Equal chances not shared poverty — CP ‘CANADA ¢ TORONTO — A new Ontario program for education is needed, and the withdrawal of controversial Bill 127 an urgent necessity, states a brief jointly presented to Wil- liam Davis’ Tory Ontario government, by the Ontario and Metro Toronto Committees of the Communist Party of Canada. : The new program should include three fundamental points: 1. Full funding for education from senior levels of governments. 2. Removal of the education tax from homeowners and tenants. 3. Restoration of full local autonomy to the local boards of education, who must be fully accountable to the community. Bill 127, properly known as the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act 1982, aims at removing negotiating powers .for teachers and board members from local boards of. education, and concentrating it in Metro-wide bargaining. Opponents foresee a lowering of standards in many localities. The Communist Party brief was presented September 29 by John Maclennan, the party's Ontario Organizer, to a Select Committee of the Ontario Legislature. “Offering Bill 127 as a ‘supposed solution’ to some of the problems in education, clearly reveals this govern- ment’s attitude to education,’ the brief charges. “‘The Ontario Government has a consistent record of educa- tion cutbacks, which hamper the possibility of a well- rounded education for the youth of this province, from kindergarten through university. ee ‘‘The provincial funding of education... . has dropped drastically. It ranks fifth for provincial funding of educa- tion in Canada,"’ the brief says, adding: ‘‘In the past six years, in Metro Toronto alone, the provincial funding has dropped by a minimum of 13%. This does not sit well with parents, concerned tax payers and teachers in Metro Toronto.”° Growing numbers of them are organiz- ing, it notes, and beginning to work together *‘for much needed quality education programs for our children. “Parents are not being fooled into thinking that this is merely a ‘get Toronto’ bill. It would be more correct to call it a ‘get the standards in education bill’: and those boards who wish to offer a decent standard of education to our children are called ‘out of step’. “Bill 127 is a direct attack on the people of Metro Toronto; it denies to our children a creative, fulfilling and quality education; it denies to the teachers’ federations the right to bargain directly with their employers: inhe- rent in Bill 127 are further financial cutbacks, keeping the purse strings tight in Metro Toronto; and this denies to the children of working people, who do not have financial access to private education, the right to a de- cent education: it denies the tax payers of Metro Toronto their right to have a direct electoral voice in education by placing the major decision-making power in the hands of the Metro Toronto Board, while turning the local boards into mere token operations.” 4 The brief points out that the Communist Party has consistently urged the assumption of full education costs by senior governments which have tax access to the necessary funds. Such funds must be ‘‘transferred by these senior levels of governments to the local school boards in unconditional and statutory grants.”’ Equal opportunity in education should be provided for every child, but not Education Minister Dr. Bette Stephenson’s *‘equal opportunity,”* at the lowest level. “We will not share the poverty,”* the brief says. “The people of Metro Toronto,” it states, do not need to have the major decision of education placed in the hands of the Metro Toronto School Board, which is not directly elected, and which is not representative of all wards and therefore of all the constituents of Metro ‘Toronto. This is undemocratic.’’ Concluding, the brief declares: “The people of Metro Toronto do not need Bill 127. They do need a provincial government responsive to the needs of education, that will realize its obligations to the children of Metro Toronto, and Ontario, and live up to its responsibilities.” Daycare for profit gets) By VIRGINIA THOMSON WINNIPEG — The 700 dele- gates at the National Daycare Conference, Sept. 23-25, over- whelmingly passed a resolution which would take daycare out of the welfare framework and make it universally accessible, publicly funded and available to children 12 and under. The conference was sponsored by. Health and Welfare Canada and the Canadian Council on So- cial Development. Delegates were determined to make sure this was an ‘‘action’’ conférence and that its recommendations would not lie buried in the base- ment of some. government office, like those from the last National Daycare Conference in 1971. Resolutions were passed which if adopted by Ottawa would greatly increase the federal government’s role in funding daycare. Immediate legislation is needed to provide for a federal child supplement of $5 a day to every licensed or supervised centre for every space in an ap- proved not-for-profit child care program. Provincial governments were called on to match such grants. _ slammed at Winnipeg meet | The conference also urged that federal monies should be avail- able for start up costs, including capital outlay for non-profit, community-based daycare. Heated discussions took place around the issue of non-profit daycare. The majority of dele- gates were adamant that public funds not be applied toward pri- vate centres, because it would only encourage the growth of daycare for profit. The majority of delegates felt that daycare should be a public, non-profit service just as schools and hospitals are: The conference also called for the immediate establishment of a Parliamentary Standing Com- mittee that would make. recom- mendations leading to a National Daycare Act. Such an act, the conference proposed, would cover universal accessibility and set Canada-wide standards for daycare in consultation with other groups and organizations. A steering committee, based on provincial representation was formed out of the conference to publicize the issue of daycare and to help mobilize people across the country. = Students hit with back taxes ‘ure to deal with the issue of trans’ Conference workshops . deal! with accessibility and afford) ability, programming, special needs, parent involvement, dif ferent models of daycare services| staff training and benefits, includ| ing the need to unionize daycale) workers. _ A major shortcoming of thé conference however was its fail- ferring the need funding for day’) care from the monstrous $7-bil lion military budget. While n0 resolution was put before the cot ference, many delegates wert seen wearing the buttons issued by National Action Council of the Status of Women which read: “Let the generals hold bake sales.’’ Withthe burgeoning peacé movement in this country, these: delegates were showing the kind of priorities the people of Canada | want to see applied to the spend- | ing, by governments, of their tax dollar. 2a Virginia Thomson is president of the Congress of Canadian Women, a daycare worker and shop steward in Local 79, Cana dian Union of Public Employees | in Toronto. Special to the Tribune LA RONGE, Sask. — Students in the Options North training program’of the province's Depart- ment of Northern Saskatchewan are being asses- sed by Revenue Canada with up to three years’ back taxes, contrary to the understanding the stu- dents had. A committee established to fight the retroactive taxation says that **54 former and current Options North students are facing garnishees”’ of as much as $500 a month from their incomes, and in some cases personal bankruptcy. ‘‘This will result in tremendous hardship for many ‘families,’ state Earl N. Cook and Keith Goulet, who are part of the committee. “The Options North Program was a training program designed to aid students from northern Saskatchewan in improving their qualifications by furthering their education,’’ says a statement by the committee. ‘‘This (was to) enable them to be- come active participants and contributors to northern development. “Students were given assurance that the allow- ances they were receiving through the Options ‘North Program were non-taxable,’’ it points out. **Three-and-one-half years later, Revenue Canada. decided that these student allowances were in fact, taxable. **The students wanted to pay taxes,’’ committee member Anne Dorion told the press. ‘‘But we were told if we did, it would make us.employees of DNS. We also wanted to set up a trust fund, but were told that wasn’t necessary,”’ she said. The committee says that students ‘‘filed income tax returns with no objection from Revenue Cana- da. In the fall of 1981, Revenue Canada reversed their initial decision of 1978. Student tax returns were re-assessed and students were notified that taxes were owning for periods of up to three years. **As aresult of advice given to program sponsors by Revenue Canada officials, students feel they are the victims of a bureaucratic error,’’ the committee states. It is reported that some may ‘‘owe’’ as much as $3,000. The deputy minister in charge of Saskatche- wan’s northern development department told the press his officials had an informal agreement with Ottawa. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—OCTOBER 15, 1982—Page 8 NAS - E820.