Reduce boards Dear Editor: The recent provincial initia- tive to reduce the number of schoo} boards is long overdue. The current North Vancouver School District rep- resentation of four district clect- ed trustces and three from the city is both arbitrary and unnec- essary. Most North “Vancouverites. don’t: know or care Where the municipal boundaries are and 10 North Vancouver schools’. feeder zones straddle the lines anyway. One city trustee. has resided in the district for 10 years and _ voters neither know nor care. Furthermore, the: existence af two schoo} boards duplicates : unnecessarily many overhead costs. Let ‘citizens from: Deep Cove to Lions Bay interested in _ serving ‘as trustees put their = names’ forward und may. the best nine serve the interests of ‘North Shore Public Education. - Does Capilano College care _ what. street their individual , board members live on? Richard Walton . *.Former.’ North Vancouver School Board Chairman to Dear Editor: Congestion on the road link to Squamish and Whistler worsens every year, The perennial. question is: what to do about it? There have been studies enough. Now we must act, : David Mitchell, the West Vancouver-Giribaldi independent MLA, is advocating his plan for : new Burrard fnlet crossing and a road cast) of Indian Arm~ to Squamish. This would seem to be the best of all the suggested routes — but only if you accept his premise that a road must be built. This route, fike all the others. would be hugely expensive, require “a great deal of. tree-felling: and earth-moving, and cause great dam- age toa qtite fragile environment. It would:-encourage more and more motor. vehicles to make the trip to Squamish and Whistler and thus add te pollution and global warming. Moreover, such a-road would add to the already critical traffic congestion at Whistler. An editorial ina recent edition of the Whistler newspaper pointed out that at peak points of the ski season, such as Christmas and New Year, Whistler traffic is approaching gridlock. More vehicles there at’ such ‘town inte one huge. eventually tum the scthing park- times ¢ will ing tot, Ne, the real solution to the transportation problem “to Squamish. and Whistler is staring us in the fase — the railway. Commuters from and skiers to Whistler need fast frequent service. This will require upgrading of the-rail-bed, double- tracking, and pood rolling stock with food and drink facilities. Many European ski resorts have only cail, communication, Those who have used this form of transport know ‘how quick, cheer- ful, and relaxing it is. BC Rail has been notoriously unresponsive political pressure to improve its facilities, and sceums interested | only in moving freight and a few summertime tourists, The company must get its act together or be privatized. A_ pri- vate company must have as its mandate: an undertaking 10 ‘start building at once a first-rate pas-_ senger © rail connection — to Squamish and Whistler, as well as the infrastructure to make it safe und accessible. Peter Buitenhuis. West Vancouver Squamish to public and even, Wednesday, December 6, 1995 ~ North Shore News ~ 9 ted white, m.p. advertorial "Bec, 06/95 ~ THE VETO AND DISTINCT SOCIETY Last ‘Friday, December 1st, when 1 wrote this week's report, ° the parliamentary agenda indicat- ed that we would be continuing debate on the Prime. Minister's distinct society and constitutional veto propesals today. You can watch the live broadcast, and the replay, on Channel 58. Despite the very obvious public opposition “to the way. the Government is handling the issue, the’ Prime. Minister.claims to. have widespread support for his motion, which was introduced on November 19, 1995. It reads: “Whereas the People of Quebec have expressed the desire. for recognition of Quebec's distinct society: (1) the House recognizes that Quebec is a distinct soclety within Canada; {2) the House recognizes that Quebec's _ distinct society includes its French- speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition; this reality; (4) the House encour- ages all companents of the legisla: , tive and executive branches of gov: - ernment to take note of this recog: nition and be guided in their con- duct accordingly.” AMENDMENTS In Reform's response. to the motion, Preston Manning proposed an amendment which we believe would’ make the motion more acceptable to Canadians outside of Quebec. The amendment added the following: “(5) Nothing in this resolution ‘shall: (i) Confer or be inierpreted as conferring upon the legislature or Government of Quebec,.any new legislative or.executive powers, pro- “ prietary rights status, or. any other rights or privileges not conferred on ~ thes legislature or government of” any other province: (ii) diminish or be interpreted as diminishing in any way the rights and freedoms of any resident’ of Quebec; (iti) deny or be interpreted as denying that Canada constitutes one nation. 2. -. Reforrn MPs have taken the posi- tion that we will support the motion if, ~and only: ify our amendments .are accepted: by - the’ Government. (3) the’ House undertakes to be guided by | ‘However, even. with the amend- ments,.we believe that the motion . contributes. fittle or nothing to the unification: of the federation, and is an exercise in political futility. - A SURPRISE To our surprise, at the end of ° Preston's speech, when the Speaker of The House would usually conlirm ; the introduction of amendments, he stated “I will take these amend: ments under adulsement and will return to the House no later than tomorrow's sitting, after | have had a look at them.” Untortunately, the Speaker made | no mention of the amendments on - Thursday, so on Friday morning Reform’s: House Leader, Ray Speaker MP asked when we would receive a decision, The Speaker replied that he would get back to us . on the next day of debate, which is today, Wednesday December 6, 1995. | am not an expert on partia- mentary procedure, but this situation of indecision on the acceptability c: amendments is very unusual, to say the least. It also means that at the time of writing | have no idea “whether there. will be a debate on Reform’s amendment. .- CONSTITUTIONAL VETO The veto powers for Quebec were not part of the Prime Minister's Motion, but are contained in Bill C- 110, which was also introduced on’ November 29th. However, after just a few hours of debate on this new ; “Veto Formula” for changing the _ Constitution, the Government ‘arbi- trarily ended the debate by invoking closure. This means that it is now unlikely that Western MP's, including ° Herb Grubel and myself, will be able - to speak against Bill C-110 in the: House. Representation for the West and freedom of speech have been. thwarted yet again by the Liberal - Government. Not that it will make, much * difference. — The.» Bloc Quebecois has already declared that #302. 1200 Lynn Valley Rd © Nosth Vaneou ec, B, Ma 2A2 it will vote AGAINST both the Motion: sand Bill C- =10, :