April 10, 1989 50° Vol. 52, No. 13 TRIBUNE PHOTO — DAN KEETON The banker, the industrialist, Uncle Sam and a guy named Brian (left to right: Dee Vee, Don Monet, Craig Berggold and Penny Singh) make the point for big business-inspired cuts to federal social programs during rally by the Coalition Against “Free’”’ Trade in Vancouver April 4. The No Big Deal Players helped get the message across that the upcoming Tory budget entails those cuts, a result of the Free Trade Agreement. Rally also launched the Pro-Canada Network’s challenge and declaration to the Mulroney government to live up to its election promises. Story page 12. Unemployed new target as Apr. 27 budget looms Rarely in recent history has a federal budget having once been announced been so long in coming — or plotted with the same military strategy. Finance Minister Michael Wilson and the Mulroney govern- ment have planned this budget like a four- star American general planning an invasion —_and considering the effect it will have on Canada, the metaphor is apt. First, there was the saturation bombing, conducted by the International Monetary Fund, backed by the full assault forces of the business media — warning of the grave dangers facing Canada if the budget deficit is not cut drastically and spending cut back. Then came the artillery barrage, with ammunition provided by the corporate Editorial Advisory Committee on Adjustment, chair- ed by Bell Canada Enterprises executive Jean de Grandpre. It recommended that workers dislocated by free trade be aban- — doned by the government and unemploy- ment insurance funds be re-allocated to job training. On Thursday, the government opened the new front that de Grandpre had pro- posed, firing this time at the unemployment insurance program which becomes a key area for cuts in the upcoming budget. And all the while the bombardment has con- tinued against social programs. see TORY page 4 socred finances give new meaning to to ‘BS’ By FRED WILSON It is already known as the “BS budget” — the provincial budget “bal- anced” with bookkeeping tricks and rhe- toric. For a desperate Social Credit government it is a propaganda budget to Salvage itself from the political ravaging that an immediate election would hold in store. The $13.5 billion provincial budget News Analysis brought down Thursday has modest spend- ing increases, and does not include major new taxation measures. But the 1989/1990 budget continues the pattern of neo-conservative budgets since 1983 with high rates of taxation and user fees on ordinary taxpayers, minimal spend- ing on social services, and an enormous political slush fund at the disposal of the Socred’s re-election campaign. No less than 10 times, Finance Minister Mel Couvelier pronounced to the legislature that “the budget is balanced.” In fact, the Socred budget is not at all “balanced” in the sense of a healthy economy producing revenues to meet expanding public services. In fact, without a $500 million transfer from the government’s “B.S.” or Budget Stabilization Fund, and without a $100 mil- lion dividend extracted from B.C. Hydro, the provincial budget would have been over $600 million in the red. Contrary to the propaganda about a vibrant economy that was shoveled up with the budget, the reality is that in spite of some increased economic activity, the province has not yet recovered from the 1982 reces- sion and still suffers from more than 10 per cent unemployment. Moreover, Couvelier’s budget is not expansionary and rising inter- est rates could trigger significantly higher unemployment rates before the year end. The controversial “BS Fund” which allowed the Socreds to present the charade of a balanced budget and healthy economy, itself covered up what is likely the most important story of this year’s budget — the enormous tax gouge of 1988. An obliging media for the most part simply echoed Couvelier’s rhetoric about a_ balanced budget without asking the question: how was it done and who paid for it? see GOV'T page 3 Re By ADELSAFTY As Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir come to Washington to meet with President George Bush, they bring with them positions evolved from the legacy of Camp David and affected by the Palestinian uprising. Ten years after the Egyptian-Israeli treaty which resulted from the Camp David accords, Egypt _ has re-examined its faith in Camp David and Israel is dealing with Palestinian res- istance to its consequences. But the Camp David accords as a framework for peace in the Middle East are dead. The Camp David accords were signed by the United States, Israel and Egypt in September, 1978. They consisted of two parts: one set the guiding principles for “a just, comprehensive, and durable set- tlement,” the other provided a frame- — work for peace between Egypt and Israel. But the promise of a comprehensive settlement never materialized, because it _ had no realistic chance of success. The — agreement was supposedly based on UN _ resolution 242. In reality, however, it — represented a significant retreat fromthe _ 242 basic formula of withdrawal from occupied Arab territories in return for — peace. The Camp David document men- _ tions withdrawal only in connection with, - “a redeployment” of the Israeli forces. — see TEN YEAR pageS q