id
S-
1
y
Nn
$.
n
S
in
y
Ig
Ig
st
ly
t-
Sn
D-
1
of
in

Radiation limits inadequate,
_ Scrap proposals says labor

OTTAWA — Organized labor
has called on the Atomic Energy
Control Board, (AECB), to scrap
new proposed radiation exposure
limits which don’t significantly
improve existing, unacceptably
risky levels,

The Canadian Labor Congress,
the Public Service Alliance of
Canada, the Energy and Chemi-
cal Workers Union, the United

_ Steelworkers, the Canadian

Union of Public Employees, and
its members employed by Ontario
Hydro belonging to CUPE Local

» were among the labor and
other organizations submitting
briefs to the AECB at special

. hearings, here, Feb. 7-9.

Pressure by the CLC forced the
Board to open the hearings to the
media and the public, despite the

_AECB’s original plan to hold

them behind closed doors.

Some 100,000 Canadian work-
€rs are employed in radiation re-
lated jobs.

CLC executive vice-president
Richard Mercier presented the
congress’ forty-four page brief,
Feb. 7 charging that the AECB’s
proposed new radiation exposure
levels ‘‘fall short of the significant
improvements in radiation
Protection warranted by the
available scientific evidence on
risk to exposed workers.”’

The congress brief demanded

that a special committee com-
posed of federal and provincial
legislators and union represen-
tatives be established to draw. up
new exposure level regulations,
and be given the power to enforce
them.

The new regulations not only
fail to provide any real improve-
ment over the old ones, the CLC
brief noted, but in fact, by sub-
stituting annual limits with quar-
terly and bi-weekly ones, and
relaxing standards affecting
women and workers under 18
years old, are actually weaker
than the existing standards.

These and other proposed
changes, the CLC estimates,
drawing from several inter-
national studies on the subject,
would allow increased exposure
of 67 per cent in skin doses, up to
300 per cent in head doses, and up
to 400 per cent in exposure to
radioiodines.

As an interim measure the CLC
wants the AECB’s proposed an-
nual radiation exposure limit of 50
millisieverts or 5 rems per year
lowered by a factor of 10, to 10
millisieverts or one rem a year,
with the eventual target of five
millisieverts or half a rem to be
achieved within the next three
years.

The congress also wants lower
limits for special categories of

workers such as those under 18,
(the most vulnerable to radiation
exposure), non-radiation work-
ers, members of the public, preg-
nant women and people planning
to have children.

The AECB was also urged to
establish a rights code for radia-
tion workers that would include
the right to refuse dangerous
work; to full disclosure of
monitoring results; to transfer
from radiation work on health and
safety grounds, (especially for
people planning to have children);
to income maintenance in case of
over exposure resulting in re-
moval from the workplace; and to
compensation in case of
radiation-induced injury.

In its brief, the 180,000-
member PSAC, representing
10,000 members who work with
radioactive material and radia-
tion-based technologies, included

in its demands stricter standards _

for radioisotope exposure; plainly
written legislation including all

‘radiation standards in the regula-

tions; a Canada-wide dose regis-
try to monitor the effectiveness of

Spotlight on

‘LABOR HISTORY

A UNIQUE FEATURE IN TRADE
ORGANIZING IN

UNIO

THE BRITISH COLUMBIA

COAST.

BEGINNING IN 1938 THE TRIM
CRUISER" LAUR-WAYNE
INTERNATIONAL, WOODWORKERS

ORGANIZERS INTO EVERY DISTRICT OF

45-FOOT
CARRIED LOCAL 7\

radiation protection regulations, THE COAST WHERE LUMBERING WAS
epidemiological analysis of health CARRIED OUT, THE ‘NAW/"WAS

effects and administration of an | THREATENED WITH AXE HANDLES AND
automatic compensation scheme; | $!X SHOOTERS BUT” MAINTAINED THE

and, exposure limits, not on arisk IWA SLOGAN OF “ORGANIZE THE

per unit-dose basis, but based on UNORGANIZED. nbathartamalocd

risk estimates that assess the real
risk to workers and their families.

Struggle, not de

There is every reason for concern in New Demo-
cratic Party ranks about the upcoming federal elec-
Uons. First of all there is concern that. widespread
disaffection with the Liberal Party could lead to sup-
Port for the Tories as the only possible alternative.
Alternately, people concerned about the possibility of
a shift to the right in Canada may well see in the Tories
the main danger and feel that the Liberals provide the
only possible alternative.

