MAIL Box
Lynn Vailey core plan
was an expensive hoax

Dear Editor:

The redevelopment of the Lynn Valley Core
is well on the way to becoming another disaster.

It follows on the heels of “Seymour” and the
“Mausoleum,” to mention but two other such
recent expensive blunders.

Like Seymour before, preparation of the
Lynn Valley Community Plan cost the taxpayers
hundreds of thousands of dollars and 10 thou-
sand volunteer hours. After much deliberation,
the public consented to a higher density core
provided it would be pedestrian oriented rather
than gez them only more traffic, more pollution

; and more Noise.
Ise the rtunity to enhance the quati
of life ‘was the motto. wo
supgeste ested that we proceed in a comprehen-
we rather iecemeal fashion. 1 argued not
. only for a i site for the new library, but
.also for a conimunity centre for seniors, youth,
childcare, the arts etc. It should also include a
full size swimming pool at the Karen Magnussen
site,
~ Since we don’t have what it takes, we should
ask the developers to put up the” money in
. exchange for higher density. Higher density we
will get anyway since rezoning to that effect has
already taken place or is allowed in the commu-
nity plan.
: The key element is. s the pedestrian oriented
town centre. It may be necessary. to conipletely

rethink the existing traffic patterns in and
around the Lynn Valley Mall. The traffic care
should be put before the horse, ! suggested.

It behooves council and district management
to put the necessary changes into place before
any kind of development begins. This might
include rezoning to prevent the kind of com-
mercial development (box stores) which relies
on regional car traffic.

The municipality certainly has the power to
do so. But, either deliberately or out of incom-
petence, this was not donc.

The result is that the developers once again
beat us to it.

The applicants presented a proposal which
will see two large box stores in the mall that can
only survive provided they get regional business.
The inevitable byproduct will be the very things
we wanted to avoid, more traffic, more pollution
and less green space.The promise made to the
people of Lynn Valley has been sacrificed. This
was also the case in Seymour except there it was
done for the sake of a large chemical company.

The questionnaires, complete with the nice
conceptual drawings of people sitting on bench-
es sipping coffee an¢ relaxing in an oasis of green
space, was nothing more than a hoax more or
less. Ir cost the taxpayers plenty but it was a hoax
just the same.

Ernie Crist, Councillor,
District of North Vancouver

string of sequels to a horror
movie? How long will it be
before the North Shore is lit-
tered with these abomina-

(Reader... ‘dis,

rth “tions?
tarbed by.charnel knowledge,

Joseph Ww. ‘Hind
- North Vancouver,

- NORTH VANCOUVERG

North Vancouver residents,

look for your NVRC
“Summer Leisure Guide

_ with your North Shore News .

_ Wednesday, April 26.

‘*. Once you have your guide you may
_ register { for any advertised NVRC | program

P ning, ng and
general care of the.
most North Shore

fiendly plants

60 Mountain Highway,
loth Vancouver 985-1974

(Look for. Playcard details)

--987- playi7529)

ww, northvanrec. com

* Unfortunately though,

Wednesday, April 19, 2000 — North Shore News - 9

E ted white, mp. advertonal, April 19. 2000
| A NEW IMMIGRATION ACT

As you may already be aware, on
April 6th the Minister of Immigration,
Hon, Elinor Captian, introduced to
Parliament a new immigration and
Refugee Protection Act, Bilt C-31. 1 took
the time to read through the 102 page
Bill during my flight back to Vancouver
on Aprit 7th, but | was disappoinied to
discover that the Minister's claims to
be getting tough on abuse of the
system did not match the realities of
the new Act.

CLOSING THE BACK DOOR?

In her media release, the Minister said
she is “Closing the back door to those who
would abuse the system", but Clause 3
(3)(d) of the Act states “This Act is to be
construed and applied in a manner that
ensures that any person seeking
admission to Canada Is subject to the
Standards, policies and procedures
consistent with the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms". Unfortunately,
the words | have underlined can only be
interpreted as meaning that Charter
protection is being extended to people
OUTSIDE OF CANADA. This in turn will
ensure that our embassies and missions
abroad get flooded with appeals of any
refugee and immigration decisions they
have made. {i represents a dream come

true for lawyers and bureaucrats, will.
1 dramatically increase the opportunities for

abuse, and wil! probably lead to a host of
new patronage appointments to the
Immigration anc Refugee Board by the
Prime Minister. Bottom fine - you pay.

