1 thought on “A question for our community     ”

1. Kelli Dejong September 19, 2025 at 9:06 am

   My reply is in bold lettering

   Rob: For months I have tried to figure out how to address the festering pain in our community that has grown out of the unanswered name change question. 

   My Reply: First of all, it is not for you to address.   As long as there is a one-sided push from Tlaamin to accept a new name without question – there will be conflict.

   I have asked various people and discussed it at length with some; how can we get this conversation started again?    They care as deeply as I do about our community and our mental health.   Apparently, no one I know on any side of this picture wants to approach it directly any more.  A lot of hurt has happened.   There are at least three camps representing at least three distinct viewpoints, probably more.     Years now of hurt, frustration, and disappointment have sent most of us into corners, far from talking, but I am convinced, talking is the only way through.

   Our community deserves a fair and inclusive process on the name change discussion. It is important that all voices be heard, not just one side of the debate. A clear, simple ballot question that includes the option of keeping the current name would show respect for the full range of views. True reconciliation and unity come from open dialogue, transparency, and ensuring that no one in our community feels excluded.
   As I see it, after engaging my friends and family in discussions, there are many reasons for people to strongly resist a name change and those reasons are not going to change.  

    1.  Attachment to tradition – Many feel strong ties to the name they grew up with and see it as part of their identity.

   2.  Fear of losing history – Some worry that renaming erases the settler history or stories tied to the existing name.

   3.  Cost concerns – Updating signs, maps, business materials, and government records can be expensive.

   4.  Discomfort with change – Change can feel disruptive, especially when tied to cultural or political debates.

   5.  Political or ideological opposition – Some see renaming as “political correctness” or feel it unfairly rewrites history.

   I thought to bring this to council.   Council could discuss Strategic Priority 1-2: “Take substantive steps toward reconciliation with Tla’amin Nation, by engaging the public on the topic of a name change, including a possible new name, leading up to a public opinion poll timed with the 2026 municipal election.”    It doesn’t say we will hold a referendum in Oct. 2026 to ask, yes or no, do you want a name change?    However, when the deadline comes to commit to what can be included with the election vote, it would be disingenuous to simply say no we can’t do a poll if we haven’t by then made a genuine attempt to “…take substantive steps… by engaging the public…”.   That means us.   That means talking.   Talking is how we engage. 

   It’s disingenuous to omit a clear Yes/No question on renaming Powell River. Offering only name choices but not a “no change” option favors one side and fails to represent all taxpayers. If council won’t include that simple question, they shouldn’t claim to speak for the whole community.

   It is clear to me the original question “will you consider a name change?” can’t be answered by a simple yes or no.  If it could be, it would have been, long ago.  That it caused such strong reactions from both yes-supporters and no-supporters strongly suggests deeper questions must be asked first.      Both yes and no leave a lot of people out.   Leaving people out is not how community works.  We need to face it.  We are in conflict and conflict is never actually resolved by winning or losing.

   You say community means including everyone, yet you voted for council’s Procedure bylaw changes that shut people out of decision making.

   Deeper questions?    How many of us have tried to figure out what they are on our own or with friends?  Nothing is resolving.   We’re quite stuck in our positions.   We need to break the logjam we all seem to be in.    Might that be possible if we got yes-camp people facing off with no-camp people?   Could that happen without just hurting each other more?  

   Using a term like “facing off with” is confrontational and fuels discord instead of fostering understanding and unity.

   Who has what it takes to step beyond personal beliefs, and face others who possibly believe the opposite, and talk about it.  Can our community be more important than our beliefs?   Could this work for us? 

   Whose beliefs are being prioritized here—the Tla’amin Nation or Powell River taxpayers? Most people have already made up their minds and no longer join the discussion. Outcomes can’t be forced; they have to be chosen by the whole community.

   We’re all here.   I don’t know anyone who doesn’t love our home, this community.   We have that in common.   Instead of fighting, lets find a way to talk and find our way through this mess together.  

   I don’t see fighting as much as I do

   For a community already divided, many people feel a name change could deepen the rift, rather than heal it.

   I myself would prefer focusing on building relationships with Indigenous neighbors in other ways first, before addressing the symbolic but highly charged issue of renaming. 

   A word not usually heard in discussing this issue is compromise. Tlaamin is just wanting to remove a name they (rightly or wrongly) associate with Powell River but can they compromise.

   Although a name change is highly symbolic, the harder work of reconciliation—such as land use, shared governance, or economic partnerships should matter more.   They are longer lasting and hold many benefits for First Nations people.  A name change doesn’t do much.

   After all, focusing on symbolism will distract from deeper, more practical steps toward reconciliation.

   LikeLike

   Reply ↓