} t | |

“VA oe a ws

ewe eee TT

The latest Vietnam casualty

—Seattle Post-Intelligencer

‘Dynamic Society’ has hollow ring

By JAMES BEYNON The people of B.C. were subjected to a three-ring circus in the Legislature which would have been

- funny if it wasn’t our money, lives

and government that the Socreds and the “Dynamic” Mr. Bennett were Playing with.

; Mr. Bennett is building his dynamic society’’ in B.C. oblivious to the needs of the majority of British Columbians, but keenly aware of the needs of the monopoly Mterests which he serves. In building his “Dynamic Society” or a safe harbor for monopoly interests

ennett does it on the backs of the People,

«qt 8reat indictment of the “Dynamic”? Mr, Bennett and his Merry men were the figures given ne by N-D.P. Member of ature Tom Berger that in B.C. < are 70,000 on Social Assistance eee a further 60,000 on ; mployment insurance, a Ombined total of 130,000 people.

When you consider that this

» hundred and thirty thousand people

BYE families and dependents, the oe rises for those living on Social

SSistance and Unemployment aeanes to around 450,000 or 22.5% e a total population. For a family a, ae a man, wife and child, — = g the rate on unemployment

Uurance is a little higher than on

Ocial assistance — it is still under a month.

na ees cost of living how far

ne 00 go for a man and wife who

aos $125 on Social Assistance or

ithe ee unemployment insurance, or

és See person who can receive up

bee on unemployment insurance, On social assistance?

These figures destroy the myth

at Bennett has propagated of a

ete Society’. The Victoria

Sue has dramatically

effected this myth to those not

aa of the demonstrations and ins at the legislature.

th

ae Campbell, the Honorable (?) Fiver | Minister, stated he was not lie. by the demonstrators and the 8ht of thousands who live in

eer Much like Marie Antoinette,

n the poor of France were

ees _ Starving and had. not even bread to

eat,

vshe said “‘let them eat cake.”

The ‘“‘Dynamic’’ Mr. Bennett and his merry men should learn from history, for the callous Marie Antoinette got her head chopped off during the French Revolution.

Ina province as richly endowed as British Columbia is with natural resources it is criminal to have people living on social assistance and Unemployment Insurance. Our oil and gas resourees provide the basis for a vast petrochemical industry; the coal and iron ore for a steel industry; and the great forest industry for finished wood products. A government with the interest of the people at heart would see that these secondary industries were

developed.

But Mr. Bennett and the Socred government dance the tune of the

monopolies who find it more ’

profitable to keep B.C. a storehouse for raw materials which are exported and the finished products are imported.

, The people of B.C. are seeing |

through the lie of Bennett’s “Dynamic Society”, for they are being increasingly victimized by the controlling monopolies with rising unemployment, mass suffering, higher cost of living, and the loss of liberties with measures such Bill 33.

VICTORIA — The last act in a dramatic series of protests against provincial welfare allowances made a dramatic impact on MLAs last Wednesday when a protest took the stage at the annual posh banquet for MLAs staged by Premier Bennett at the Empress Hotel’s Crystal

Ballroom.

-As MLAs started to bite into their juicy steaks four men and two women invaded the banquet hall, marched across the stage with placards reading: “15,000 mothers and children are hungry,” “Stamp out poverty in B.C.,” and ‘Campbell says ‘let them beg.’”’

Since March 12 a group of Victoria welfare recipients, mostly mothers, and some social welfare workers, have staged sit-ins, and sleep-ins outside the legislative chamber, seeking higher welfare payments and other improvements.

:

RPF

KIDS WILL SUFFER

Socreds shift school

burden to home owners

By NIGEL MORGAN

Amendments to the Public Schools Act, introduced in the Legislature this week, have been devised to get the Provincial government off the hook for financial responsibilities it doesn’t want to accept, and to shift the growing burden onto local ratepayers throughout B.C.’s 88 local school districts.

While the full impact will not be known until the new system is applied later this year, this is the main feature that stands out from a preliminary examination of Bill 86. Noteable is the fact that it repeals all former statutory restrictions on the extent to which the Provincial government can shift the incidence of school costs from the Provincial treasury to local homeowners and ratepayers.

The, provision that the basic Provincial grant to School Boards will cover 50 percent of total basic educational costs of the Province is eliminated. So is the proviso that the standard mill rate applied to taxable property for school purposes shall not exceed 18 mills.

The new amendments replace the existing formula for determining school costs and calculating Provincial grants, substituting one based on annual changes in ‘‘pupil enrollment’”’ and the previous years “approved operating costs’. Local school boards are to have greater responsibilities forced on them in determining and raising the revenues necessary for school operations. School boards will henceforth be a taxing entity in themselves, with responsibility for the separate school levy on the local municipal tax bill.

