By John Wilkes

Ms. Gardiner (Beacon Feb 2010), a director of the James Bay Neighborhood Association, concurs with the Vancouver Island Health Authority that the "Gross National Happiness and Gross National Wellness" index is an important measure of socio-economic development.

The recent "James Bay Quality of Life Survey" report and analysis however appears to focus upon only one metric: "Environmental Wellness" - pollution, noise and traffic volume. The important question that James' Bay residents may wish to consider is how to measure the quality of their lives.

In spite of the fact that 85 per cent of the survey respondents expressed satisfaction with the neighborhood in which they live, the JBNA chose to focus its attention on 15 per cent of respondents (approximately 86 individuals out of a total population of 11,200) who feel that their "environmental wellness" and perhaps their "happiness" is being threatened.  

Perhaps readers should examine the purpose of these studies and conclusions drawn:

1. Is there sufficient and reliable peer-reviewed scientific evidence to suggest that alarm bells should be raised about perceived "environmental" and potential negative "health" impacts associated with a working harbour in general and cruise ships in particular?

2. Where does "economic wellness" for example fit into the James Bay "happiness" and "wellness" equation?  

3. Will imposing more stringent regulatory controls, curtailment or elimination of all cruise ships, tour buses, taxis, helicopters, and floatplanes prevent or cure chronic respiratory illness among James Bay residents, or anywhere else for that matter?  

4. Is there scientific evidence to suggest that the "nuisance" economic activities cause and/or compromise the environmental health of James Bay residents?

5. Does "environmental wellness" trump "economic wellness", "mental and physical wellness" as well as "political, social and workplace wellness"?

In short, the public might well ask whose quality of life is truly being considered here?