hia ME

About 75 people turned out Sunday morning to mark the 75th anniversary of the murder of pioneer union

Organizer and socialist Frank Rogers and to unveil a headstone donated in his honor by the United Fishermen
. 4nd Allied Workers Union. UFAWU president Jack Nichol spoke at the brief ceremony, organized by the
abor Memorial Committee. Former Fisherman editor George North outlined ‘Rogers’ history and Tom

Hawken sang.

—Paul Yorke photo

Seized news film sparks
contention in union trial

Continued from pg, 1
original — it did show that an in-
vestigation was begun on the basis
of an application filed in October 1,
-1975, by six citizens, the number
necessary to initiate Combines
Proceedings, according to Section 7
of the Act.
The application clearly indicated
at it was the UFAWU and only
the UFAWU which was the target
of the investigation.

In seeking to justify its probe of
the UF AWU, the federal govern-
ment has insisted that it is in-
vestigating the ‘whole fishing
Industry” — a claim which the
document refutes.

; The original application alleged
at Homer Stevens, Jack Nichol,
Corge Hewison — at that time the
Tee table officers of the union —

gether with Elgin Neish were

Builty of “conspiring, combining,

agreeing or arranging between
€mselves:

“D to limit unduly the facilities

r transporting, producing,

eying, storing or dealing in

“2) to prevent, limit or lessen,
unduly the production of fish;
3) to prevent or lessen unduly,

Competition in the, production, .

Pa chass, storage and transport of
-““4) to restrain or injure trade or
Commerce in relation to fish.”

he application, according to the

Ocument, also alleged ‘‘That the -

“onspiracy, combination,
48reement or arrangement:
a) has resulted, or is likely to
Tesult, in a reduction or limitation
€ volume of exports. of fish;
.__ >) has restrained or injured, or
'S likely to restrain the export
USiness of associations of fisher-
-™en who are not party to the
©onspiracy, combination,
4greement or arrangement;
¢) has restricted or is likely to
"estrict any person from entering
Into the business of exporting fish
Tom Canada;
‘d) has lessened or is likely to
€ssen competition unduly in re-
ation to fish in the domestic
Market.”
Robert Bertrand, the director of
vestigations, Combines Branch,
© signed the document on Oc-
< ber 20, also said that he had
Ormed the opinion that Section 4
ich is supposed to exempt

combinations of workmen, or

fishermen bargaining for the
conditions of sale, or minimum
price for their catch, from the pro-
visions of the Act) was not ap-

plicable.”’.
What was not indicated in the
document, however, was the

identity of the six citizens who filed
the initial application.

Vancouver lawyer and alderman
Harry Rankin, who is defending
the seven unionists, sought to elicit
that information in the course of
cross-examining RTPC member
Frank Roseman, but Roseman
replied that he ‘‘didn’t know.”

Although the trial proceedings,
originally scheduled to be com-
pleted in two and one-half days,
had yet to complete the prosecu-
tion witnesses by the time of the
afternoon recess Wednesday, they
had already demonstrated the con-
tentious nature of the charges and
the background events.

Canadian Labor Congress
education director Art Kube and
Len Guy, secretary of the B.C.
Federation of Labor were among
scores of trade unionists who
turned out in support of the
UFAWU. The large crowd Monday
forced transfer of the case to a
larger courtroom.

As the first Crown witness,
RTPC member Frank Roseman
was pressed by Rankin to define in
terms of the Combines Act, exactly
what was in process in December,
1976. Roseman himself had used
the term “examination” in his
testimony and when he was asked
under cross-examination whether
the proceedings constituted an
inquiry, he replied: “I can only
repeat that it was an examination
leading to an inquiry.”

The precise legal definition is
considered of some importance
since, as UFAWU president
pointed out to Vancouver Labor
Council delegates April 18, the
prosecution had earlier asked the
seven to accept a lesser charge —
that of ‘impeding an examination”
instead of the more serious charge
of “impeding an inquiry.”

The underlying issues in the trial
— the fate of the union and its of-
ficers — surfaced continually
throughout the proceedings, and
was marked particularly by one
dramatic exchange as Rankin

completed cross-examination of
Roseman. ;

Shifting his questioning
abruptly, he asked the witness:
“You could bust a union, couldn’t
you? You could bankrupt them, put
them out of business.”

Roseman, hesitating as he had
done in much of his testimony,
replied; ‘“‘I can’t answer that.”’

“You don’t know the Act enough
to know that?” Rankin asked
again.

“T can’t say,’’ Roseman insisted.

The same contention surrounded
the argument over another
significant body of evidence —
news film of the December, 1976
hearings, taken by BCTV and sub-
sequently seized in one of a series
of newsroom raids in January, 1977
carried out under warrant by Com-
bines investigator Simon Wap-
niarski.

The film consisted of out-of-se-
quence segments of both televised
film and “‘outs”’ — film clips which
have been edited out. Although the
question of its admissibility had
yet to be determined at Tribune
press time, Judge Hume had ruled
that he would see the film first and
would also allow Simon Wapniar-
ski to narrate the events portrayed
on the film.

