be

British Columbia

Child poverty is a real and growing
problem in Vancouver. The evidence is
all around for those who care to see. It
was once again forcefully brought to the
attention of city council by our children’s
advocate, Rita Chudnovsky. Here is
some of the information she presented:

@ In 1986, Vancouver had 52,340
children between the ages of one to 12
comprising 12 per cent of the city’s total
population. Most of them were concen-
trated in the eastern corridor of the city.

@ According to the Canadian Coun-
cil on Social Development, the propor-
tion of families living below the poverty
line in B.C. rose from 8.9 per cent in 1973
to 13.6 per cent in 1986. This was the
sharpest rise of family poverty in Can-
ada. It is estimated that 19 per cent of
families in Vancouver live below the
poverty line.

@ Between 9,500 and 10,000 children
in Vancouver live in families on social
assistance.

@ Twelve per cent of Canada’s work-
ing poor families live in B.C. Of these, 58

_per.cent are couples with children, and 12
“per cent are female lone-parent house-
holds.

@ The shortage of licensed daycare

~ centres is such that the majority of the
daycare children are being cared for in
unlicensed homes.

@ Childcare services in B.C. are
funded by parent fees and limited fund-

raising activities by non-profit operators.

@ Provincial daycare subsidies for
low-income parents do not cover a signif-
icant numberof needy parents; further-
more, they do not meet the actual costs
of daycare.

@ The seven-per-cent Goods and Ser-
vices Tax which the Mulroney govern-
ment plans to implement on Jan. 1, 1991
will not be levied on childcare fees and
will apply to only 50 per cent of pur-
chases. But restrictions on the purchases
are such that many childcare programs
will not be eligible for rebates.

@ Lack of mental health services for
children has emerged as one of the big-
gest gaps in child care services in Van-
couver. Many children develop serious
emotional difficulties later on that
require intensive crisis intervention servi-
ces.

@ Vancouver is in danger of becom-
ing a “childless city” because of the lack
of affordable housing and discrimination
against children in rental housing.

What can or should be done about
this completely unacceptable situation?
The solutions are self-evident.

The province should provide a system
of direct operating grants paid directly to
non-profit daycare operators based on a
per diem rate per licensed space. Seven
provinces already have such a system,
which operates on a cost-sharing basis,
under the terms of the Canada Assist-
ance Plan.

B.C. is not one of them. The B.C.
Human Rights Act should be amended
to prevent discrimination against child-

City rejects action
on Child poverty

ren in housing. Section 215 of our Cov-
enants (the city’s charter) should be
amended to prohibit discrimination
against children in residential rezoning.

The real problem is that incomes in
B.C. for those on social assistance and
the working poor are simply too low. We
need a much higher wage, we need jobs

~ that provide liveable wages and we need

pay equity programs. We need rent con-
trols, the preservation of existing affor-
dable housing (no demolitions until new
units are available), federal and provin-
cial programs for large scale social hous-
ing’ projects, and increases in welfare
rates. Most of all, we need action by city
council and senior governments to build
affordable housing.

The impassioned plea by a group of
mothers voiced before city council by the
Child Poverty Action League should be
taken to heart. They stated: ‘““‘We know
from our own experience that the pov-
erty our families are living with is deepen-
ing. This creates more serious problems
for our children. It is impossible when
you are a mother on welfare or working
for low wages to provide for your child-
ren’s basic needs. Any fool knows that
children need food, shelter and clo-
thing. ...

“Our incomes are too low to raise
children in this city and there isn’t any-
where else for us to go. Housing has
always been a problem, now it’sa disas-

[Hany

ter. There is no decent and affordable
housing for low income parents with
children to move into. We cannot afford
market rents. We note in your report (the
report of the children’s advocate) that
there is concern about the number of
landlords who will not rent to children.
That fact is disgusting but more disgust-
ing is the fact that discrimination is based
on cost and affordability. Stop demoli-
tions! There are too many of our children
whose lives are disrupted because they
keep having to move.

“Safe, decent daycare is beyond the
reach of most of us. This presents enor-
mous hardship to our children. The pro-
vincial government is pushing single
parents with very young children out to
work without that care being put into
place. Too many of our very small child-
ren are being put into danger because of
this. Fight hard for decent daycare. We
ask again that you use a broad interpre-
tation of your mandate to meet the needs
of low income children in Vancouver.”

What was the response of city council
to this plea?

Committee of Progressive Electors
aldermen supported a motion put for-
ward by Ald. Jonathan Baker that $1
million be set aside as a fund to help the
city’s poorest children. The Non Partisan
Association majority voted it down.
Mayor Gordon Campbell, who de-
manded recently that the city donate
$696,000 to Tourism B.C. to spend on
advertising in American papers, also
voted against the city helping out its poor
children.

