There is precious little to celebrate in the aftermath of an act of senseless vandalism. In the case of the water well damage that occurred in August, municipal property was damaged, but so was the trust the community had invested in a small group of local youths.

Now, in deciding to reveal their identities to the entire community, the four teenagers involved in this vandalism have taken a crucial step towards rebuilding that trust.

Given their status as young offenders, Curtis Horton, Jake Alleyne, Ryker Indic and Gareth Jones had the right to remain anonymous. This choice came from their own desire to be as honest as possible with the community. Since making one very bad decision in August, these four young men have made two good ones.

First, they decided to cooperate with police and the municipality and have already begun to pay back the damage done in a variety of ways. The second is the choice to put pen to paper and sign the apology letter. In and of itself, this action does not make up for their actions this summer, but it speaks volumes about the sincerity of the four individuals involved, and their commitment to Jasper. The Fitzhugh congratulates them.

***************************************************************

Meanwhile, somewhere in a boardroom in central Canada ...

Televised leaders’ debates may not be an edifying spectacle for those involved. The opportunity granted the various parties to directly challenge their opponents’ positions has of late descended into a contest to see who drops the best ad hominem attack. That being said, there is little doubt that the debates do influence the choice of Canadians. 

Given that the debates do make a difference, it is positively incomprehensible that the consortium of Canadian broadcasters responsible for organizing the stand-off in Vancouver this Friday has decided to prevent Green Party leader Jim Harris from participating.

Considering that the Greens were not allowed to take part in the 2004 debates, it was quite impressive that the party managed to earn more than four per cent of the popular vote. The opportunity to have equal time in a debate setting would provide a broad range of Canadians with the opportunity to evaluate what the Green Party stands for.

The reasons cited by the consortium for the exclusion are effectively rebutted on the Green Party’s website.  For example, the broadcasters told the Greens that they could not be included because they did not have official party status. In 1993, however, Reform Party leader Preston Manning participated in debates despite his party having never enjoyed official status.

Even more ridiculous is the consortium’s claim that having five leaders involved would make the process “unwieldy.” Somehow, the five-party debates held during the elections in which the Reform/Canadian Alliance ran as well as the Progressive Conservatives (1993, 1997 and 2000) were just fine.

Ultimately, the consortium needs to be accountable to the Canadian voters and give them the opportunity to see a party that qualified for taxpayer support after the last election. Each vote captured by any party earning more than two per cent of the popular vote is worth $1.75. Canadians are providing the Green Party with more than $1 million dollars. They deserve to have a chance to see what they are paying for.