BC Politics with Hubert Beyer

TEACHERS, TOO, COULD BE MORE TOLERANT

Details

Hits: 1137

By HUBERT BEYER

VICTORIA – I suggest that the Surrey Teachers Association develop an anti-school- trustee-bashing course. The association’s president, Peter Ellis, and probably its members, as well, could benefit immensely from such a program.

Ellis is hot to trod in his support of a proposed program to combat homophobia in our schools. The program, yet to be developed, is to introduce students to the concept of respect for fellow students who are gay.

It so happens that Surrey school board chairman Robert Pickering doesn’t want any part of the program. And if he has anything to do with it, there’ll be no anti-gay-bashing course taught at Surrey schools.

Enter Ellis, whose admirable tolerance for gays isn’t exactly matched by an equal dose of tolerance for a school trustee whose opinions differ from his.

"Trustee Pickering has to ensure the safety of every student, not just the ones who agree with him," says Ellis. "If he’s not prepared to ensure the safety of everyone, he should resign."

Hold it a minute. Isn’t Pickering the chairman of the school board? Isn’t the school board elected to determine what kids are taught, aside from the mandatory curriculum? And isn’t Pickering entitled to his own opinion?

If anyone is intolerant here, it’s Ellis and the Surrey Teachers Association, which even more laughably accuses Pickering of prejudging the anti-homophobia program. Fact is the program hasn’t been developed yet, but is warmly embraced by Ellis and his association. Who’s prejudging what?

The program to fight homophobia in B.C. schools is being touted by Education Minister Paul Ramsey as the answer to gay bashing among students. And like the good NDP friends they are, the teachers fall in line without questioning the validity of such a program.

"Students, regardless of their gender, regardless of their race, regardless of their ethnicity, regardless of their sexual orientation, have the right to study in an atmosphere free from discrimination and harassment," Ramsey told cheering teachers at their recent convention.

I wonder why he didn’t add a remark or two about the sanctity of motherhood and free speech. Of course, students have the rights he referred to. Of course, gay-bashing is abhorrent and unacceptable, not only in schools but everywhere.

The question is whether or not we need to add a special program to the school curriculum to combat homophobia.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I am under the impression that part of our education system has always been to teach kids respect for their fellow students and fellow citizens. Every self-respecting teacher I know tries very hard to get that message across to students.

If teaching respect for others in general hasn’t done the trick, there’s no assurance that a special program will work.

Pickering says he fears that an anti-homophobia course couldn’t help but promote homosexuality. "How anyone can deny that this program will promote homosexuality escapes me," he says.

I have no idea whether or not he’s right or wrong. Nor, I suspect does he. Nor do the proponents of the course. Either side may be off the wall.

On the other hand, Pickering’s reservations deserve at least consideration, not the hostile and intolerant reaction they got from the teachers.

It seems to me that before we throw some half-baked solution at a problem, we should examine how we can strengthen the existing system to promote greater tolerance towards all.

STAY TUNED FOR THE MOTHER OF ALL SESSIONS

Details

Hits: 2598

VICTORIA – If you think the last session of the B.C. Legislature was nasty, get set for a real Donnybrook this time around.

Only extreme incompetence on the part of the Liberals can save the government from a harrowing experience during the next four or five months. With a little focus, the opposition forces can put the government troops on the run and keep them there.

Heaven only knows why on top of all the problems the NDP has, it chose to tweak the opposition’s nose by scheduling the release of the budget for the day after Lieutenant-Governor Garde Gardom read the throne speech.

Normally, the throne speech is followed by a few days of debate and the budget comes down the week after. Dispensing with the throne speech debate shows an alarming disregard for legislative tradition.

It also was designed to see Liberal leader Gordon Campbell make his first speech of the session, while reporters are busy digesting the budget, a fact that hasn’t escaped Liberal house leader Gary Farrell-Collins, who vowed all-out war if the NDP were to go through with the plan.

But even if the government had a last-minute change of heart – or brains – the Liberals are clearly in a position to dictate the agenda of the session.

The NDP’s greatest Achilles heel will be the budget. Recent efforts to cut spending notwithstanding, Finance Minister Andrew Petter will have one hell of a time keeping the budget deficit under half a billion dollars.

The false claims of having balanced the budget last year will come back to haunt the government, which only admitted to a deficit last September. Any claims this year by the NDP of being good fiscal stewards will invoke vicious attacks or worse, ridicule and laughter.

Next, you can expect fire works over casino gambling, an issue badly mishandled by the government from the disastrous press conference at which Dan Miller, the minister put in charge of the gaming issue, did little more than stumble, to the way the government is trying to extract hundreds of millions of additional dollars from the gambling public while, at the same time, pretending there’s little change in gaming regulations.

