6 - Sunday, February 24, 1985 - North Shore News

Editorial Page

News Viewpoint

Our renewal

HE PROVINCIAL government has

| come through with its long-promised

second ‘‘R”’ -— renewal — and while it

remains to be seen’ how the words of Premier

Bill Bennett wiil-bc translated into legislation

and policy, encouragement can be taken from
some of what has been presented.

It was during the last provincial <lection
that the three R’s first surfaced. We needed,
we were told, restraint and renewal in order
to achieve recovery. To date, we have seen
much of the former and the time for the lat-
ter two is past due. —

In his speech, Premier Bennett spoke of
the need for a new partnership in order to
attain renewal and economic recovery. If in-
deed, a partnership can be achieved between
the provincial government, the federal gov-
ernment and the people they serve, it will be
to our credit.

That partnership, however, grows out of
discussion and consensus and implies a flex-
ibility on all sides. Renewal will not grow
from confrontation.

If Preinier Bennett speaks of a partnership
based on that .necessary flexibility, we in
B.C. can present a united front and general
agreement on building the province that we
want. |

Lf this new partnership, however, is based
on the attitude that ANY of those involved
in it know all the answers — and the ‘‘only’’
answers -— we are doomed to continuing
confrontation, ‘distrust and hostility and
renewal wiil remain nothing more than a
promise.

A fine state

ACK HEINRICH, our highly-visible
education minister, may have hit upon
the solution to filling the province's
badly-dep'sted coffers with his decision to
“fine” the Delta School board $300,000 for
, overspending. Perhaps there are others who

‘call be-fined as well — starting with MLA’s -

“who ; after nine days of sitting, have just given
- themselves not tonly a raise in pay but 10 days
off. .

Display Advertising 980-0511
Classified Advertising 986-6222
-Newsroom 985-2131
Circulation
: Subscriptions 985-2131
1139 Lonsdale Ave., North Vancouver, B.C. V7M 2H4
- Publisher Peter Speck
. Marketing Director
Robert Graham

Advertising Director
Dave Jenneson

worth: ‘shore |

news

fig
SUMDAY + WEDNESDAY + PMDAY

Operations Manager
Berni Hilliard
Circulation Director
Bill McGown
Editor-in-Chief
Noel Wright
Display Advertising Manager Production Director
Mike Goodsell Chris Johnson
Classifled Manager Photography Manager
Val Stephenson Terry Petets

North Shore News, founded in 1969 as an independent suburban
newspaper and qualified under Schedule It, Part itl, Paragraph Ul of the
Excise Tax Act, is published each Wednesday. Friday and Sunday by
North Shore Free Press Ltd. and distributed to every door an the North
Shore. Second Class Mail Registration Murmber 3885. Entire contents
© 1985 North Shore Free Press Ltd. All rights reserved.

Subscriptions, Notth and West Vancouver, $25. per year. Mailing rates
available on request,

No responsibility accepled for unsolicited maternal including
manuscripts and pictures which should be accompanied by a stamped.
addressed envelope.

Member of the B. C. Press Council

'§5,770 (average, Wednesday
Friday & Sunday)

SR"

THIS PAPER IS RECYCLABLE

spa DSON

986-1337

A study from Mars _

WwW

ARNINGS ARE BEING SOUNDED |
that too cosy a relationship between
business and government means hard

times for the man on the street.

By TONY CARLSO:

Dire predictions of class
warfare, based on a citizenry
made fearful and insecure by
this ‘unholy alliance’, have
spawned calls for expanded
social services, the na-
tionalization of banks, more
and larger Crown corpora-
tions and so on.

One study blames the
government for kowtowing
to business at the expense of
education, day care, nursing
homes, you name it. It calls
for the public sector
postal workers, teachers,
bureaucrats and the like —
to be the central component
of ecnomic recovery.

That -kind of thinking is
strictly from Mars and about
as close to reality as the guy
who bet the farm on Ottawa
Rough Riders winning the
Grey Cup.

One can and should ques-
tion the basic assumption

Letter of the da

that there is a close bond be-
tween government and
business. But that’ is a sec-
ondary concern..