The new provision for an annual automatic review of basic educational program costs represents an advance, but the arbitrary imposition of a 10 percent limitation on local options constitutes a dangerous infringement on local autonomy to decide the level and standard of the educational program.

***

It is this provision which led a joint

meeting of the B.C. Teachers

Federation and B.C. School Trustees Association to conclude that the new amendments constitute ‘‘A powerful instrument to subject education to centralized, restrictive provincial control, placing School Boards in a straightjacket which the Minister of Education may tighten or slacken at will.’’ They see the proposed changes as threatening ‘‘to destroy local autonomy and impeding progress in education in B.C.”

School Boards are to be given the right to impose additional local taxes to exceed the basic education program — Set by law at not less than 90% of the previous year’s expenditures, But, if they want to exceed by more than 10 percent, they will have to either get permission of local municipal councils, or place a referendum before local ratepayers. Until now referendums have been required for ‘‘capital expenditures’’ only. Inclusion of “‘operating costs” is a retrogressive step that can only serve to retard educational progress.

Inclusion of kindergarten

operating costs (not previously es

shared by the Provincial treasury) is an advance. Similarly the amendment to permit ‘‘resident electors’ (tenants) to run for School Board. However, it continues the

‘unfair restriction which prevents

tenants (whose taxes are included in their rental payments) to vote on school money bylaws.

The new amendments will not

effect determination of ‘capital

construction cost’’ sharing, or

- change calculation of the sharing of_

auxiliary school costs (transpor- tation, dormitories or health serv- ices). Here, where an acute class- room shortage already exists as a result of Provincial government witholding of construction monies, (requiring double-shifting in many areas next fall) — no solution is provided. The Provincial gov't. has the funds to build Columbia dams for U.S. benefit, and to go it alone in building the Roberts Bank superport for the Kaiser-Nippon trust, but nothing for urgently needed school expansions.

_ The Bennett government must not

be allowed to extend the handicap they are imposing on the present school generation at a time when our greatest requirement is for higher educational standards. Public pressure is needed to compel the government to radically change its policy for financing education. Local taxes are already too high. And double-shifting will work a real hardship on students and parents alike.

School Act amendments which do not provide more money for school purposes from the Provincial treasury will not fill the bill. More money has got to be found to meet B.C.’s growing school and college needs, and more money is available if instead of giving away our natural resources the Provincial government taxes the raw materials being exported for processing and manufacture in foreign lands, and base taxation on ability to pay. With a $866 million budget surely the money can be found to provide our educational needs.

‘School Act changes pose threat to education needs’

By JAMES MacFARLAN ‘Vancouver School Trustee Bill 86, the proposed amendments to the Public School Act, is an infamous document. It is designed to destroy local school board autonomy, lower educational standards and place a huge new burden on local taxpayers.

The Socred government seems intent on denying the young people of this province the type of education which they must have. The Bill is part and parcel of a most reactionary government. The attack on labor in Bill 33 and this latest attack on educational needs are closely related. They are the actions of a government which serves the province’s giant monopolies and their U.S. parent companies.

The new education finance formula not only means a cut in educational services and sharply increased school taxes, but like Bill 33, it attacks several basic democratic principles. Just as the right to strike has been fundamental to trade unions, the right of local control has been fundamental to education.

The new legislation virtually prevents local school boards from implementing educational change. Democracy through local control is all but destroyed. All guarantees of provincial sharing to the extent of 50- percent of the basic cost of education in B.C. have been removed. The government could cut its share to twenty-five or thirty percent or less.

: The new formula is a device to hold education costs at the 1967 level or below for the next few years. In

' Classrooms costing more than these amounts although

fact the total expenditure on education in B.C. could be reduced each year if the new formula is rigidly applied. This means that in spite of rapid inflation school boards are expected to maintain or even reduce current levels of expenditure.

The new formula is really step four in a concerted _ attack on education and a freeze on educational projects. Step one was the present construction freeze, step two the new- school building code which reduced the size of classrooms. Step three was the enforced limitation on cost of new construction to $15,000 for elementary classrooms and $22,500 for secondary classrooms. Boards may not build

present building costs are more than double these figures. The new formula freezes overall costs of operation at 1967 levels.

On summary, the sections of Bill 86 which deal with education finance are restrictive and undemocratic. They pose a threat to the educational needs of the people of B.C. They reduce local control and greatly increase centralization while shifting the cost of education more and more to the local level.

It is not too late to stop these dreadful amendments from becoming law. Act now. Phone, wire or write the Minister of Education to scrap these amendments and introduce an updating of the present formula pending a full revision next year, following discussion with school trustees, teachers, PTA members and others interested.

“MARCH 29, 1968—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 3°