Me

British Columbia

Vote demonstrated rejection of Socreds

Every now and then an event occurs in
Politics which suddenly clears the air like a
thunderstorm and shows in clear outline
the real state of affairs.

Such an event in B.C. politics was the
Boundary-Similkameen byelection on
June 8. It should not be passed as just
another off-year byelection that showed
that the shine had worn off Premier Bill
Vander Zalm’s “style.” It was much more
than that.

The massive shift in voters away from
the Socreds in a seat held by them for 22
years has sent shock waves through the
ranks of neo-conservative political forces
In B.C. The right-wing coalition of Tories
and Liberals which makes up the provin-
cial Social Credit Party has been thrust
into a deep crisis.

The big business community has also
been severely shaken and fears the defeat
of their right wing agenda, the ousting of
their party and the return to power of the
NDP. Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn
Palmer has been driven to write his second
column on how the Socreds can save the
day by dumping Bill Vander Zalm or put-
ting the reins on him.

The disarray in the ranks was caused by
the clear message sent by the voters in
Boundary-Similkameen — that the peo-
ple overwhelmingly reject the policies of

Maurice Rush

By

Bill Vander Zalm and the Socred govern-
ment. The byelection results showed that
the Socreds have lost the support of a
majority of the people and the government
itself is becoming increasingly isolated.

It was not just a vote against Vander
Zalm on June 8 — it was a vote against
his right wing policies.

The voters of Boundary-Similkameen
rejected the privatization program of the
government which was a major issue
because of the threatened sell-off of high-
ways maintenance.

They protested the attack on medicare,
on senior citizens and they protested the
heartless actions of the Socreds in increas-
ing government fees, particularly for long
term care residents. They voted against the
anti-education policies of the government
which impose increased taxes on civic tax-
payers. And they protested the Socred

THE sPaReO NANG

budget which favours the wealthy and
heaps new burdens on ordinary people.

A feature of major importance in the
byelection was that it was the first election
in which the Reagan-Mulroney trade deal
was a major issue. The trade deal would
wipe out most of the orchards, the vine-
yards and the farmers in the riding. Even
the federal government has acknowledged
that thousands of people face the loss of
their farms and their livelihoods as a result
of the trade deal.

Vander Zalm promised before the elec-
tion that he would come up with a plan to
save farmers from the effects of the trade
deal, but he has failed to do so. The voters
of Boundary-Similkameen decisively re-
jected the trade deal.

How should working people, the labour
movement and progressive organizations re-
spond to the new political situation in B.C.?

In a statement issued the day after the
election, the Communist Party said that
the voters of Boundary-Similkameen
spoke for the people of B.C. when they
overwhelmingly rejected the policies of
Vander Zalm and the Socreds. The state-
ment said: ““Boundary-Similkameen has
demonstrated that the Socreds have lost
the support of the majority of the people.
The only remedy is for Vander Zalm and
the Socreds to resign and put their policies
before the electorate of B.C. in a new elec-
tion.

A similar view was put forward by
NDP leader Michael Harcourt last week
when he challenged the government to
hold an election and put its policies before
the voters.

The demand for the resignation of
Vander Zalm and the Socreds should be
taken up everywhere: There is overwhelm-
ing Opposition to Socred policies which
have never been put before the voters and
for which they have no mandate.

The public will not be satisfied with
manoeuvres by the backroom strategists
of the Socreds and big business to sacrifice
Vander Zalm to save the Socred right wing
program. The demand which is growing in
B.C.is: Vander Zalm and the Socreds must

go.

——

Bills open the door to total Hydro selloff

Continued from page 1

tandem,” he said, “you’ll see why I said that
't 1s clearly contemplated to sell a power
dam.

The government could sell a dam under
Bill 45 and under Bill 46, B.C. Hydro would

€ required to transmit the power for the
New private owner.”

He told the legislature: “It means that the
Revelstoke Dam could be sold to private
Interests; it means that the Bennett Dam
Could be sold.”

The amendment to the utilities Act
Clearly has particular significance in the con-
text of continuing negotiations with the
US. to increase power exports and the
announcement, made by Davis last month,
that a separate power export corporation
Would be established.

_The NDP MLA also noted that the two
bills Were introduced at five minutes to six
P.m. — five minutes before adjournment
— On June 8, the same day as the byelection
'n Boundary-Similkameen, when much of
the media was occupied with the vote.

_ “Most bills are tabled just before ques-
ion period at 2 p.m. — but these were

Tought in only minutes. before adjourn-
Ment to kill any coverage,” he charged.

“And the other reason it (Bill 45) was
buried, I would submit, is that the bill does
More than the government says it does — it
allows them to sell off the whole thing.”

And if the bill is passed, they could do it
With “no debate, no discussion, no public

€arings, no_ legislative scrutiny,” he
warned.

Clark emphasized that the legislation
before the house was the most far-reaching
since B.C. Hydro was first created by the
W.A.C. Bennett government.

“When B.C. Hydro was first established
from B.C. Electric, it was front-page news
across the country. But now that we’re fac-
ing the possible denationalization of the
company, it’s buried on the business
Pages,” he said, referring to the scant cover-
age given the issue by the media.

“That’s why we’ve been beating the drum
on this — I don’t think people yet realize
how important it is.”

The Vancouver East MLA said the New

BENNETT DAM ... could be sold to private interests under Bill 45.

Democrats would be fighting the two bills
in the legislature and would likely be intro-
ducing a motion to hoist the legislation.

But the allotted time for opposition
debate will be used up quickly in the current
eight-hour night sittings, he said, posing the
danger that the bill could be passed in a
week or two. :

Still, public opposition, including action
by unions and other groups affected by the
legislation, could make it difficult for the
government which is running into growing
opposition to its unpopular privatization
program.

One of the unions most likely to be
affected by the Bill 45 is the Office and
Technical Employees Union whose members
have been campaigning against the pro-
posed privatization of B.C. Hydro’s gas div-
ision.

OTEU president Anne Harvey said last
week that the bill will give any company

buying the Crown corporation’s assets the
right to buy its employees as well, thus over-
riding the recent court ruling in the James
Verrin case.

Harvey said that unions at Hydro, during
a meeting with B.C. Hydro chairman Larry
Bell June 15, were told that the legislation
means “the Verrin decision does not apply”
and that employees “have to go with the
sale.”

Bell was referring to the decision made in
B.C. Supreme Court in January when Jus-
tice Duncan Shaw ruled that government
laundry worker James Verrin had the right
to refuse to go with his new employer when
the laundry was privatized and to stay
instead with the government service. In
bringing down his decision, Justice Shaw
overturned a ruling by the Industrial Rela-
tions Council which has stated since that it
will appeal the Supreme Court ruling.

The decision has been particularly

important for unions fighting privatization
since workers can decline to go with a pri-
vate employer and, where the right exists in
their collective agreements, transfer to other
jobs in the government service or Crown
corporation. But that has now been thrown
into doubt by the legislation.

If the government is successful with Bill
45, it could presumably enact similar legisla-
tion with every major privatization.

Harvey noted that Bill 45 was written
with the intention of circumventing the
Supreme Court decision and stripping
workers of the rights upheld by the court.

“It means that B.C. Hydro gas employees
will be indentured servants of the new (pri-
vatized) gas company whether they like it or
not,” she said. The new Hydro Privatization
Act means employees lose their rights to
transfer to a different job with Hydro and
lose their right to any severance pay if they
leave.”

Pacific Tribune, June 22, 1988 e 3

KROL CC are eta rest a €