Letters

Labour should get out of CLMPC

John MacLennan, in his column, “Meet-
ing sent wrong signal,” (Tribune, March 13,
1989) failed to capture the full significance
of the Canadian Labour Congress involve-
ment in the Canadian Labour Productivity
Centre (CLMPC).

By attempting to get an agreement with
the leaders of Canadian business on “work-
ing together to manage change,” the CLC
has indicated that its goal is to become part
of managing the effects of capitalist restruc-
turing instead of waging an all out struggle
against it.

One week after the CLMPC forum, the
CLC presented to a specially called ranking
officers meeting a six-point action program
intended to outline labour’s program for
dealing with the effects of restructuring. The
action program was short on action and
long on lobbying efforts and called for
retraining schemes involving — business,
government and labour.

Business-labour forums, lobbying efforts
or retraining schemes will not be adequate
to defend workers in the face of the restruc-
turing of Canadian capitalism. —

Capitalist restructuring 1s an immensely
powerful global process intended to achieve
a vast increase in the level of exploitation of
labour. Free trade, stepped up union-
busting, corporate take-overs, _privatiza-
tion, deregulation and cuts in social services
are all manifestations of this process.

Only the immense power of a working
class prepared to fight will be capable of
defeating these attacks.

Why is the CLE pursuing a policy of
co-operation with business? A solid clue
was provided by Shirley Carr in a news
release about the CLMPC forum. In a co-
statement with Thomas D’Aquino of the
reactionary Business Council on National
Issues (BCNI) she stated that “forums like
this one can play a major role in the building
of this nation, especially in working toward
the goal of full employment that we all

hare.” .
; D’ Aquino and the rest of Canadian busi-

'

goal of full employment.

ness do not share in our “goal of full
employment.” Ten days prior to the
CLMPC forum, the B.C. Federation of
Labour sent to all affiliates a warning about
the BCNI, pointing out that “they are gear-
ing up for a major attack on our social
programs,” including “deep cuts to the
Unemployment Insurance Program.”

The B.C. Fed warned that the Canadian
Manufacturers Association and the Cana-
dian Chamber of Commerce (both partici-
pants in the CLMPC) are supporting these
attacks on working people. In the past the
BCNI has been responsible for “scuttling
extensive job creation programs.”

Your columnist rightly points out that
labour’s participation in “the CLMPC or
co-chairing it sends all the wrong signals to

TOM D’AQUINO (I), SHIRLEY CARR ... corporate sector doesn’t share labour’s

On the evening of March 10, two well-
known people came to Penticton to
speak on issues close to their hearts.

Ronald Reagan was the guest speaker
at a closed affair arranged by Jimmy
Pattison for a convention of his compan-
ies’ top executives.

But the person who packed the Pentic-
ton Community Centre Theatre was
Vicky Husband. Husband is the conser-
vation chair of the Sierra Club of West-
ern Canada and the 1988 recipient of the
United Nations Global 500 Award for
her outstanding work in the protection
of the world’s environment.

She has worked tirelessly in such pro-

area and the Windy Bay ecological
reserve. For five years she has been the
driving force behind the successful Eco-
logical Reserve Program in B.C. and her
efforts to save the Khutzeymateen Valley
and its grizzly bears are becoming inter-
nationally known.

The program “What is happening to
our rain forest?’ was sponsored by the
Okanagan Similkameen Parks Society
and the ecumenical church group Ten
Days for World Development.

Her slide show, dubbed in some circles
“Vicky’s horror show,” illustrated how
wildlife, watersheds, soil, vegetation,
tourism and recreation have been rav-

Forest conservation backed

jects as the South Moresby wilderness .

aged by logging in this province. She
discussed the controversial issue of grant-
ing tree farm licences to forest companies
in B.C. and noted that the provincial
government may soon put another third
of B.C. forests under tree farm licences.

_ The audience supported her opposi-
tion to the proposal and unanimously _
endorsed a motion which stated: “The
Okanagan Similkameen Parks Society
and Ten Days for World Development
and other concerned Penticton citizens
request that no further tree farm licences
be granted until a royal commission is
appointed to review the issue com-
pletely.”

In closing, Husband urged everyone
concerned about the forests and the
environment to stand up and be counted.

“Don’t ever believe that you can’t
make a difference,” she stressed. “We
were told we couldn’t save South
Moresby and look what happened. It
took 13 years to do it but we did it.”

