eee BRITISH COLUMBIA Management of B.C. Hydro has announced that a layoff of up to 15 per cent of its total workforce is planned. This means that 900 more workers will join the ranks of B.C.’s unemployed. This is on top of 2,000 jobs already cut by B.C. Hydro in the last three years. What will be the effect? For the workers concerned it’s the end of the road for most of them. No other jobs are available or are likely to come up. The workers will go on unemployment insurance for a year and then many of them will end up on welfare. For the public the layoffs mean a sub- stantial cut in service. It could not be other- wise. These workers are doing necessary and essential work or they wouldn’t be on the payroll. To lay them off means that this work will now not be done. The people of Vancouver and B.C. will get still less service for their already exorbitant gas and electricity rates. And these rates will continue to climb. For the business community it means that a payroll of $30 million annually will not be spent. All business will suffer and many small businesses will be pressed closer to the wall and forced to close down. The layoffs will be a disaster for the workers, for the public and for the whole community. What excuse do the directors of B.C. Hydro give for the impending layoffs? They say that B.C. Hydro has a deficit, that it’s losing money. { That can only be the result of the worst mismanagement possible. The alleged purpose of establishing B.C. Hydro in the first place by W.A.C. Bennett was to supply electricity and gas at lower prices for B.C. consumers. That purpose has been completely subverted over the years. Not all of us are paying the same rates for gas and electricity. The big industrial and commercial corporations get special rates — about half of that charged resi- dential users. Harry Rankin With its huge dam-building projects, B.C. Hydro has over-expanded. It built up a tremendous debt to the point where today half the revenues of B.C. Hydro go to pay the interest on his huge debt. These dams were built not to service B.C.; their real purpose was to. export cheap power to U.S. industries in the Pacific Northweest. That is exactly what is being done now — B.C. Hydro is making long term commitments to export B.C. power to U.S. industries at one-quarter the rate being paid by B.C. residential consumers. Hydro cuts mean less jobs, less service The architect of this export scheme is Robert Bonner, chairman of B.C. Hydro and a member of the Trilateral:Commis- sion. This is an organization of the big multinational corporations of the world with the self-assigned job to ensure that the big multinationals successfully divide up among themselves the resources of the world. In a sense it operates as a secret, invisible government. The consumers of B.C. are financing and subsidizing the export of power to big U.S. multinationals. These are some of the reasons B.C. Hydro is in financial trouble. The policy of its directors (appointed by the Bennett government) is to make B.C. consumers bear the losses through layoffs, less service and high rates. , A further example of collusion between B.C. Hydro and the provincial Social Credit government that made the consu- mer pay through the nose was the imposi- tion a year or two ago of a $145-million- a-year water licence tax on B.C. Hydro. The government knew B.C. Hydro couldn’t or wouldn’t absorb this tax, so it just passed it right along to the consumer. . board of directors suggesting that they We paid it in the form of higher residential rates for electricity and gas. It was, in actual fact, another tax on the public by the B.C. government to finance mega- projects profitable for its business backers. City council at its Sept. 11 meeting took up the question of the threat of B.C. Hydro directors to ram through massive layoffs. It unanimously passed a resolu- tion which noted that staff cuts would “result in a reduction of service to city residents” and would be ‘“‘another devas- tating blow to public confidence in the civic economy.” Council also decided to send individual letters to’each member of B.C. Hydro’s apply to the provincial government to have this -year’s B.C. Hydro deficit “covered from the $145 million the government collected from B.C. Hydro in water licence taxes in 1983-84.” Since then more information on B.C. Hydro’s plans has come’to light. At the - last meeting of the directors, Hydro’s engineering department submitted a plan to cut staff by 40 per cent in the next three years. The board turned it down on the ground that it wasn’t drastic enough. . The intent here is clear. The directors want to disband the engineering depart- - ment and contract out the engineering work required by B.C. Hydro. It will increase costs, but in Hydro’s view it’s a way of getting rid of the union through privatization. It’s a Canadian first. Cruise test plebiscite ‘a Canadian first Vancouver voters will have their chance to vote on the issue of cruise missile testing in Canada this Nov.’ 17, during the civic elections. “This is the first time anywhere in Can- ada that civic voters will get the chance to tell the federal government their opinion on whether they want to see continued cruise tests,” said the motion’s mover, Committee of Progressive Electors alderman Bruce Yorke. “It behooves us, as the peace capital of Canada, to give this opportunity to our citizens,” said Yorke during council debate marked by attacks from right-wing alder- men. ‘ The exact wording of the referendum will be set by city staff and adopted by council later. But it will reflect the wording of the motion adopted in a 6-5 vote Sept. 11. It read: “Are you in favor of Vancouver city council asking the federal government to exercise its option under the bilateral agreement with the United States govern- ment, to cancel any further testing of the cruise missile in this country?” The vote follows several previous peace initiatives taken by Vancouver’s govern- ment during the past two years. But target- ting as it does a specific weapon and the agreement that allows the U.S. military to test it here, the referendum strikes a bold new direction. Polls taken within the last year have shown a majority of Canadians favor can- celling testing of the missile, condemned by peace activists and scientists around the world as a major destabilizer in the precar- ious nuclear arms race. During the federal race, several Lower Mainland candidates from all parties, when asked in a question- naire distributed by the End the Arms Race peace organization, stated they opposed further cruise missile testing in Canada. “Municipal referendums have gotten people involved in the peace movement,” Ald. Libby Davies noted. “and peace and disarmament really became issues during the federal election.” Vancouver, and more than 100 other Canadian municipalities, first brought the Organizer Paddy Jones displays partial list of voters to be ph upcoming weeks. The canvass, which the progressive, labor- oned during the Committee of Progressive Electors’ telephone canvass in the backed civic group sees as essential to ensure the election and re-election of COPE candidates Nov. 17, takes place Monday to Friday, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., and Sunday to Thursday, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., at the new campaign headquarters, 118 West Broadway Street. A final word: they’ve got 20 phones... peace issue to their voters’ attention with referendums mandating the federal govern- ment to pursue negotiations for bilateral disarmament. Most took place during civic races in 1982. Ald. Bruce Eriksen, during debate, noted the cruise missile is being tested as part of a bilateral agreement between Canada and the U.S., and has nothing to do with Cana- da’s role in the NATO alliance. Despite that, council right-winger Ald. Warnett Kennedy insisted the referendum’s reference to the bilateral agreement would be “confusing” to voters, and attempted to have the clause removed from the wording. Significantly, not one of the alderman speaking against the referendum attacked 2 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, SEPTEMBER 19, 1984 the implied call for the cancellation of the cruise tests — although their votes on the matter will make their position clear to Vancouver voters. Instead, Ald. Marguerite Ford claimed a referendum on cruise testing “wouldn’t solve anything”; Ald. Don Bellamy said last year’s Walk for Peace, with 115,000 march- ing, was the “strongest statement” against cruise testing; Ald. George Puil thought the referendum, at an estimated cost of $8,000, was “wasting taxpayers’ money.” Puil’s statement obviously sent signals to Victoria. One day later Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Ritchie was echoing Puil’s remarks about wasting money, but he also did not condemn opposition to cruise testing. The right-wing media also joined the fray, with Province columnist Jack Clarke | attacking council’s decision, again on the grounds of cost. Yorke refutes the notion that peace refer- endums waste time and money, and thinks the votes held by municipal governments — those closest to the electorate — have influenced attitudes towards the arms race nationally. “When large cities such as Vancouver » take such initiatives, it has its influence on other centres, make no mistake about that. We may well see other cruise missile refer- endums in the near future.”