4 Terrace Review — Thursday, November 12, 1987 ___Editorial Getting the vote out | As the civic election cam- paigns heat lethargically up, somewhat like a kettle that’s been piaced on the wrong bur- ner, it’s becoming apparent that the big draw at the local polls’ will be the Sunday shopping issue. Whichever way the vote goes, it’s going to change the com- munity. Seven-day-a-week, full- bore retailing won’t draw people out of the churches on Sunday. mornings unless they’re on the brink of deserting the flock anyway, but it will put an end to the somewhat refreshingly de- serted streets that Terrace sports on a Sunday. There will be some people forced to work against their will on Sunday, and other workers who will breathe a sigh of relief at not having to jam all their consuming expeditions into a brief, weekday-evening frenzy. Terrace merchants are looking askance at their counterparts in Kitimat and Prince Rupert, wondering who will have the ~ Sunday and holiday opening privileges, wondering if the re- tail playing field in the region will remain level after November 21, and in all probability won- dering if this new regime will be all it’s cracked up to be on the ledgers. There has to be serious doubt whether residents will commute: among’ communities - for the privilege or novelty of a a a a cr Letters to the editor will be con- sidered for publication only when signed. Please iInciude your telephone number. The editor reserves the right to condense and edit letters. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Terrace Review. Goya Terrace Review Established May 1, 1985 The Terrace Review is published each Wadnasday by Close-Up Business Services Ltd. Publlsher: Mark Twyford Editor: Michael Kelly Staff Reporter: Tod Strachan Advertising Sales: Dennis Lissimore Production: Jim Hall, Alvin Stewart, Arlene Wand, Gurbax Gill, Harmindar K. Singh, Linda Mercer, Arlene Gaspar . Office: - Linda A. Copeland, Phillip Musselman ' Accounting: Mar] ‘Twyford, Rosemary McGettigan ' Second-class mail registration No, 6896. All material appearing in the Terrace Review Is protected under Canadian copyright Regiaira- tlon No. 362775 and cannot lagally be repro duced for any reaaon without permiasion of the publisher, Enora and omissions. Advertising is accepted an the condition that in the event of typographl- cal error, that portion of the adverileing space eccuplad by tha erroneous Item wili not be charged for, but the balance of ihe advertise. ment will be pald for at the applicable rate. Advertisers must assume responsibility for er- rors In any classified ad which {s supplied to the Terrace Review In handwritten form. - in compliance with the B.C. Human Rights Act, fo advertisement will be published which die- criminates against a pereon due to age, race, religion, COM, sex, nallonality, anceetry ot place Of origin. 4535 Gralg Avenue, Terrace, B.C. V8G 1M7 Phone: 635-7840 , counts pack a _ tremendous ‘cations connected with this ques- spending money on Sunday, but the question of whether the residents of the rural areas to the north and east, who by all ac- amount of clout in their wallets, are willing to drive the extra miles to Prince Rupert and Kit- jmat for an extra day of shop- ping is one that nobody has the answer to - yet. - Letters to the editor printed in recent issues have given a thor- ough airing to most of the impli- tion, but an aspect of the refer- endum that has largely been overlooked is its election-interest value. There appears to be some doubt that Municipal Affairs Minister Rita Johnston’s three- year term scheme is going to get © continued on page 15 With our premier’s vision firmly locked into maverick mode, life in British Col- umbia promises to be interesting during the next three years. . I say three years because Bill Vander Zalm will be able to return to full-time gardening after the next election, unless he starts behaving in a more rational man- ner, His follies got him turfed out of the smartens up, they'll cost him his present There’s only so much the public will stand for. They may believe in the general Hubert’ Beyer in Victoria idea behind privatization, even though it plays havoc with the lives of some 7,000 families. They may fall for the creative bookkeeping effects privatization will have on the provincial budget. They may even be roped in by the smoke-and-mirror show the premier refers to as decentralization. But they won’t buy his fiddling with the - health care system, Of all the hare-brained ideas the premier has come up with — and there have been quite a few — this one deserves a prize. As with so many Vander Zalm schemes, the story began with what later turned out to be an impromptu remark. If the private sec- tor wants to establish hospitals where the financially secure can have their aifments looked after for a hefty fee, that would be fine with him, the premier told reporters in Vancouver. : Even though he wasn’t as rich as some other people, he said, he wouldn’t mind paying for some health care costs. Private hospitals would be one way to relieve the pressure on the health care system, he added. _ What does the health minister think about the idea? Not a lot, it seems, Establishing a private health care system, Peter Dueck said, “was “‘not an option we are looking at.’’ Under normal circumstances, the story would have ended right there. The premier, in his typical loose-cannon fashion, had, once again, thought out loud. It isn’t that easy, I’m afraid, because what the premier wants, the premier usually gets. That Dueck obviously didn’t know anything about it, means nothing. Labor Minister Lyall Hanson was also unaware of Bill 19, and that’s now law. Bill Vander Zalm’s cabinet is, by far, the most sycophantic collec- tion of people I’ve ever seen gathered around a leader. There isn’t one among them who has the courage to tell the premier when he’s about to do something dumb. If Vander Zalm wants private health care, his cabinet ministers will fall all over themselves, telling him what a great idea it is. Which means that private health care is a possibility until Vander Zalm himself says it isn’t. The two-tiered health care system is the most outrageous idea Vander Zalm has hatched to date, In the first place, it wouldn’t save any money. It would probably cost us more in the end. More impor- tant, however, it would destroy the very foundations of our health care system — its universality and, thereby, its fairness. Vander Zalm’s plan would essentially establish two health care systems — one for the rich and one for the rest of us. The premier himself, I suspect, would be covered by the former. Discounting the opinions of some die-hard Socred followers and Vander Zalm admirers, initial reaction to the proposal was all negative. The. first one to launch a broadside at the premier. was NDP Leader Mike Harcourt. *“We believe strongly that there is no place for the wealthy to be able to jump over the queue straight into a hospital bed, while the average British Columbian. is faced with long lineups and poor ser- vice,’? Harcourt said. : _Anumber of medical experts, including Scott Wallace, a Victoria doctor and former provincial Tory leader, denounced the plan as - Bill Bennett government, .and unless he | _ “Of all the hare-brained ideas...” unworkable, They say that the private hospitals would syphon off — the easy but lucrative operations, leaving the difficult and expensive - operations for the public sector. West Germany, which has a generally excellent social services net- work, went the two-tiered health care system route with the result. ° that the rich get looked after quickly, while the great unwashed must settle for long waits and often poor service, Vander Zalm’s plan goes against everything Canadians consider | fair. It strikes at the very heart of our societal beliefs — that money should buy no special privileges other than material goods. — If the premier wants to relieve the-pressure on the existing health care system, I suggest he consider taking it off its financial starva- tion diet. He’s got the money. By reneging on his promise to reduce the sales tax to five percent, he will have about $250 million more than expected. So far, only $20 million of that money has been allocated to hospitals. - Commentary What works here could work there © by Frank Howard Municipal elections are held at precise and regular times. We accept this regularity as a good and valuable part of our demo- cratic system. Ask yourself these questions: Should a Mayor have the power to call a general municipal elec- tion whenever he/she feels the urge? Should a Mayor be able to. juggle the timing of elections to suit his/her political ambitions? The reality is that a Mayor cannot call a municipal election arbitrarily. The Legislature of B.C. has said, No. The law of B.C., and other provinces, denies Mayors that discretion and it should stay that way. Hey, wait a moment! Prem- iers and Prime Ministers have the authority to call general elec- tions at times they feel quite pro- pitious. So, why not Mayors? Quite frankly I think the dic- tatorial power of one person, Prime Minister, Premier or Mayor, te call general elections when it suits them politcally is offensive and should be cir- cumscribed. Our Parliamentary system developed in England from struggles between Monarchs and the common people. It evolved that Monarchs called represen- tatives of the people together for. consultation and to get money and dispersed them at will. Gradually the representatives called themselves together and became the House of Commons. But, the Monarch kept the power to dissolve the House of Commons so elections could be held provided such power was exercised not less often than ev- ery five years, That Monarchical arrogance has been taken over by Frime Ministers and Prem- iers. They are now monarchs. . We can, and should, restrict this monarchical power ‘and move towards having regularity of elections at federal and pro- vincial levels by putting a floor under the Monarch’s (read Premier’s} power to call elec- tions at politically advantageous times. We have a constitutional five- year upper limit on the authority to call elections so why not a constitutional four-year lower limit? Why not? The advantages are many. We would bring some stability to the life-expectancy of Legislatures. . We would see governments con- duct themselves, at least in the early portion of the four years, with less of an eye on straight politics. If minority govern- ments were elected they would continued on page 15