RON FENWICK

FENWICK, DAVID SCHRECK, MARZARI ...

VRB board and management holding firm against Bill 65.

—Fred Wilson photo

Anti-Bill 65 groups unite
to stop abolition of VRB

The massive protest against the
Social Credit government’s at-
tempt’ to kill the Vancouver
Resources Board has apparently
forestalled second reading of Bill
65, allowing opponents of the
legislation time to unite forces and
make plans for a continuing
campaign to save the VRB.

“The citizens of Vancouver have
displayed their resentment,” VRB
chairman Ron Fenwick com-
mented to the Tribune this week.
He was referring to the series of
protest actions highlighted by the
mass meeting in Vancouver that
drew 600 people, and by last week’s
demonstration in Victoria of more
than 400 VRB supporters.

Reaction to Bill 65 iS “gathering
momentum,”’ Fenwick said. “‘One
would have expected the protest to
sputter out, but on the contrary it is
growing. It is truly amazing.”’

The groundswell of opposition to
Bill 65 is not really so ‘amazing’
considering the anti-democratic

and regressive features of the
proposed legislation.

In addition to the cutback in
services that will come with the
scrapping of the VRB, the
dissolution of the Board will add to
the centralization of powers in the
hands of the provincial govern-
ment. “It’s akin to the abolition of
the Vancouver School Board by the
ministry of education,’ Fenwick
charged. ‘‘How many people would
stand still for the wiping out of the
School Board,’ a VRB press
release asked this week. ‘The
ministry of health could wipe out
the Vancouver General Hospital
Board. It is even possible for the
ministry of municipal affairs to
eliminate a municipal council. We
must ask, what is next?’’

The B.C. Federation of Labor
andthe three unions that represent
employees at the VRB also asked,
“Are you next?’’ in large
newspaper advertisements placed
in Vancouver dailies this week.

The Federation has reacted to

Transit system funding

still the pressing need.

By ALD. HARRY RANKIN

The Greater Vancouver
Regional District (GVRD) was 10
years old last month. During that
time it has taken over respon-
sibility for hospitals, sewers and
water services, air pollution,
regional parks and housing. Two
other services handled regionally
but not by the GVRD are library
services by the Library Federation
and public health care by
Metropolitan Health Services.

The GVRD has also undertaken
planning for the region and has
come up with a Liveable Region
Program aimed at establishing a
number of regional town centres
and determining where in the
region growth should take place. It
has, however, no authority to
enforce its planning decisions
which, at this stage, is probably a
good thing.

I think the GVRD has performed
a useful function during its 10 years
of existence for the 17
municipalities and electoral areas
it serves and has done a reasonably
good job in the fields for which it is

responsible. Electing its directors
by popular vote in municipal
elections rather than having them
appointed by municipal councils
was a big step forward.

The GVRD should be responsible
for regional transportation in-
cluding the establishment of light
rapid transit via a regional trans-

portation authority. But so far it:

has not been able to arrive at any
suitable agreement with the
provincial government that would
include provincial sharing of the
costs of a regional transit system.
The provincial government doesn’t
mind handing over B.C. Hydro’s
bus system (which annually runs
in the red) to the GVRD, but it
doesn’t want to help out finan-
cially. That, of course,
pletely unsatisfactory.

All municipal councils and
citizens should continue to press
for provincial financial aid (and
federal too) to establish a good
regional transit system including
light rapid transit. Each year it is
postponed just adds that much
more to the cost.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JULY 8, 1977—Page 2

is com-—

the union busting implications of
Bill 65 by calling an emergency
conference of affiliates for July 8.
The legislation is particularly
significant for the trade union
movement as it wipes out union
contracts and certifications.

The joint council of VRB unions,
the Federation and the B.C.
Association of Social Workers
moved quickly this week to
establish an ‘‘ad hoc committee
against Bill 65.’’ Union representa-
tive Pat Colford says that a “war
chest” has. been established to
finance advertisements, bumper
stickers, buttons and other
materials for the campaign in
support of the VRB.

Meanwhile community resource
board representatives and other
supporting groups have also taken
steps to establish an all inclusive
committee to oppose Bill 65. A
broad range of organizations in-
cluding the CRBs, labor and
political parties are expected to
join in the work of the committee
when it is founded on July 11.

Community resource boards
have already taken steps to
produce a tabloid size leaflet
supporting the VRB that will be
distributed widely throughout the
city. Organizers expect 50,000
copies of the leaflet to be used.

The Downtown Eastside
Residents Association, a vocal
opponent of the legislation which
has played a key role in organizing
opposition to it, will rally support
for the VRB at a public meeting in
the downtown eastside on July 7.
Darlene Marzari will be the
featured speaker.

Vancouver city council last week
voted eight to two to back the VRB.
Mayor Volrich voted against the
majority, but later changed his
position to favor the VRB
remaining as an “advisory board.”’
Alderman Harry Rankin blasted
the mayor’s statement, labelling it
a “‘cop out.” “If its authority is
taken away,’’ Rankin said, ‘‘the
VRB may as well pack it in.”

“Our position is clear,” Fenwick
added, when questioned by the
Tribune about a possible advisory
role for the VRB. ‘‘We want Bill 65
withdrawn and the VRB left in-
tact.”

