__ BRITISH COLUMBIA

_ Paper ‘heats up cold war’

Continued from page 1
_ “We feel that the white paper relies on
_ Cold war rhetoric instead of the language of
“detente to make its points and that it will

- €Xtend, rather than help end the arms race,

which threatens the security of all nations.”

_ Incalling for public hearings, those sign-

ing the telegram emphasized that EAR and
_ Its affiliates “want to participate in the pub-
lic debate process.”

Since it was released’ in June by Defence
Minister Perrin Beatty, the white paper has
drawn criticism for the stridency of its cold
war rhetoric and for its repeated emphasis
on the “Soviet threat” and the need for
Canada to participate in the arms race by
devoting more federal spending to weapons
acquisition.

But the paper is based on a false assess-

ment of what the real threat to Canada is, a
retired colonel in the Canadian Armed For-
ces told reporters Tuesday.
_ “The primary threat to Canada is the
threat of a nuclear war — and the most
likely cause of a nuclear war is not an attack
from the Soviet Union but an inadvertent,
accidental beginning,” Col.Norman Hoye,
a member of Veterans against Nuclear
Arms, told the press conference.

_ He noted that the paper spoke exten-
Sively about the consequences for Canada
“should deterrence fail.” “But if deterrence
fails, Canada’s defence policy would have
failed because this country would be des-
troyed in a nuclear war,” he emphasized.

“The policy of Canada should be to seek
actions that will prevent nuclear war. But
there are none in this paper,” he said. “In
fact, the proposals increase the danger of a
nuclear war because they increase the con-
frontation and therefore increase the possi-
bility of an accident.”

He added that the equipment proposal in
the white paper is a “completely inapprop-
riate proposal which: will waste money. and.
increase confrontation.” ;

Gerow also challenged the spending
proposals in the white paper, warning that
further military spending would “take its
toll of other sectors of the economy.”

*

James Foulks.

He cited figures to show that while the
federal government is proposing a 4.4 per
cent in defence spending for 1987, it is cut-
ting back the budget of Employment Can-
ada by 6.32 per cent over the same period.

“Pursuing a policy that takes money
from other programs is doing more harm to
the welfare of Canada than any threat off-
shore,” he said.

Several speakers cited the return to cold
war ideology and solutions which underlie
the policy laid out in the white paper.

“The paper is full of old ideas that have
become extremely dangerous,” said Carole
Christopher, pointing to what she called the
“visionary impotence” of the paper’s
authors.

They propose “militaristic solutions” to
the world’s problems,” she said. “They’re

_part.of the, old. faith that says, that.more...

weapons will solve our problems —and gerous and unstable world,” he said.

they won't.” ;
“This paper is written in “oldspeak,”

REV. DON GRAYSTON ... with (I to r) Col. Norman Hoye, Carole Christopher, Dr.

WALK for
PEACE

al,

Citing comments made 30 years ago by
U.S. President Eisenhower that military
spending is theft from the poor, he said:
“What we have here is a proposal from the
Canadian government that we steal from
the poor of this country in order to heat up
the cold war.”

Youth representative Graham Cook told
the press conference that the Mulroney
government had betrayed young people
who are looking for secure jobs and a peace-
ful future.”

He pointed to a recent McMaster Univer-
sity study which showed that other than the
loss of a parent, the greatest fear for 85 per
cent of young people was nuclear war.

“But how does the government counter
those fears — by putting forward a defence
policy which is aggressive, narrow-minded

“This is not what young people are look-
ing for. Young people are calling for a

Rev. Grayston told reporters. “It should be —_ peaceful Canada whose policies will con-

399

called ‘heating up the cold war.

tribute to a safe and secure future.”

Rules on pesticide use overdue

By Calvin Sandborn

When is Victoria going to take steps to
Set pesticide residues out of your dinner
vegetables?

The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency now claims that pesticide pollution
's the most urgent environmental problem
In the United States. According to Steven
Schatzow, chief of the pesticide division for
the EPA,” pesticides dwarf the other envir-
Onmental risks the agency deals with.

“The risk from pesticides are so much
Sreater because of the exposures involved,
he stated. “Toxic waste dumps may affect a
few thousand people who live around them.
But Virtually everyone is exposed to pesti-
cides,”

Twelve years ago, the B.C. Royal Com-
Mission on Pesticides pointed out that 3.4
Per cent of B.C. produce contained unac-

Ceptably high levels of pesticide residue
— and the commission suggested a simple
remedy that Victoria continues to ignore.

The commission found that the major
Cause of high residue levels was the misuse
Of pesticides and the ignorance of the people
applying them. It recommended that all

atmers pass a pesticide proficiency examl-
Nation before being allowed to spray Pol-
Sons on to our food supply. Just as drivers
Must pass a driver’s exam and barbers must
Pass a barber’s exam, a farmer would have
‘0 prove that he or she: _

® Could read the pesticide label;
lef new the proper way to dispose of

tover pesticides and containers;

new basic safety precautions;

e Knew how to adjust the spray rig to
avoid overspraying the poisons on to
crops — an important point for consu-
mers.

