as

of
i

aa

a

a

ie
al

Me
Nyt

ff

cat

§

' a)
:
pi
‘Be

Eee

Hci Wheat ashe ahiny

ileal Bia ts

VICTORIA — It certainly has not taken long for the

conflicting attitudes within the New Democratic

Party to spill over into the public eye.

One can easily imagine the battles — er, intense |

discussions —-behind closed Cabinet: doors on how

_best to handle the current health-care crisis,
‘Lined up on one side are those ministers deter- -

mined to hold the line on increases in wages — not
just for the Health Employees’ Union members, but
for all public sector employees.

This group — let’s call them the Hawks — o

believe that giving in, or being seen to. have given in,

to the HEU’s demands now, is the road to political

Hell.
After all, ifthe Harcourt government lets another
(unbudgeted) $80 million or so go to the HEU, then

there would have to be a few hundred million dollars
“more for the B.C. Government Employees’ Union,
and then more millions for CUPE and municipal
workers and so forth.

: The Hawks want: to draw a line in the. sand to

show where they believe the giveaways must stop.
They. gay. that caving in to‘organized labour’s terms
will ruin the improving relationship between the
government and business, big and small. ©
_ .. On the. other ‘side of the line are the. fervent.
advocates of the NDP policy. calling: for aggressive
- implementation of pay equity. - a

{They are allied with the ministers whose lifelong .
political: stance has been so solidly left-of-centre that. .
“any prospect of an NDP government forcing workers
to. return to-work, orto accept binding arbitration:
against. their will, sticks in the craw,.so to speak.“
_o#This second grouping we'll call the Doves. They

argue:that “the new generation of New Democrats’

must. not forget - ‘the former _ Generation; nor the

partys roots,

_ «They maintain. that concerns over. any extra cost.
to: the taxpayers. should be superseded by the issues.
of greater importance —— fairness to women,’ and:

more rights, money and power for all workers. -

q Terrace Review — May 1, 1992

If ever Premier Mike Harcourt’s reputation for
being a consensus builder is to be tested, it is now.
How he can satisfy both sides within his own caucus
and Cabinet, I don’t kriow. Chances are there will be
some bitter and unhappy little MLA puppies in the

_, fold, regardless of the outcome.
_, But do keep in mind that many of the candidates
_in the October election who became NDP MIAs were-

personally recruited by the Premier and: his. hench-
persons for their more centrist stance, rather than
for being rabid socialists. . .

Those MLAs may be called upon's ‘soon to support .

- Mikey, either by backing the Hawks’ position, or at
_ least to create a middle ground. -

Whatever you do, do: not underestimate ‘the
importance to the NDP of how the HEU dispute is
settled. The manner of that settlement could seal the

‘government’s fate, one way or the other i in the next .

general election. .

The Harcourt government would be wise to end
the appearance of stonewalling and pussyfooting
around on the issue of who paid Moe Sihota’s —
damage payments in. the. Peter Firestone‘case.

‘Faithful readers may recall that the fallout from
the Bud Smith ‘sex, lies and audiotapes. scandal of
July 1990 led to Mr. Firestone, a Victoria lawyer,

-initiating action for' defamation. against, former

attorney-general Smith.
Tapes of Mr. Smith’s car radio-telephone conver- _

- gations showed that he and one of his: senor sub--

ministers . had spoken: disparagingly ‘about Mr.
Firestone. |
‘The Victoria lawyer also included Mr. Sihota ag
a third party in his case, because it was he:(Sihota)
who made the tapes available to the.media, thus _
putting the unkind comments into the public domain.
‘The whole Firestone case was settled out‘of court,

’ with him receiving some damages. (Some. of Mr.

Sihota’s court costs in the-case were paid by the NDP

caucus, back when they were still i in opposition. The -