Continued from page 1

weeks between the time a school district
inserted notices in newspapers about a
proposed referendum and the actual date
of the referendum.

Bill Brown, vice-president of the
BCSDSTA, confirmed in an interview
March 22 that Brummet had told them
of the “cafeteria-style” referendum.
“Instead of going for the whole meal, the
idea is that voters will pick and choose,”
he said.

That “‘cafeteria-style” vote adds fur-
ther credence to charges that the
government intends to use referendums
to cut back on provincial support to edu-
cation and to impose controls on
teachers’ and support staff salaries.

Because of the past record of
referendums -—— those conducted between
1969 and 1972 were mainly rejected by
voters — boards might be tempted to
use the specific item vote in the hope of

Chaos seen in Socred

referendum proposals

- ment’s proposals last week.

getting some items passed. But since
salaries would almost certainly be the
first item on any referendum — they
constitute fhe main bulk of school board
budgets — it would be most vulnerable
to a “no” vote.

At the same time, right wing boards
might use the referendum to win support
for purchase of computers, for example,
while waging a campaign to turn down
the vote on salaries.

That is likely to create chaos, not only
in collective bargaining but in overall
school board budgeting.

“The government is putting the shot-
gun to school trustees’ heads,” said
North Vancouver school trustee Dorothy
Lynas who only learned of the govern-

“Bill 20 (the 1987 legislation by which
teachers formed bargaining associations
under labour law) backfired on the
government — and now it has tossed
the ball over to us,” she said.

2 ¢ Pacific Tribune, March 26, 1990

~

Meeting opens debate
on changes to the CP

The Communist Party’s B.C. provincial
committee declared its support for major
reform and change in the party last week-
end, adopting a 10-page paper which pro-
poses a new name and program direction
for the party as well as changes to its consti-
tution and structure.

However, the paper is a discussion doc-
ument only and as such, will be part of the
debate throughout the party on the direc-
tion the CP should take in light of sweeping
changes in the world and the growing coali-
tion movements against neo-conservatism
in this country. That
is expected to be the
focus of discussion
at the party’s central
committee meeting
in Toronto March
30-April 1.

Entitled The
Communist Party
and A New Decade,
the B.C. paper was
endorsed by the 35-
member committee
with one dissenting vote.

“As we enter a new decade of struggle,” it
notes, “Canadian socialism — like world
socialism — stands at a decisive turning
point. Socialism as a socio-economic for-
mation, as a set of ideas, and as an interna-
tional movement is undergoing profound
change to fuse the goal of the political
power of the working people with demo-
cracy, pluralism, self-determination of
nations and a new world order, which seeks
to. answer human needs and aspirations in
harmony with nature.”

At that turning point, it says, “the Com-
munist Party stands ready to transform
itself and to work for the dynamic streng-
thening of Canada’s left.”

The paper appeals to socialists to work
with the CP in that process and notes that
whatever changes the CP may undergo,
they will be without prejudice to any new
socialist formations which may develop in
the future.

But it emphasizes that a socialist party “‘is
needed to advance socialist theory and pro-
vide forums for its creative development ...

to bea catalyst for political action, to organ-

ize people in their parliamentary and extra-

parliamentary struggles.

“While socialists and social reformers
may participate in, or form governments
based on reform policies,” it says, “‘a party
of socialism is needed that will be dedicated
to winning the political power of the work-
ing people for the purpose of transforming
society.”

B.C. CP leader Fred Wilson noted in his
introductory remarks to the day-long meet-
ing that the paper’s outline of a new pro-
gram was as yet only a brief statement of
general goals.

Even so, it proposes a number of new
formulations including support for en-
hanced economic democracy, electoral
changes to provide for the fullest participa-
tion in a multi-party democracy, and a new
vision of economic development that would
guarantee the protection of the environ-
ment.

It also reiterates the CP’s long standing

commitment to the right of self-determina-
tion for the French-Canadian nation in
Quebec and support for Native rights,
including recognition of aboriginal title and

self-government and settlement of land

claims. —

At the same time, it breaks with the state
socialist model and the single-party state.
“We stand for modern socialism which has
the capacity to harness the technological
innovations -of our society and develop
them in the interests of all Canadians. ..,” it
declares. ““We look beyond the state social-
ist model which has come to an end.”

On the issue of changes to the CP itself,
the paper calls on the party to consider a
number of proposals, including: a referen-
dum on a new name for the party; changes
in election procedures for leadership bodies;
and amendments to the party’s long-
standing system of “democratic centralism”
which would simply affirm the necessity of
party unity, based on majority rule.

The B.C. paper, together with proposals
from other parts of the country, is expected
to be part of a wide-ranging discussion,

‘leading to a scheduled CP convention in

October.