A similar farmer examination system
already operates throughout the United
States. British Columbia has required non-
agricultural pesticide users to pass such an
exam for several years.

But Victoria has refused to act on the
royal commission’s recommendations for
mandatory farmer certification.

The problem is not academic. Evidence
presented during the 1983 inquest into the
pesticide death of Surrey farmworker Jar-
nail Deol revealed that the man who accid-
entally sprayed poisons on to a nearby
group of farmworkers was: _

e Unable to read the pesticide label;

e Unaware that he shouldn’t have
sprayed while the wind was blowing
towards other farmworkers;

e Unaware that he should not have been
spraying a crop that was heading for market
that day; ;

e Unaware that he spraying one of

*s most toxic pesticides.
Sonia to identify the chemical that he
the only description the man

was spraying, 4
leas was that the label “had pink
worms on it.” Since he couldn’t read, he

idn’t even know the name of the chemical.
ree of cauliflower headed for market from
the same farm showed extraordinarily high
of pesticide residue. ;
ae. erasst jury investigating Deol s
death called for mandatory certification of
farmworkers who apply pesticides. At

.

about the same time, The British Columbia
Medical Association and the Consumers’
Association of Canada (B.C. branch) also
recommended the same thing. Later that
same year, a tripartite committee of
farmers, farmworkers and Workers Com-
pensation Board staff agreed on a compre-
hensive set of pesticide regulations, which
would have included a requirement for edu-
cation and certification of pesticide spray-
ers.
But for the last four years, the
WCB — under pressure from farm empl-
oyers who are fundamentally opposed to
the idea of any kind of government
regulation — has delayed implementing all
such regulations.

However, the demand for pesticide regu-
lation is growing. Most recently, the farmers
of Saskatchewan, recognizing the threat to
their own health, have endorsed the concept
of mandatory certification of agricultural
pesticide applicators. In April, 1987, the

national pesticide manufacturers’ associa- —

tion, the Crop Protection Institute of Can-
ada, issued a statement backing the same
kind of requirement.

How long is Victoria going to allow
totally untrained people — some of whom
can’t even read the warning labels on pesti-
cide containers — to spray poisons on to
our food supply? Victoria requires a licence
for people who want to spray Vitalis on to
your hair — shouldn’t it do the same for
people who want to spray Captan on your
berries and nerve gas on your lettuce?

Calvin Sandborn is staff counsel for the
West Coast Environmental Law Association.

TRIBUNE PHOTO — SEAN GRIFFIN

oe

Gov't urged
to acton
GAIN ruling

The lawyer who successfully argued
in Supreme Court that the Socred
government is guilty of discrimination
in paying under-26 welfare recipients
less than those over the age of 26, has
called on Victoria to move imme-
diately in paying recipients the benef-
its to which they are entitled.

Richard Gathercole, executive dir-
ector and general counsel for the B.C.
Public Interest Advocacy Group
which handled the court case, called
last Thursday’s decision by B.C.
Supreme Court “an important victory
for welfare recipients.”

B.C. Supreme Court Justice John
Spencer ruled Aug. 6 that the section
of the GAIN regulations which pro-
vides for under-26 recipients to be

- paid $25 a month less than those over
25 was in contravention of Section 15
of the Charter of Rights and Free-
doms.

Accordingly, he determined, that
section of the regulations “is of no
force or effect.”

At the same time, however, Justice
Spencer ruled that the same section of
GAIN Act was not in violation of the
Charter to the extent that it distin-
guished between ‘“‘employable” and
“unemployable” recipients, as lawy-
ers had argued.

The court challenge was based on
the case of 21-year-old John Silano
who was referred to the advocacy
group by the Vancouver Unemployed

The B.C. Human Rights Council
had earlier declared July 9 that the
Ministry of Social Services and Hous-
ing’s practice
of lowering
benefits for
those under 26
was discrimin-
atory but failed
to order any
remedial act-
ion.

But with the |
SupremeCourt | —
decision deter- coms
mining that GATHERCOLE
Section 4 of the GAIN Act is “of no
force and effect,” the government will
be compelled to take some action.

That will affect not just recipients
under 26 but others as well since the
section impugned by the court
reduced the benefits of all recipients
for the first eight months of eligibility
but reduced those for under-26 recip-
ients by an additional $25.

“As Section 4 has now been
declared to be of no force and effect,
all recipients affected by this section,
not just those under 26, are entitled to
increased benefits,” said Gathercole,
adding that the government should
now take steps to pay recipients the
amounts owing. That includes retro-
active benefits.

Both Attorney-General Brian Smith
and Social Services Minister Claude
Richmond have declined comment on
the ruling. A formal statement was
expected from the government some
time this week.

Jean Swanson, co-ordinator of
End Legislated Poverty, warned ear-
lier that the government may seek to
reduce all welfare rates as a means of
meeting the requirements of the court
ruling,

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, AUGUST 12, 1987 e 3