BC Politics with Hubert Beyer

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO OUR FIXED LINK?

Details

Hits: 1376

VICTORIA -- Prince Edward Islanders have just voted by a 59 per cent margin in favor of a fixed link with the rest of Canada.

Britain and France are preparing for the engineering feat of the century -- a $6 billion tunnel project that will link the two nations.

Fixed links are in, except in British Columbia where for several years now, politicians haven't breathed a word about linking Vancouver Island with the Mainland by way of a bridge or tunnel.

The closest British Columbians have come to discussing any fixed link for some time is a plan by Economic Development Minister Grace McCarthy to have B.C. businesses share some of the spoils of the British-French channel tunnel project.

"British Columbia companies are among the best in the world and deserve a piece of what will be the greatest engineering endeavor of the century," McCarthy said recently.

Deserve is one thing; get is another. It's doubtful that either Britain or France will be very eager to let even a small part of the $6 billion expenditure slip from their own economic spheres.

It will be British and French interests first, and anything they can't accommodate will be shopped for in the remaining European Common Market countries. Commonwealth ties don't count for much anymore.

But Gracie isn't easily discouraged. She has already instructed the gregarious Garde Gardom, our agent general at B.C. House in London, to examine the potential benefits British Columbia businesses might derive from the tunnel project. She also plans to hold a seminar at which the major contractors for the project would brief B.C. entrepreneurs on opportunities for tendering.

McCarthy believes that B.C. might have a chance to be a player in a number of categories, including electrical equipment, conveyors, signalling and control equipment, site investigations, environmental studies and communications.

For the above-stated reasons, I doubt very much whether such efforts will be crowned with success, but if you don't try, you'll never succeed, right? McCarthy certainly can't be faulted for trying.

The really fascinating aspect of McCarthy's plan is the total silence on our own fixed-link project which only a few years ago had half of the population on Vancouver Island in ecstasy and the other half up in arms.

As the deadline for Prince Edward Island's referendum drew nearer, I expected the government to exhume the old fixed-link skeleton and start promoting it again. Premier Vander Zalm had a feeble go at it when he launched into one of his favorite subjects -- fed-bashing -- at a Victoria Chamber of Commerce meeting last week.

If only one tenth of the money Ottawa was going to sink into the PEI link were to come to B.C., the premier said, the government could, at long last, build that gas pipeline to Vancouver Island.

Wrong project. He isn't going to excite anyone with that chestnut. The Vancouver Island gas pipeline has served successive governments as an election promise since the early days of W.A.C. Bennett. By now, the sheer mention of that project makes even ardent Socred supporters break into hysterical laughter.

Never mind the pipeline. What about the fixed link? When will we hear about that again?

The last home-grown fixed-link fanatic was Pat McGeer, the former minister of universities, science and communications. He bit the dust in the last election and so, it seems, did his fixed-link fixation.

McGeer brought up the subject of linking Vancouver Island with the Mainland by way of bridge or tunnel right in the middle of the restraint battle. He had studies done, charts drawn, cost analyses made. He held press conferences appeared on talk shows, living and breathing the message of the fixed link.

The only concrete result at the time was that Vancouver Islanders forgot all about restraint and poured all their energy into fighting McGeer's fixed-link phantom which, according to quite a number of observers, was the object of the exercise to start with. Ever since then, the government has studiously avoided any mention of the fixed link.

All of which is just as well. Vancouver Island will, no doubt, survive without a bridge to the Mainland, and taxpayers will be relieved that, for the time being at least, the age of mega-projects has passed.

Meanwhile, there's always hope that British Columbia may be able to cash in on the benefits of someone else's fixed link without taking the risk of building one.

PSSST! WANNA INVEST IN YOUR JOB?

Details

Hits: 13649

VICTORIA -- Hype or substance? That's the question to be asked in connection with the new employee share ownership program proposed by the provincial government.

The government claims the new program will not only create new jobs and secure existing ones, but also raise badly needed funds for increased economic activity.

The opposition, on the other hand, says the program is just another example of government trying to baffle the brains of its citizens with b.s.

Whom do you believe, the critics or the government? Based on the lack of logic and substance on which some of this government's hare-brained schemes are based, you might have doubts about this latest program. After all, it's being promoted by the same man who wants to solve the problems of a hell hole called Oakalla by pressing its inmates into chain gangs. Still, you'd be making a mistake dismissing the employee share ownership program out of hand. It's got potential.

Here's how it would work. Employees will be encouraged to invest in the companies for which they work. Since it's doubtful that workers will turn over their savings to their employers just because Economic Development Minister Grace McCarthy thinks it's a great idea, the government offers prospective employee investors a little financial incentive in the form of a 20- per-cent bonus up to $2,000.

That means if an employee invests $10,000 in his employer's company, the government will augment the investment by a further $2,000. That's no gift to spit at.

The province will also pay half the start-up costs for employee-employer groups qualifying for assistance, to a maximum of $5,000.

Program officials say that most of British Columbia's 1.4 million private sector employees will be eligible to participate in the program, but they expect that only two to eight per cent of them will actually take part.