Nor will the opposition be satisfied with the report by B.C. Hydro chairman Brian Smith about the Raywind Power scandal.

No matter how damning the report was in its conclusions about the role former Hydro chairman John Laxton played in the affair, the Liberals and the media expected Smith to hand them Premier Glen Clark’s head. The simple fact that all the probing by the investigative team, which had Victoria hotshot lawyer Chris Considine on it, didn’t unearth one shred of evidence that Clark knew about the affair won’t appease the critics.

The legislature will also come to blows over the Forest Renewal issue. Strapped for revenue, faced with a sea of red ink, the government will probably accept the "offer" from Forest Renewal B.C. to roll $400 million of its money into general revenue.

That offer was made last year, but before any money is transferred from the Forest Renewal fund to the government, some form of legislative blessing is needed, because Forest Renewal revenues, paid for by the forest industry, can now be spent only on forestry-related projects in communities affected by reduced annual allowable cuts and a general thrust to place the industry on a sustainable basis.

Add to all that the government’s razor-thin majority, plus the Liberals’ firm conviction that, based on their majority in popular votes, they were the moral victors in the last election, and you have the perfect recipe for a legislative session that will, at times, resemble a brawl.

The only sane moments in this session will probably turn out to have been the lieutenant-governor’s delivery of the throne speech, a delivery only the suave and urbane Garde Gardom is capable of.

GAMBLING BY ANY OTHER NAME

Details

Hits: 1158

VICTORIA – "There will be no Las Vegas-style casinos in British Columbia," Employment and Investment Minister Dan Miller assures us wile, in the same breath, rolling out changes in gambling laws that would make a high roller blush.

Personally, I don’t mind Vegas-style casinos, but I don’t like it when the government tries to sneak one past me, and that’s exactly what old Dan is doing.

Asked at a press conference just how he government defines Vegas-style casinos, Miller said he didn’t exactly know, but mused that t was probably a matter of size, square-footage. On the other hand, Miller-style destination casinos won’t exactly resemble your neighborhood bingo hall.

According to a report, released by Miller, a destination casino would have 40 gaming tables and 770 slot machines. Projected government revenue would be close to $38 million a year. Such a casino would employ about 390 people directly and another 270 indirectly.

If Miller’s other proposed changes in gambling laws – introduction of slot machines, increased betting limits and electronic bingo machines are implemented, the government could expect to pocket about $270 million a year in revenue.

The establishment of destination casinos would boost that figure as high as $446 million, not exactly chicken feed for a cash-strapped government, trying get out of the red.

To be fair to Miller, there is a difference between what he calls destination casinos and their Vegas counterparts. In Vegas and Reno, gambling is the major attraction, while British Columbia’s destination casinos would be a secondary attraction in resort communities such as Whistler.

Gambling has become a major contributor to the economy in general and the government in particular. At present, 17 charity casinos and 42 bingo halls around the province earn some $130 million a year for charities and employ more than 2,300 people.

Horse racing employs about 3,000 people and earned $54.7 million in the 1995-1996 fiscal year, while the biggest cash cow is the B.C. Lotteries Commission, which employs 2,000 people and earned the government $244 million during thus fiscal year.

Small wonder the government is interested in expanding the gaming industry. With this year’s deficit somewhere between half a billion to a billion dollars, any additional source of revenue comes as a God-sent.

As I mentioned above, I have no objection to gambling, Vegas-style or otherwise, although my contribution to the past-time consists of a buck a week for a lotto ticket.

That’s my choice, but I accept that others like gambling on a somewhat larger scale, which is why I thought the proposal last year for a major hotel-casino complex at Vancouver’s waterfront was a great idea.

Vancouverites were of a different opinion, however, and led by their city fathers and mothers, made it clear hey didn’t want any part of it.

Really, what’s the big deal? With proper regulations in place, there need be no fear that the Mafia will move in. And as far as addiction to gambling is concerned, there is probably a greater chance of people spending their grocery money on lotto tickets than in a high-quality casino.

On the other hand, British Columbia is losing millions and millions of dollars every year to Vegas and Reno. That money could and should stay right here.

There will always be those who oppose gambling of any kind on moral or religious grounds. And there will always be those who would advocate gambling without any restrictions.

The former are hopelessly out of date, while the latter would saddle us with slot machines in every public washroom. The proper scales somewhere in the middle, and that’s the route the government has obviously chosen.

I just wish Miller would call a spade a spade and admit that his proposals add up to a major shift in British Columbia’s gambling policy rather than a minor adjustment he would like us to believe it is.