More important is to put
to rest this concept that
more government spending
is the solution. to our
malaise. Common sense tells
us that the/already burden-
some deficit will not shrink
if government continues to
spend more than it brings in.

The hard reality is we no
longer have the luxury of
making social policy without
considering the economic
facts of life. ; .

Because markets, pro-
ducts, technology and so on,
change 5 quickly these
days, the ‘best response is to

¥.

NOEL WRIGHT
ON LEAVE

be flexible enough to adapt.
‘Adapt or die’? is not an
empty catch-phrase. We
either welcome change by
adjusting to the worldwide
entrepreneurial revolution or
we will be overwhelmed: by
it.

This does not mean a
return to the free-for-all that
produced sweatshops an
child labor, as some would
charge. [nterventionists do
not have a monopoly on
compassion. Rather, the
average Joe would be better
served by Jess government

_intervention and more

business innovation.

A wise observer has said
that ;
consider three trade-offs
when making decisions: effi-
ciency vs. equity; private vs.
public sector; decentraliza-
tion vs. centralization.

In times like these, when

policy makers must”

adaptability. is ‘paramount,
the scales should tip in favor
of efficiency, private sector
and decentralization.

Put another way, the
balance must be struck be-
tween adjustment and secu-
rity, although there is really
no choice: in the long run, if
we do. not adjtist there will
be no security. :

Is it credible, then, that
the monolithic public sector,
encumbered with militant
unions, can move swiftly
and ‘decisively enough to
lead the way?

In theory it seems unlikely
and in fact, research by the
Canadian Federation of In-
dependent Business has
shown that small firms are
the most flexible, creating a
majority of the new jobs
even in the toughest times.

Asking the government to
spend more will create no
jobs, Ask them to spend less
including fewer
business-oriented| program
and bailouts — and pass the
savings on in the form of tax
cuts.

That's how to stimulate
demand.

School turmoil sparked by union

Dear Editor:

With reference to your
editorial of January 23, the
present outbursts of criticism
of the provincial government
policies on funding for
education must be recognized
for what they are, a well
financed and orchestrated at-
tack by the B.C. Teachers’
Federation and its allies.

The reductions in educa-
tion spending are not severe
and this can be shown by
comparing the cost of
educating cach pupil in North
Vancouver over the past few
years with figures supplied by
the North Vancouver School
Board:

198] - $2,802 an increase
of 18% over the previous

year.

1982 - $3,347 an increase
of 19.5% over the previous
ear, ‘

1983 - $3,595 an increase
of 7.4% over the previous
year.

1984 - $3,642 an increase
of 1.2% over the previous
year.

1985/6 - $3,341 a decrease
of 9.0% from the previous

year.
After three years of
Government restraint, che

cost of educating a pupil in
North Vancouver is the same
as it was in 1982.

Much ado is being made of
the increase in the pupil
teacher ratio, bul again com-
parisons with previous years

show little change. From
September 1983 to September
1984 the increase in the
pupil/teacher ratio in North
Vancouver was from 17.1 to
18, an increase of 5%. Witha
pupil/teacher ratio of 18 to 1,
it is now claimed, by the
Teachers’ Union that class
sizes of more than 35 pupils is
not uncommon. This
discrepancy in numbers can
only be attributed to poor
management and gross ineffi-
ciency in the system.

The critics of the New:
Democratic party are very
vocal in their opposition to
the increase to eighteen
pupils for every teacher but
in 1975, the last year that the
NDP were government, the

pupil/teacher ratio in North
Vancouver was 18.73 to I,
higher than it is today.

in view of the anti-
government sentiments ex-
pressed by the Teachers’
Union over the past few
years, the present turmoil in
the school system is not unex-
pected. The financial state-
ment of the B.C. Teachers
Federation shows @ sum of
$591,819 allocated for
“Legislative Counter At-
tack’? for 1984. A sum of
$694,960 was used for this
same purpose in 1983. For
the Teachers Union and its
allies, this would appear to be
money well spent.
Ernie Sarsfield
North Vancouver