In the meantime the VRB will
continue to function, he said, with
the VRB and community resource
boards meeting as usual on July 13
at the Ironworkers Hall in Van-
couver.

Costs of

Bill 33

‘misrepresented

The Ad Hoc Committee to Op-
pose Bill 33 has charged education
minister Pat McGeer with

“grossly misrepresenting”’ the
amount of money that would be

given to some private ,schools

under the terms of Bill 33.

In fact, according to the figures
outlined by the author of Bill 33 and
education department consultant,
Jim Carter, private schools that
qualify for the third level of fun-
ding under the legislation could
receive an amount in excess of
their actual operating costs since
grants would be based on present
operating costs in the public school

- system.

The financing formula outlined
by Carter stands in startling
contrast to the explanation of the
legislation given by education
minister McGeer who has avoided
discussion of the actual per-
centages involved in the three
levels of funding and has insisted in
the House that support will be
“something less” than that given
public schools.

Carter, who wrote Bill 33 for the
provincial government, made his
remarks at a Board of Trade
luncheon last week to which
Carter, Federation of Independent
Schools Association lobbyist Gerry
Ensing and B.C. Teachers’
Federation president Bill Broadley
had also been invited to present
their views on the disputed
legislation.

The Board of Trade has ex-
pressed some concern over Bill 33
because of McGeer’s claim that
funds would come from so-called
“new money’’ and because of fears
in the business community that
business might be. the source of
funds through new methods of
taxation. . i,

They voiced new concern
following Carter’s specific outline
of percentages amounts involved
in the three levels of funding
specified by the bill.

According to Carter’s figures
those schools which apply and
qualify for Group 1 funding will
receive 20 per cent of operating
costs not including teachers’
salaries. Those which qualify for
Group 2 funding will receive an
additional 50 per cent of operating
costs this time including teachers’
salaries.

Those schools which qualify for
Group 3 funding, Carter noted, will
receive an additional 10 per cent —
for a total of 80 per cent — of
operating costs.

In each case, the eGSiatine

’ cost’’ figure on which percentages

are based is the per pupil operating
cost in the public schools in the
district in which the applicant
private school is located.

If the private school applying for
funding is in Vancouver, for
example, the percentage of fun-
ding would be based on the public
school per pupil operating cost for
the school district of Vancouver.

Based on the 1977 per pupil cost
in Vancouver of $1,695, a private
school in Vancouver which applied
and qualified for Group 3 funding

would receive 80 per cent of $1,699
or $1,356.

However, since teachers’
salaries in the private schools are
substantitally less than those in the
public school system, t h e amount
received by the private school
could conceivably be in excess of
its actual operating costs — a fact
which has raised new questions
about Bill 33.

Opposition to the legislation also
mounted considerably since the
second reading of the bill June 13.
Some 40 organizations, including
the BCTF and the B.C. Federation
of Labor, signed their names to 4
brief presented to the Social Credit
caucus last Wednesday by the Ad
Hoc Committee to Oppose Bill 33.

The brief, which called for with
drawal of Bill 33, warned: ‘‘Bill 33
would be a divisive act; education
would become a matter of col
tinuing political controversy ove!
the extent of aid to private schools,
their restrictive admissiol
practices. Attempts to revoke Bill
33 in the future by a different
government would result in serious
constitutional problems.”

The delegation in Victoria last
week won a pledge of support from
the New Democratic Party caucus —
which gave full backing to the aims
of the Ad Hoc Committee and
stated its intention to oppose the
bill in principle in the Legislature.

Education minister McGeer an
private school lobbyists have als0
found an unexpected opponent if
former Social Credit premier W. A.
C. Bennett.

Bennett, who, throughout his
years as premier resisted all
demands by the private schools for

‘public funds, stated in an interview

with radio personality Gary
Bannerman that he was standing
by his principles on the issue and
could not support Bill 33.

GAIN points
win support

The Greater Vancouvel
Regional District last week vot
to support the six-point program t0
improve GAIN rates that was
rejected by human resources
minister Vander Zalm when he
met with concerned groups at
Vancouver City Hall two weeks
ago.

The GVRD voted 35 to 14 to el
dorse the proposals after Brucé
Eriksen of the Downtown Eastside
Residents Association present
the program to its June 29 meeting:
The six proposals (listed in last
week’s Tribune) were drafted bY
DERA and other recipient group> —
and have since won wide publi¢
support.

The six point program has als?
won support from Vancouver City
Council, the Vancouver Resources
Board, the Vancouver Labo!
Council, the B.C. Association of thé
Disabled, the B.C. Association of
Social Workers, the B.C.
Federation of Labor, the Com
munist Party and the Committee of
Progressive Electors.

—

Maurice Rush on vacation

~ IRIBUNE

Editor - MAURICE RUSH
Assistant Editor SEAN GRIFFIN
Business and Circulation Manager — FRED WILSON d
Published weekly, at Suite 101 — 1416 Commercial Drive,
_ Vancouver, B.C. VSL 3X9. Phone 251-1186

Subscription Rate: Canada, $8.00 one year; $4.50 for six months,
All other countries, $10.00 one year
Second class mail registration number 1560