__ The B.C. Federation of Labor
has called for a ‘‘Berger style”
Study into the proposed Alcan

eline through the Yukon and —
rthern B.C. In a letter ad-
dressed to Alaska Highway —
ipeline inquiry head Ken
syk and Warren Allmand,
BCFL secretary-treasurer Len
y said that in spite of
leadlines “we believe you

‘Should bring your hearings -

South, particularly into B.C, and
Alberta where the economic

pact will be most profound.” _

In a press statement, Guy

charged that ‘‘the federal —

ernment is clearly doing

panies are telling it _

nquiry.”

S. government and —

inquiry says Labor Fed

CEN GUY.

setting an impossible three-month limit on Mr.

The letter to Lysyk urged that all native land claims be settled
before any pipeline proposal is approved; that a full environmental
impact study be prepared so that environmental costs of a Yukon

Pipeline can be weighed;

that an economic impact study be con-

ducted; that the social impact on northern communities be studied; —
and that a thorough inquiry be made into the real energy needs of —

‘Canada. :

Native land claims in the Yukon are as important and as valid as _

laims inthe Mackenzie Valley,” said Guy. Pointing out that many —

ple talk about the jobs created by pipelines, the BCFL spokesman —
id that “many times more jobs would be created in Canada if the
e capital were invested in housing, education, health and social

ervices instead of an American

erican consumers!”

pipeline” for American oil for

In his letter to Lysyk, Guy urged that Canadian decisions be based

_n our needs and timetables, and that the federal government not be
_allowed to use the Lysyk study ‘“‘as a sop to the public concern while —
Continuing with plans to satisfy the U.S.oilcompanies.”

Union seen in ieopardy

“Workers in’ ‘the Rentalsman’s
office may be stripped of union
rights with the British Columbia
Government Employees Union by
the provincial government before
the endof the current session of the
Legislature.,

The Tribune learned this week
from sources close to the Ren-
talsman’s office that the govern-
ment intends to amend the public
Service relations act by adding the
Rentalsman’s department to those
excluded from union represen-
tation by the act.

“The rumor seems to come
from Barrie Clark,’ #BCGEU
representative Cliff Andstein
commented to the Tribune this
week when questioned about the
information. ‘‘He has been saying
that it will happen for two years,
and usually after each time we win
a grievance.”

As Andstein explained, Clark
resents the fact that he does not
__ have the power to fire officers and
workers in the department. He
does have the authority under the
Landlord and Tenant Act to
dismiss workers from his depart-
ment, but not from the public
Service altogether.

If the expected legislation is
introduced, Andstein said, the
BCGEU will protest the move
before the government employees
relations bureau.

There is absolutely no conflict of
interest which could justify the
denial of union rights to workers in
the Rentalsman’s office, he
Stressed.

Spokesmen for the tenants’
movement, however, interpret the
moves by the government to be
Part of the over-all changes in the
Landlord and Tenant Act to shift

the legislation in favor of lan-
dords.

Investigators from the Rentals-
man’s office have the authority to
interpret the Landlord and Tenant

in Rentalsman’s office

Act) and make decisions on the
scene of a conflict. The removal of
their union rights would have them
pinerabe to dismissal or punitive
action shoyld the Rentalsman not
agree with such decisions.

The British Columbia Tenants
Organization has made repeated
charges that, already, officers with
the Rentalsman’s office who
respect tenants’ rights have been
intimidated and dismissed by
Clark.

Premier Bill Bennett’s proposed
new B.C. investment corporation,
which the Socred government
intends to create at the session of
the Legislature which opened
Monday, is a scheme to turn over
B.C.’s Crown corporations to
private business interests.

This fact emerges from the
skimpy information released so far
by the premier and members of the
government. Bennett said in his
announcement last week that
further details will be released
when the legislation is brought
down in the Legislature.

Disguised as a plan to enable
B.C. residents to invest in the
province’s development, it has
been hailed by big business and
undoubtedly represents payment
of another political debt to the
large corporations who financed
the Socred victory in the last
election.

Typical of big business reaction
to the scheme was a statement by
Bill Hamilton, president of the
Employers Council of B.C. who
said he welcomed any move to
divest government ownership of
the four companies involved. It
was also hailed by Don Lanskail of
the Council of Forest Industries of
B.C., now involved in negotiations
with the International Wood-
workers of America. Un-
fortunately the IWA would not
comment on the plan, saying that
their reaction could affect
negotiations — a strange stand to
take in light of the fact that the
employers showed no hesitiation in
endorsing the Socred govern-
ment’s action.

In making his announcement,
Bennett said the corporation will
operate as a private company, not
as a Crown corporation and the
government will play no role in its
management or administration.
He said the government will trans-
fer to the corporation its shares in
four companies. These are
Kootenay Forest Products and
Plateau Sawmills, which are
totally owned by the government;
and CanCel, which is 81 per cent

publicly owned, and shares in
Westcoast Transmission, 10.7 per
cent of which are government
owned.

In addition to the four main
government assets, Bennett in-
dicated that other assets may also
be transferred to the new cor-
poration, but he would not specify
what these might be.

Once the corporation is formed,
said the premier, the board of
directors will be free to take it in
any direction they want and shares
for the new corporation will be
traded on the stock market. Future
‘boards will be elected by the
shareholders. Although the plan
will call on the public to invest in
the corporation, there is no doubt
that effective control will pass into
the hands of the large investors
and multinational corporations
who will have no difficulty getting
around restrictions the legislation
may place on any limit individuals
or corporations can hold.

