this to continue to carve out a meaningful existence for ourselves.
You have a choice. Be a part of it or step aside.
John Oughtred,
Port Coquitlam
not in THAT inlet
The Editor,
I have sent a letter to commend MP Ron McKinnon on his stand as quoted in The Tri-City News: “It is my responsibility as a member of Parliament for Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam to represent my constituents’ interests in Ottawa, and not Ottawa’s interests in my riding. I take that role very seriously.”
What a refreshing change from our previous representative.
I am not against pipelines in principle but I am categorically against increasing the pipeline capacity going to Burnaby.
Burrard Inlet is a very narrow waterway when considering the number and size of tankers that would have to negotiate these waters under the expansion. Should a spill occur (and it will occur, of this we can be certain), the nature of the product spilled and the geography of the inlet would make an efficient clean-up almost impossible, and would result in immeasurable damage to the environment in the inlet.
I understand that after all the years, the damage caused by the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska is still not remediated.
Also, let’s take a good, critical look at the response, the effectiveness of the containment and the clean-up after the recent sinking of the tugboat up north. So much for our “world-class” response.
So, as quoted in the article, “the health, environmental and social costs are far too great to allow this project to proceed.”
M. Guenther, Port Coquitlam