Beyond these calculations lies the grim fact that
Liberals have comandeered a large part of the NDP
election program leaving it without much to call its
Own in the area of policy. Its three election pillars of
Peace, medicare and jobs have been systematically
raided with the medi-care question largely occupied
by Liberal legislation to prevent extra-billing.

_ Trudeau has gained a big jump with his peace initia-
tive and the only area really left to the NDP is the jobs
question. Unfortunately, to thisedate, the NDP re-
sponse to the unemployment crisis has not been seen
as a really effective alternative policy by Canadians.

Great fears thus exist in NDP circles that their party

- Could well be a victim of the Canadian electoral sys-
tem, which grossly discriminates against minority
parties at all times, but eats them raw in periods of
Sharp political polarization, not yet leaning towards
fundamental change.

The only sound course for the NDP to take in face
of these problems is to come out in all areas with a
enuine alternative program, distinguishing it from
either the Tories or Liberals, and to convince large
numbers of voters that there is every reason to vote
for such a program and to elect the largest number of
Candidates supporting it to parliament. _

Progressive Bloc Needed

It is this course that the Communist Party ad-
Vocates when it speaks of the need to block any shift
to the right in Canadian politics in the next election:
To elect the largest possible bloc of progressive can-
didates to parliament, including Communists, who
can provide the parliamentary base for joining the
fight in parliament with the fight on the hustings for a
new course for Canada. ete

Labor in action
4 1 William Stewart

Shock waves echoed through the labor movement
last week therefore, when Dennis McDermott, presi-
dent of the Canadian Labor Congress told the media:
(1) The Tories were going to win the next election. (2)
Notwithstanding, the CLC would continue its policy
of support for the NDP. (3) The election of the Tories
would be better for Canada than the re-election of the
Liberals because the Tories are only stupid whereas
the Liberals are arrogant.

We would doubt very much whether Mr. McDer-
mott really believes his statement; we credit him with
more intelligence than that. Rather we expect his
statements are designed to head off what he considers
to be the main danger for the NDP, namely that many
potential NDP voters, confronted by the danger of the
election of the Tories, will abandon the NDP in favor
of the Liberals since there is no possibility of an NDP
government.

While we might appreciate the problems which
caused McDermott to make his statement we cannot,
however, agree either with its content or its premise.

No Contribution

In the light of real politics in Canada; the policies of
the Tories under Brian Mulroney, the backers of the
Tory party; the drive to the right taking place, it is no
contribution either to the trade union movement, to
which Mr. McDermott owes his main responsibility,
or to the labor movement, including the NDP, to
suggest that the Tories would be better for Canada
than the Liberals.

The Tories have clearly shown that they are the
party in Canada which supports Ronald Reagan; sup-
ports more U.S. control over Canada’s economy;
supports market place control over the lives of Cana-
dian working people; supports Cruise testing in

featism election answer

Canada and U.S. foreign policy in general.

To reduce the differences between the Tories and
the Liberals to the differences between stupidity and
arrogance, is really not very useful. The Tories are far
from being stupid and certainly, as representative of
the big monopolies in Canada, as arrogant as they
come. There are differences between the Tories and
the Liberals, just as there are differences in the ranks
of business in Canada and unless and until labor rec-
ognizes these differences and is able to use them for
its own interests, for the interests of all Canadian
working people, it will find it very difficult to move
very far toward power in the political sphere in Cana-
da.

Can’t Afford Cynicism

The trade union movement cannot advance the
long term interests of the NDP by appearing indiffe-
rent or cynical about the short term interests which
are bound up with the outcome of the next election.
Neither can it be taken seriously as a champion of
peace whille it appears to throw support, in whatever
way, behind a party whose policies differ little from
those of U.S. President Ronald Reagan. While the
fate of the world hangs in the balance it ill behooves
labor to be seen playing party politics in such a way as
to strengthen the forces of “‘peace through strength.”’

No one in the labor movement wishes to see any
weakening of the NDP in the next federal elections, ©
notwithstanding differences which may and do exist
between that party and other forces on the left. Neith-
er, however, can one stand by and accept the placing
of the interests of the NDP in such a way as to
strengthen the hands of those trying to push politics to
the right in Canada.

The way ahead for labor, including the NDP, is to
put the entire resources of the labor movement, first
of all the resources of the CLC behind a fight for
labor’s alternative program for peace, jobs and
democracy in Canada and for the election of the
largest possible number of candidates supporting
these policies. Such a mass campaign will help block
the shift to the right and ensure the election of the
maximum number of NDP members as well.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, FEBRUARY 22, 1984 e 7