Vol. i 52 No. 1 PUBLISHED IN VANCOUVER, B.C. SINCE 1931 B.C.’s BUDGET — NO JOBS, FEW TREES B.C.’s budget, though calling for an increase in budgeted expenditures of 8%, provides precious little comfort for the Province’s army of unemployed, for those past victims of Government policy now on welfare, or for the forests. Underneath the din of public relations trumpeting, the Government admits its failure in small print: it forecasts 14% unemployment throughout 1985, and — despite a lot of bally hoo about Expo and highway construction, — a 13.3% rate in 1986. As in the past, the least fortunate in the society, those least capable of defending themselves, will bear the brunt of cuts: Ministry of Human Resources reductions total $12,962,867. They are concentrated in these areas: — Direct community services $622,606 — Services for families and children $1,978,098 — Special programs for the retarded $6,270,639 — Health care and dental services for GAIN recipients $1,691,524 — Seniors’ supplement $1,000,000 — S.A.F.E.R. $1,400,000 The big winners? Highways allocation increases by $478 million, an 84% jump. Industry and small business development, up 6.3 million, or 23%. Interest on public debt (when the Socreds took office in 1975, the combined Provincial Government and Crown Corporations’ debt was $4.4 million. Today, it exceeds $17 billion) has ballooned, up $146 million, or 62%. Forestry? (see page 4 for details of Fed-Provincial agreement). Beneath all the expensive smoke and mirrors about unsigned agreements, the allocation for operating costs of the silviculture program has decreased by over $8 million — discounting for inflation, a 26% slash. What about the $558 million “Economic Renewal Program’’? As noted, there is an increase of $478 million in highways, $65 million allocated for » the Federal-Provincial agreement that has not been signed, $6.1 million more for - “industry and small business,” and $4 million more for “international trade”. Subtract that total from the overall expenditure estimate, and the remainder of $8.503 billion is a reduction in real expenditure from last year. So the beneficiaries are people building the Coquihalla Pass and the Annacis Crossing, and the people selling ice cream to Expo visitors. For the rest of the half million or so unemployed, half-employed and poor, this budget is yet another in a long series of kicks in the stomach. Last word goes to the National Council of Welfare, an agency established in 1969 by the Federal Government to advise on social policy: Their latest report says that the rise in B.C.’s low income families is “alarming”’, that the number of such families has “ballooned” from 65,000 to 157,000 in three years. Small wonder. | RETURN REQUESTED THE LUMBER WORKER CONSPIRACIES “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or some contrivance to raise prices.” —From “Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith Permit No. 5035 Vancouver, B.C. HOUSING POLICIES. FAVOUR THE RICH In housing, as in other policy areas, the Mulroney government is continuing the Liberal tradition of shifting resources and wealth from the poor to the rich. A study, recently completed by University of British Columbia economist David Hul- chanski, revealed the effects of those poli- cies. In 1967, 62 per cent of the lowest fifth of Canadian wage earners owned their homes. In 1981, this dropped to 48 per cent. In the same period, for the richest 20 per cent of Canadians, home ownership rose from 78 to 83 per cent. The reason is that housing policies were increasingly oriented to benefit the rich. Direct rental and housing subsidies are administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. These subsidies are the primary program for low and moderate income housing assistance. Finance Minister Michael Wilson an- nounced last November that the CHMC budget would be cut by $48.5 million. At the same time, the Tories have indi- cated that there are no plans to alter the indirect subsidies delivered through the tax system. These primarily benefit high income Canadians. THE HIDDEN TAX SUBSIDIES COST TAXPAYERS $1.6-BILLION IN 1979, THE LAST YEAR THE GOVERNMENT RE- PORTED SUCH DATA. HULCHANSKI CALCULATED THAT CANADIANS WITH INCOMES OF $10,000-$15,000 RECEIVED AN AVERAGE TAX SUB- SIDY OF $314 WHILE WEALTHY CANA- DIANS WITH INCOMES OVER $100,000 RECEIVED AN AVERAGE TAX SUB- SIDY OF $6,753. An example of how tax subsidies work is Former Prime Minister John Turner who made a capital gain of $635,000 on the sale of his Toronto mansion last fall. Since it was his principal residence, he had to pay no tax on that gain. Were he taxed at his full 50 per cent rate on this sale, he would have owed over $300,000. This should be contrasted with the aver- age recipient of subsidies through non-profit housing projects who would have to spend 118 years in a housing project to receive such a benefit such as this. Government policies must be reversed. There should be stepped-up direct support for low-to-moderate income housing and a major cut in the indirect tax subsidies. —from UE “Facts and Comments” March March 1985 Mulroney as follows: size of the rumored one. the urgent thing is to get a start. are nego Sth Floor, 1285 West Pender Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6E4B2 ‘matter is very important for all Canadians and for Bi Columbians. But for IWA members, it is absolutely ur; 2 SOCREDS DELAY FOREST AGREEMENT On October 18, 1984, Regional President Jack Munro wired Prime Minister “I understand that a tentative Canada-B.C. agreement, calling for joint - expenditures of three hundred million dollars over a five-year period, has been reached, and is now awaiting approval of your government. The amount is of course woefully inadequate. The policy statements presented at Cornerbrook just two years ago, for example, suggest a program about double the — your campaign in B.C., you demonstrated an understanding of the need for a greatly expanded forestry program. The success of your Pa’ candidates in this province is to a considerable extent a mandate for that progr u your Government approve this program immediately so that work ¢ April, 1985