Today I was listening to a Prince George resident on CBC Radio who (to me) was not pleased with the Liberal government's decision to no longer fight the pipeline going through your area.
We import oil via one coast, use oil to live, and people do not want it to go through B.C. and the reserves. It seems to this writer that you cannot have it both ways.
Do you want jobs to feed your respective families, or how about the taxes you will reap from these projects? Yet it seems to always boil down to not in my back yard.
A few weeks ago, a roughneck spoke in Parliament about how all he wanted was a job, so that he could live and enjoy the Canadian dream but that eludes him due to the economy. In short, sometimes you have to listen to the other side, instead of just voicing your demands and not allowing the other side to speak. That seems to happen every time this topic is brought to our attention.
Why cannot this issue be argued fairly, without one side marching into board meetings and yelling their demands without the other side being drowned out?
People need jobs and cars need oil, so no matter what you want to say, you can voice your thoughts all you want. Just please let the other side speak, so that a fair debate can happen. As who pays these people's bills, who lights their universities (and with what - oil, natural gas?) and how do they get around (plane and/or car)?
How is the paper they write their slogans on made, how are their writing implements made, how are medicines made?
It takes energy and I do not see anyone (in the short-term) giving up lighted and warm residences to block a pipeline. So please think when you barge into a energy meeting to disrupt it and consider the other person's point of view, and maybe how their respective clothing was made (i.e., energy from oil?).
To be clear, I am also a peace activist, belong to Greenpeace and Amnesty International, and I believe in aboriginal self-government.
Mike Cue
Morinville, Alberta