On a more ominous note, however,
Husband added that during the 13-year
battle, one-quarter of the world’s forest
disappeared.

“Time is running out,” she said. “The
time to act is right now.”

Dawn Wesenberg
Okanagan Falls

& 3

the corporations ...” But more impor-
tantly, the CLC is sending the wrong signals
to working people. D’Aquino, the BCNI
and the major corporations represented on
the CLMPC are in fundamental opposition
to the interests of workers. That must be the
clear message sent to working people.

As a first step towards preparing the
labour movement for the struggles ahead,
the CLC must break with its conciliatory
attitude. This means that labour must end
its involvement in the CLMPC now.

Mike Barker
Vancouver

CPR gets
profits, we
get wastes,

pollution

All British Columbians and Van-
couverites in particular can take cold
comfort in the knowledge that prof-
its of Canadian Pacific Ltd. rose to
$774.5 million in 1988.

The clean-up costs for contami-
nated soil and water at the old Expo
site in False Creek are a legacy that
taxpayers have been left as a
reminder of CP Ltd.’s past attitude
towards stewardship of land.

It’s time the province assigned ret-
roactive responsibility to those who
pollute our environment. We should
demand full compensation from
former land holders and- their
tenants who continue to realize
healthy profits while leaving their
unhealthy waste for our disposal.

The principle of “caveat emptor”
— buyer beware — must not be
used as a mask in the face of such
apparent risks to the public health.

Ken Lyotier, Downtown Eastside
Parks Planning Committee
Vancouver

Ads hide the full story

The recent advertisements inserted by the
Mining Association of B.C. in the major
newspapers is another attempt by the min-
ing industry to exaggerate what they con-
tribute to the B.C. economy.

The 1987 figures I have from government
sources put the revenue from mining at
about $1 billion (no doubt the figure is
altered for 1988). The government collected
$55.5 million in mineral taxes plus $20 mil-
lion in rentals. The employees are the people
who paid the $350 million in taxes which the
industry used to mislead the public when it
claims to pay $400 million. In the adver-
tisement, the industry says the revenue in
1988 from mining in B.C. was $2.7 billion.
Why then did they pay so little in taxes?

The mining industry claims to the second
largest industry in B.C. That depends on
what criteria are used. In terms of employ-
ment, the tourist industry leads the way. In
1988, the tourist industry earned $3.2 billion.

The advertisement went on to claim how
sensitive the industry is to environmental
concerns. What nonsense! When the min-
ing industry is allowed to monitor itself,
action can only be taken after the
fact — when mines have already polluted.
Bringing them to court is an even bigger
task as was the case with Western Mines on
Buttle Lake in Strathcona Provincial Park.

The company changed its name during
litigation to Westmin Resources and was
eventually fined $80,000 for polluting. The
company operates at the end of Buttle
Lake, employs 600 people who have to use
toilet facilities, shower, clean machinery and
process 4,800 cubic metres of ore daily —

and then the water is given to Campbell
River to drink.

The noise pollution from both the extrac-
tion fans plus the power house can be heard
for miles into the mountains of the park.
The damage done to five lakes in order to
generate hydro power is a crime that thou-
sands of millennia will not heal.

Westmin has not a penny set aside for the
reclamation of what can only be called a
disaster. The Minister of the Environment,
Bruce Strachan, in a letter addressed to me
said the government intends to extract rec-
lamation payments when the mine is run-
ning down — in other words when the
mine is bankrupt.

The mining industry in B.C. is, without a
doubt, the most heavily subsidized industry
in this province. Who pays for mine site
clean-up and rehabilitation? The taxpayer.
Who pays for flow-through shares? The
taxpayer (for $100 investment, $133 in
return from the government). Who pays for
outright grants, such as the $60,000 given to
Cream Silver Mines Ltd. in 1987? The tax-
payer.

When the Mining Association has to
start advertising in such a spurious manner,
it evidently has something to hide. I wonder
what it can be. The truth?

Thomas J. Black
Black Creek

(ica a ia eres CS aD sie eine: bien
The Tribune welcomes letters to the
editor and particularly comments on
articles which have appeared in the
paper. We strive to run letters in full but
reserve the right to edit for length.

Pacific Tribune, March 27, 1989 e 5