Rankin had voiced objection to
both rulings, arguing that a
previous court case in Ontario had

ruled inadmissible as evidence out- ©

of-sequence film while a B.C. case
in 1950 had implied that only a
cameraman should narrate the
events in a film.

Wapniarski, the Combines _in-
vestigator who is the central
prosecution witness, had earlier
admitted in his testimony that he

was not present at all the events -

depicted in the news film.
Elsewhere in the proceedings,

George Webster, a Uniguard Se-

curities guard who had _ been

assigned to the Pacific Centre, site:

of the second day of scheduled
hearings in December, 1976, gave
his account of the events at the
Centre prior to the adjournment of
the Dec. 7 hearing.

Investigator Simon Wapniarski
had also begun testimony for the
Crown, although cross-
examination was put over until the
admissibility of the film was
determined.

The trial is expected to resume
again Monday, May 8, at 10 a.m.

Forest week finds

industry

“National Forest Week, May 7-
13, is being marked at a time when
B.C.’s forest industry is in serious
crisis and when a major overhaul
of forestry policy is needed if the
province’s major resource in-
dustry is to be saved from further

plunder by the big forest com-.

panies who have brought this crisis
about,’’ B.C. Communist leader
Maurice Rush commented in a
public statement Tuesday.

“The most glaring example of
this crisis is the serious over-
cutting of our forests and the lack
of adequate reforestation,” he
said, charging that the provincial
government has failed to keep an
accurate inventory of the extent to
which our forests have been
depleted. The big companies do not
want the public to know the true
state of affairs, Rush said, but the
situation has now become so
serious that it can no longer be kept
from the people of B.C.

Pointing to a statement issued
last week by the Canadian
Forestry Association of B.C., Rush
noted that even CFA, among the
most informed on the state of af-
fairs in the forest industry, had to
give approximate figures.

The Forestry Association of B.C.
painted the following picture:

o Each year about 320,000 acres
of B.C.’s forests are logged and of
these only about 120,000 acres are
replanted. The remainder (63 per
cent) is left for nature to reforest;

o The accumulated are unsuc-
cessfully regenerated by nature
during the last 20 years and
requiring planting is at least
1,841,000 acres. If it had been
planted and managed, this area
would have increased our harvest
by 1,200,000 cunits (a cunit is 100
cubic feet of wood) each year to
provide 4,200 jobs directly and
8,000 jobs indirectly.

Rush said that government
statements often try to conceal
who is mainly responsible for the
serious depletion of our forest re-
source by attempting to put the
blame on environmentalists and
people careless with fire. ‘This
takes the spotlight off the main
villains who are the large forest
companies,”’ he said.

“The Pearse Report points out
that 10 companies on the coast hold
rights to 85.7 per cent of the com-
mitted allowable cut which in-
cludes most of the cut in the Tree
Farm Licences, as well as 57.4 per
cent in the Public Sustained Units.
Altogether these 10 companies
accounted for about 76.3 per cent of
the total coast harvest of trees.”

The B.C. Communist leader said
that these large monopolies have
had the ear of the government

MAURICE RUSH ...
secret from the public.

in crisis

forestry department when they
wanted larger cuts to meet market
demands and to boost profits.
“Now the chickens have come
home to roost, and the province is
faced with the monumental
problem of restoring the resource
which the monopolies plundered.”

Whatever limited reforestation
was carried out, he added, either
on Tree Farm Licences or in public
forests, was done at the expense of
the public. ‘“‘The monopolies have
not had to pay any of the cost of re-
forestation although they have
received all the benefits of cutting
down the trees. The companies
holding Tree Farm Licences had
the cost of reforestation deducted
from their stumpage rate which
was another form of subsidy at
public expense. The government
also provided them with free
seedlings at public expense.

“There needs to be a massive
program of reforestation launched
in B.C.,’’ Rush declared, ‘‘but it
must be an entirely different pro-
gram than we have had before.’
The $10 million set aside in the last
provincial budget is only a drop in
the bucket compared with what is
needed, he said. ‘“‘A program of
more than $100 million is needed to
tackle the problem. Such a
program would be a major job-
creating project. The government
must also halt the handouts to the
big forest companies and compel
them to pay the major portion of
the cost for a massive reforestation
program.

Rush said the new forest act is
expected to be brought down in the
legislature by forests minister
Tom Waterland within the next few
days, possibly during Forest Week.
“The most disturbing thing about
Waterland’s recent statement is
that the new legislation will be
rushed through this session of the
legislature. He had _ earlier
promised that a few months will be
allowed for the public to study the
new legislation. This attempt at
haste should be protested.

“The new forestry legislation is
of major importance to the future
of B.C. and adequate time should
be allowed for the public to discuss
it,” said Rush. The Communist
Party in B.C. is holding a special
conference on May 27 to formulate
its forestry policy and to study the
new legislation, he said.

“There is no more important
issue facing the province than the
crisis in the forest industry. The
new legislation should end domina-
tion of the 10 forest giants and
restore public control of the forests
to the people or it will fail to meet
the needs of B.C.,”’ he stated.

crisis in B.C.’s forests can no longer be kept

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—May 5, 1978—Page 3

eee
—— a