In effect, the major holdings of
the new corporation which will be
handed over to private concerns,

- are the Crown corporations now

belonging to the people of B.C. No
matter how the matter is presented
by the Socred government, ‘the
plan remains a complete sellout of
the public’s interests to big
business. Again, the government,
which makes a point of telling the
public ‘‘you can’t expect
something for nothing’? will be
handing over tens of millions of
dollars in public assets to private
business for nothing.

The attempt by the government
to present the scheme as a “Buy
B.C. plan for the public,” and as a
form of ‘“‘people’s capitalism”
should fool no one. B.C. Federation
of Labor spokesman Clive Lytle
was correct when he labelled the
plan as an obvious attempt to turn
Crown corporations into private
ones.

Former NDP resources minister
Bob Williams, who initiated the
public takeover of some of the
companies now being turned back
to big business, protested the plan

“Extend Alcan pipelines Socreds plan to scuttle
_ B.C. Crown corporations

DAVE BARRETT

differs

with stand of former NDP

resources minister Bob Williams. —

and said: ‘‘When CanCel is making
as much money as it is, shouldn’t
we be sharing the profits with all
the people? Widows and orphans
aren’t buying shares these days.”

Surprising to many NDP sup-
porters is the statement by. NDP
provincial leader Dave Barrett,
who said the Socred government
“are proving through this action
today that they fully agree with the
direction of the NDP. The
government must now insure that

the shares have the widest possible -

distribution among British
Columbians and consideration
should be given to adding other
productive assets beyond those
named by the premier.”

Whichever way this statement is
interpreted it comes up as an

endorsement of the Socred govern- ©
ment’s scheme to scuttle public —

owned companies and turn them
over to a private corporation which
will berun by and for the profits of
big business.

Indications are that the Socred
government intends to bring down
the legislation for the new com-
pany in the near future and only
strong protests from labor and the
public can halt this latest giveaway
to big business.

Despite ‘ramrod’ passage in House

Protest continues over Bill 33

Opponents of the provincial
government’s Bill 33 — the Inde-
pendent Schools Support Act —
plan to take their protest to Vic-
toria despite education minister
Pat McGeer’s action in ignoring all
opposition while seeking to ram the
bill through the Legislature.

Representatives from a number
of labor, educators and parents
organizations — including the
Vancouver and New Westminster
Labor Councils, the B.C. Teachers
Federation, the Burnaby Prin-
cipals and Vice-Principals, Bur-
naby, Coquitlam and New West-
minster Teachers associations, the
Burnaby Home and School
Federation as well as several civic
groups — met Tuesday in an
eleventh-hour attempt to avert
passage of the bill.

In addition to calls for im-
mediate telegrams of opposition to
be sent to McGeer, the meeting
determined to send a representa-

tive delegation, including an of--

ficial of the B.C. Federation of
Labor, to Victoria Monday to lobby
the government and opposition
MLAs. '

Meanwhile the government
showed every indication of pushing

the bill through the House by
week’s end in spite of public
protest.

The controversial legislation was
introduced March 30 — the same
day the house adjourned — it was
reintroduced when Legislature
reopened on Monday and by
Tuesday had passed second
reading as the NDP boycotted the
debate.

Throughout the intervening pe-
riod between introduction of the
legislation and the reconvening of
the House, McGeer has dismissed
all protest of the bill and has
refused to meet with any of its
opponents.

Many of the same groups who
will go to Victoria Monday had
sought a meeting earlier with
McGeer to discuss the legislation
but were refused as McGeer’s
executive secretary Jime Bennett
stated that the minister would
meet only with those who had
specific amendments to advance,
He advised them to meet instead
with the official opposition.

The various organizations —
grouped under the Ad Hoc Com-
mittee to Oppose Bill 33 —
denounced McGeer for his position

£

at a press conference called last
Friday and stated that the minister
had “flagrantly disregarded his
responsibilities.”

“Tt was a totally undemocratic
act on the part of the minister to
refuse a meeting,’ Dr. Pauline
Weinstein, who spoke for the
‘committee, told the press con-
ference.

She pointed out that the various
organizations which have voiced
opposition to Bill 33 ‘“‘represent a
significant portion of the public”’
and education minister McGeer
“had a responsibility to listen to
them.”’

Among those who have publicly
declared their stand that public
funds be used only for public
schools are the B.C. School
Trustees Association, the B.C.
Home and School Federation, the
Vancouver and New Westminster
Labor Councils, the Burnaby
Teachers Association and the
Burnaby Principals and Vice-
Principals Association as well as
the Coquitlam, Vancouver and
Burnaby School Boards.

The B.C. Teachers Federation
has also opposed public funding of
private schools and recently

commissioned a survey which
showed that 70 per cent of B.C.
residents. are opposed to the fun--
ding of private schools where the
school is not open to all applicants.

‘People are not in favor of giving
public money to a school that can
reject .a student on the basis of
grades, sex, behavior or religion —
and all independent schools do this
as a matter of policy,’ BCTF

president Bill Broadley noted _
following completion of the survey.

The latest survey, carried out by
a Vancouver research firm,
Canadian Facts,-was in contrast to
an earlier survey carried out in
1975 which showed 57 per cent of
the population were in favor of
giving some financial assistance to
private schools although the study
was not related to any specific
proposal or legislation.

Despite the shift in public opinion |
and the formidable public op-—

position to the bill, education
minister McGeer has shown no

preparedness tolisten to opponents —

and has been responsive only to the

well-oiled lobby mounted by the

Federation of Independent Schools
Association. :

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JUNE 17, 1977—Page 3