Based on that forecast, the government will allocate 6.5 million for the program in the next fiscal year, $8 million in 1989-90 and $10 million in 1990©91. Funds raised by the program, estimated at up to $100 million over the next three years, are to be spent on the expansion of existing and the start-up of new companies.

The potential benefits of the program are obvious. New investment capital, no matter how it's raised, is good for the economy. It not only secures and creates jobs, but results in spin-off effects that will benefit the province as a whole.

Then there is the consideration that employees who have a financial stake in the companies for which they work are probably more productive and less inclined to believe in the inevitability of labor-management confrontation.

The program's only drawback I can think of is the low participation rate anticipated by the government. Bob Williams, the NDP's economic development critic, points out that, according to the government's own estimates, only about 2,100 workers out of a total of 1.4 million eligible are expected to take part in the program.

It seems to me that's neither the government's nor the program's fault. If anyone other than financial corporations and big business has money to invest, it is those who have steady and secure jobs. The trick is to convince them to put some of their savings into the companies for which they work rather than keep it in the bank.

Of course, not every employee will be in a position to participate in the program, despite his or her eligibility. A large percentage of the work force is employed in industries that pay dismal wages. They don't have any savings. But there are enough who do.

Year after year, we're told Canadians have a penchant for saving money. Canada leads the industrialized nations when it comes to socking money away. The trouble is Canadians hate taking risks.

They are among the most timid investors. They'd rather keep their money in the bank at a relatively low but secure rate than get a bigger return by taking a flyer.

There's nothing wrong with the employee share ownership program. I foresee no problem getting employers to participate in the scheme. The only problem will be to make employees see its advantages. To that end, the government should set aside some funds for a publicity campaign. The best program will fall flat on its face if nobody knows about it.

To answer the question: hype or substance? The program has substance, but some hype will be needed to assure its success.

IT'S TIME TO CENSOR VIOLENCE ON VIDEOS

Details

Hits: 1324

VICTORIA -- If Attorney General Brian Smith were half as concerned about violence on video as he's with sex, I'd feel a whole lot safer.

I'm not saying that British Columbia's guidelines for sex on film and video tapes are prudish. In the contrary. They are among the most lenient in Canada.

Good, wholesome simulated sex will escape the censor's scissors more often than not. It's really only the sick material that's cut out. Among them are oral sex, coercive sex, incest and sex involving children and animals. It's mind-boggling that this stuff gets into films and video tapes to start with. Even more mind-boggling is the fact that people would actually watch such perversions. Shielding the public from such tasteless material is commendable.

Still, that doesn't explain why the attorney general is sending around hit squads, confiscating video tapes and laying charges against retailers who offend the sex guidelines while, at the same time, violence goes unchallenged on both television and video.

Just recently, Mary-Lou McCausland, director of B.C.'s Film Classification Branch, held two hearings involving a couple of Vancouver retailers who had run afoul of the Motion Picture Act which governs sexually explicit material on video tapes.

When Smith's raiders took a look at the stock of JNK News and Novelty Ltd and International Books and Novelty Ltd., they found a total of 11 tapes containing prohibited material. Each firm initially received a six-month suspension. On appeal, JNK's suspension was reduced to two months.

Aside from the retailers of smut videos, who see their profits diminished by any regulations that curb the sale of their wares, few people are likely to complain about the government's dedication to keep perverted sex out of video stores. The question is: should Smith stop at sex guidelines?

The government would admittedly have a hard time trying to keep violence out of television shows, although some of them could do with a bit of censoring. On any given night, you can watch dozens of simulated rapes, murders and beatings that make kinky sex look like family entertainment. Alas, the television industry censors itself, with the result that you can watch the most sickening violence, but never hear anyone say "damn."

That leaves video tapes which are censored only for the above-mentioned perversions. I've always felt uneasy about censorship.

I basically rebel against the thought of someone else, particularly the government, telling me what I can and can't watch. Maybe that's because I know too many people in government.

On the other hand, I feel equally uneasy about an industry's unbridled preoccupation with catering to the lowest instincts.

Before the government introduced regulations governing video stores, youngsters had no problem getting their hands on movies that showed little regard for human dignity. The regulations don't make the x-rated movies any better, but at least they keep the most revolting parts out. That's something.

Most people, I'm sure, would welcome the same careful censorship with regard to violence. I'm not talking about fist fights and bar brawls. I'm talking about the graphic depiction of cruel violence.

McCausland uses her own good sense in the evaluation of sexually explicit scenes, leaving in what's necessary to the story line, but cutting out the sick material. She could apply that same good sense in her judgment of violence.

I'll give you an example. I recently rented Apocalypse Now. If my memory serves me right, there wasn't a woman in the plot and, therefore, no need for McCausland's services with regard to explicit sex.

In many aspects, the movie was excellent, but I found some of its violence not only repulsive but totally unnecessary to the story line. The film wouldn't have lost any of its impact if some of the more gratuitously violent scenes had been cut.

The attorney general leaves no doubt about his intentions to keep as much smut out of video tapes as he can.

"We believe that the regulations laid down for the video industry in this province provide good protection for the public from pornographic films and videos. We will not tolerate a lack of compliance with these regulations," Smith warns.

Similar regulations with regard to violence would go along way towards protecting the public even better.