  |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
FF_Canuck
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
  
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| I don't think they're even selling 'land managment'. I suspect the most they would propose would be putting up some services for tender, really. Having so camp sites run by private entities, or entry fees collected by the same, is not going to change the fundamental nature of our national parks. At any rate, arguing about this is pointless until we can see if anything is actually being proposed. |
|
|
|
 |
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mac wrote: | | Bleatmop wrote: | | I prefer they remain government employees. |
Why? What possible difference could it make... other than paying a CUPE wage & benefits package versus private wages & benefits?
-Mac |
To your question of Why?, I answer accountability. I think your other questions and comments have been adequately been answered by other posters since you posted your question, and I agree with them. TO has explained my thoughts on accountability.
I understand that a Libertarian philosophy thinks that the Government should own no land, yada yada yada. I've come to realize that I'm not much of a libertarian. I do think the government should both own and operate these lands, for the reasons I said in this and all my previous posts.
I also think that there are some jobs that the government does better than the private sector. Park employees are ambassadors of our nation to the rest of the world and they are one of these cases. I think having them be government employees is in our best interest. As far as them getting a CUPE wage and benifits, I did say before that I don't consider cost to be an issue when it comes to our national symbols. In fact, I want them to be well paid professionals that would have something to lose if they lost their job rather than being employees that could go to the local convenience store and make more money. Not to mention that actually living in areas like Banff is very expensive, and they need a high wage just to maintain a minimum standard of living. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FF_Canuck wrote: | | I don't think they're even selling 'land managment'. I suspect the most they would propose would be putting up some services for tender, really. Having so camp sites run by private entities, or entry fees collected by the same, is not going to change the fundamental nature of our national parks. At any rate, arguing about this is pointless until we can see if anything is actually being proposed. |
Agreed. We should wait and see how this plays out. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Privatization of National Parks |
|
phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB |
|