In addition to granting Charter rights to -

people who are not even in Canada, the
Act broadly expands the UN definition of a
refugee, making our.country an even

f easier target for abuse at a time when

most other Western nations are working to
tighten up the UN definition. Germany
recently decided that cluimants who had
passed through some other safe country,
but who continued on. te Germany, would

fot be accepted. as refugee claimants.”
Canada though, continues. to accept

refugee claims at. our. borders even

though. almost all of those claimants:

had to pass through at least one other,
safe country on the way here. Claimants
on flights from Haiti, for example, have to
pass through the USA, while claimants
from the Middle East, India, Pakistan, or
Sri Lanka, have to pass through Frankfurt

1 and/or Heathrow, making it blatantiy

obvious that Canada is a chosen
destination rather than a first place of

escape from persecution. Unfortunately,’
Clause 91(1) of the Bill specifically states’
‘that “A claim for refugee protection

may be made outside Canada or in
Canada", vihich is an open invitation for
queue jumpers and criminals to jump on a

flight destined for our country, so that they”
can take advantage of our generous social .
programs - welfare, free medical care, free. .
dental care, a place to live, and legal aid. °°
These three components of Bill C-31

are enough to ensure that Canada

PENALTIES FOR ABUSE.

During several media events

Minister took great pains to explain that |
the. legislation creates severe: new.
penalties, fines of up to $1 million, and fife .
in prison, for people smugglers and those...
humans.. e

trafficking in
there are” no

caught .

minimum penalties -specified for these

offences. Couple this with the fact that no -:
_ have disappeared, the majority are
; under, deportation order, and: only 8
every reason to believe that those same. - y
judges will simply continue to hand cut:

judge has ever. actually applied. the
existing maximum penalties, and there is

: criminals, if -
“assessment”
remains the. number. one. target: for:
| human traffickers, criminals, and queus-

jumpers. This is not "closing the back’
door. to those who would abuse the”
system", it is ripping the door right ott ;
the hinges.

minimat sentences. in 1999 for example,
the highest penalties imposed were ten
months in jail and a $3,000 fine, while
sentences as low as 24 hours in jail have
been recorded. The Minister could
easily have built minimum penalties
into the Bill, penalties designed to act
as a REAL deterrent, but she didn't.
Quite apart from the meaningless
nature of the increased penalties in the
Ministers new Bill, finding and catching
the trafficxers is almost impossible. They
operate mainly outside of Canada, while
the mid-level organizers in Canada are
protected by organized crime rings. It
would have been much more effective to
simply eliminate any right to make a
refugee claim at a border entry point, and
to require all claimants to apply at our
embassies abroad, or from recognized
United Nations refugee camps, where
screening has already been completed.
This was the way we used to do it, and it
worked well. Even Mobina Jaffer, a well
known Federal Liberal who ran against me
in this Riding in 1993, and who was herself
a refugee, was admitted to Canada after
applying for entry at one of our embassies,
and was opposed to the acceptance of
refugee claims at our border entry points.

AN EVEN WIDER FRONT DOOR

The Minister has announced : the
expension of the "Family Class", even
though most Canadians fee! that we are’ {

already too generous in this area. The Bil-}.

increases the age of a "dependent child”
from 19 to 22, adds same sex partners as
a family class, and opens up new adoption

provisions.

Family Reunification is also being
“facilitated", despite widespread public.
opposition to expansion of this class. The.
Minister is creating an “in-Canada" landing:
class for sponsored spouses and partners, . j
exempting sponsored spouses -and
dependent children from consideration as

‘to whether they will place . excessive :

demands on health or social. services,

allowing persons as young as 18 years i
age to act as sponsors, and exploring , the:
possibility of using guarantors - to: allow:

the low income cutoft requirements..

A WASTE OF PAPER.
After waiting at least a decade for the
Government to respond to the concems: Of:
Canadians about’ an ‘out: of: ,contro

inenigeation system, the Minister's Bill is

punishable by. 10 years or more in

and if they nave actually receiv
sentence of 2. years or more.: “Rejected.
claimants can stili make a new: ciaim

“pre- rey are
determines : that
punishment they would receive

“home country would constitute

unusual... Punishment b

those documents.
You can write to the ‘Minister,

again, at The House of Comm

Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OAG6. H

may want to’ mention: ee of 4

’ Chinese refugee ‘claimants who arrive

on boats in BC fast summer, around 80