BRITISH COLUMBIA ; t ‘ | | peaceful productive purposes. City votes for end of Nanoose agreement At city council’s meeting on Feb. 25, world peace was again on the agenda. This time the issue was the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Range at Nanoose Bay on Van- couver Island, just across Georgia Strait from the city of Vancouver. This test range, while. nominally Canadian, is in effect a U.S. naval test range in Canada, one of the most highly sophisticated anti-submarine test bases in the world. The U.S. Navy provides the equipment, ships, crews, and the training, including the training of Canadians. The base was established by a special type of agreement between Canada and the U.S. in 1965, the details of which have not been revealed publicly. U.S. submarines using the-base are armed with nuclear weapons — cruise mis- siles. They include the Los-Angeles class attack submarines costing $1 bil- lion each. These are first-strike wea- pons, not defensive weapons. Several delegations appeared before city council, including the Trident Action Group, the Langara Students Union and the Nanoose Conversion Cam- paign. They asked council to support the ending of all weapons testing at Nanoose Bay, cancellation of the agreement between Canada and the U.S. and conversion of the test range to Having this U.S. testing base for first-strike nuclear submarines on our west coast is a very serious matter. Aside from the great danger of a Rankin nuclear accident is the fact that this base makes Canada an accomplice in U.S. first-strike war plans. Apparently the Pentagon considers that this is one way of drawing Canada into its spider web, and if an accident should occur, it will be Canadians who will suffer, not Americans. When this whole issue was raised in city council, Ald. George Puil moved that no action be taken. Supporting him were aldermen Campbell, Bellamy and Ford. His motion lost. COPE alderman Bruce Yorke then moved that we urge the federal government to end all weapons testing - at Nanoose Bay, Jervis Inlet and Geor- gia Strait. That passed with aldermen Bellamy, Campbell and Puil voting against. Ald. Bruce Yorke then moved that we urge Ottawa to cancel the agree- ment authorizing the use of the Nanoose Bay Range by American ves- sels. That also passed with aldermen, Bellamy, Campbell, Puil and Ford Bruce Yorke’s final motion sup- ported the conversion of the Nanoose Bay range for peaceful productive pur- ‘poses. That also passed with aldermen Puil and Ford opposed. I think one of the next questions we should tackle is keeping U.S. nuclear armed vessels out of Vancouver har- bor. That is dangerous cargo of the worst kind, much more dangerous even than chemical spills. i oo Petition urges end to cuts Continued from page 1 series of public budget meetings around the city. One meeting on March 3 drew more than 20 groups calling for not only an end to cuts, but restoration of board services. “There were a lot of demands for a re- covery budget, particularly in the areas of English as a Second Language, the return of ESL staff assistants, a reduction in class sizes and more attention to special needs children,” said Weinstein. Speakers, who also called for the return of elementary school vice-principals, the restoration of substitute teachers, increased library budgets and improved maintenance, represented groups ranging from school administrators to mentally and physically handicapped associations. Weinstein said the board faces an $8.7- million shortfall from the government’ s fis- cal framework just to maintain current services. Add three per cent for inflation, and the figure is more than $12 million, she said. “But we’re also considering the amount we'll ask for recovery of lost services — the services our community tells us it wants,” she asserted. To make up the shortfall, school boards David Fairey, Burnaby, writes: At a Dec. 17 public hearing on a rezoning application by Cambridge Develop- ments for a Metrotown-Mega Market development I made a submission to Burnaby Council requesting delay in the rezoning process until a community plan had been developed on the basis of broad public discussion and input. In my submission, I raised again the question of the Metrotown developers being unfairly eligible for corporate income tax relief under the Special Enterprise Zone and Tax Relief Act, because Burnaby last year entered into a Provincial-Municipal Partnership Agree- ment. Mayor Lewarne impatiently inter- rupted my presentation with a comment to the effect that commercial develop- ment at Metrotown had nothing to do with either the Partnership Agreement or the Special Enterprise Act. Similar statements were made by incumbent council members from both the Burnaby Voters’ Association and the Burnaby Citizens’ Association during the Nov- ember municipal election campaign. What this demonstrates is that either the entire Burnaby Council is ill-advised on all of the taxation ramifications of the partnérship agreement they signed with the provincial government, or the pro- vincial government has misled Burnaby council. In either event, the facts reveal that there is more to the partnership agreement than significantly reduced property taxes for industries that invest Burnaby needs public debate on tax scheme in Burnaby. The whole matter of Bur- naby’s involvement in this corporate tax relief scam should be reconsidered by council, but this time it should be done with the full participation of the rest of the Burnaby taxpayers who will have to bear the added tax burden and the unfair business competition. The facts are that Section 21 of the Special Enterprise Zone and Tax Relief Act provides for a five-year tax relief period from provincial corporate income tax (via a provincial government corpo- rate tax refund) to “any company” in a municipality that has only one perman- ent establishment and “has made or intends to make substantial new invest- ment in the place where it has that per- manent establishment,” and the munici- pality where it is situated has entered into a partnership agreement. What this means is that by entering into a partnership agreement, Burnaby council has also decided that “any com- pany” that makes a substantial new investment should be eligible for a pro- vincial corporate income tax refund, and it made that decision without full public knowledge and debate. I suggest that if the Burnaby council did not know these facts it should reconsider its participation in the partnership agreement. If it did know these facts, it has seriously misled the voting public. I am inclined to think the latter is true, if only because the wife of a provincial cabinet minister now sits on Burnaby council. 2 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MARCH 12, 1986 (VINE) — are being asked to be a p “ment education funding and fingers th now have the option of imposing subs tial increases on residential property But the Vancouver board is not eyeing th option, said Weinstein. Instead, the board — and others aroun B.C. — is demanding the return of t industrial and commercial property ta if power boards held before the provincia government imposed restraint in 1982. Quoting figures from board treasui Alick Patterson, Weinstein said that each $1 million added to the government’ fiscal framework, residential taxpa) would have to shoulder a tax hike of $ When commercial and industrial taxes included, the cost to the homeowner is $3 per $1 million, she said. Weinstein estimated the majority boards will be submitting “underfi budgets to Victoria. Taulu agreed, saying such was the pla for most Metro area districts which fi shortfalls. Citing examples, she said Ridge faces a shortfall of $4.5 million; naby, $4.3 million; Coquitlam, $8 mi New Westminster, between $800,000 < $1.2 million; North Vancouver, $3.1 n lion. Other provincial districts such as Ques = face an $8-million shortfall, while George is looking at $6 million worth cuts, said Taulu. Victoria faces an $8-million shortfa lL, the $5 million the district says it needs recovery is included, according to Do Weicker. Weicker, a former school superinte: hired by the B.C: School Trustees Associ tion to monitor the provincial situation at provide an information network, said, “h feeling is that there will be shortfalls all ove the province.” 2 Taulu said the 13 districts on Vanco Island — which are involved in the couver Island Network for Eduat the delegation to Hewitt’s office. Taulu is also circulating throughout th province a petition started in Kelowr Premier Bill Bennett’s home riding, by loc parents. The petition calls for a review of go government for the threatened homeown\ tax hikes. -~ It reads: ‘“‘We feel our school boa should not be forced to levy local t increases to compensate for shortfalls’ provincial funding. a “We request an independent assessmé of the required levels of education servi in British Columbia’s schools and the fi ing necessary to maintain them.” The petition is being distributed. province’s 75 school boards, as teachers associations, parent grou political groups.