By MIKE JAMES

“For a state seeking economic
development and viability, the
possession of a national merch-
ant marine is a necessity and not
a mere symbol of sovereignty.

“In a competing world, pro-
ducers in search of new and ex-
panded markets have to depend
on a sea transport system sym-
pathetic to their interests. Only
national merchant marines can
be fully relied upon to serve as
effective instruments of trade. . .”

This is one of the major con-
clusions drawn by the United
Nations’ Economic Commission
for Asia and the Far East
(ECAFE) in a study of ocean
freight rates.

Although the study is con-
cerned primarily with steps to
Strengthen shipping in underde-
veloped countries, its recommen-
dations apply with equal force in
this country.

Canada, no less than the most

underdeveloped of “emerging”
countries, and to a far greater
degree than many of them, is
completely at the mercy of for-
eign shipowners. The Canadian
merchant fleet accounts for only
a fraction of one percent of over-
seas trade compared with 20 per-
cent in 1940.
_ Not surprisingly, freight rates
charged by foreign owners who
maintain the only regular sched-
uled services to and from Can-
ada’s ports are fixed at maximum
levels. The machinery for arriv-
ing at rates is supplied by the
so-called “conference line” sys-
tem — cartels of ship owners,
mainly British, American, Jap-
anese, West European and Scan-
dinavian.

In one infamous 1959 case,
conference lines controlling ship-
ping between Canada’s east
coast and Britain pressured ship-
pers against using services in-
augurated by the Helga Dan, a
Danish vessel pioneering winter
navigation on the St. Lawrence.
_ The owners, a non conference
line firm traditionally associated
with Arctic and Antarctic navi-
gation, had been asked by a
Quebec trade bureau to provide
the winter service. Despite the
fact that not one of the confer-
ence line members had the abil-
ity or desire to pioneer such a

By PEARL. WEDRO

Max Federman, manager of
Fur and Leather Workers Union
of the Amalgamated Meat Cut-
ters, reported to a mass meet-
ing of members of-Union Local
82, in Toronto, April 22, that the
negotiations so far for a new
agreement in Toronto and Mont-
real brought no signs of a settle-

_ ment. Since both unions in To-.

ronto and Montreal had decided
to coordinate their negotiations
for the renewal of the agreement
they may be forced into a strike
situation.

The contract between the Fur
and Leather Workers in Toronto
Local 82, with the Association
of the Fur Industries of Toronto,
as. well as the Fur Workers
agreement in Montreal, will ex-
pire on May 1, 1968.

The main demands for the re-
newal of the contract are:

e $40.00 per week wage in-
crease.

e Three weeks vacation after
one year, to replace the present
plan of two weeks after one

route, potential shippers under
contract to the conference line
were told in no uncertain man-
ner not to use the new service.

This, then, is the nature of the
shipping monopoly which mon-
trols an important segment of
Canadian overseas trade. Confer-
ence lines operate primarily to
protect and advance the interest
of foreign shipping firms, many
of whom are subsidiaries of
large industrial and financial em-
pires in their own countries, and
these interests. are _ promoted
ruthlessly at all times. i

Creation of a subsidized Cana-
dian merchant fleet operated by
private companies might help in
solving that facet of the balance
of payments problem caused by
the approximately’ $125 million
we pay annually to foreign ship-
owners for doing us the honor
of maintaining their stranglehold
on our overseas trade. :

More important, it would give
employment to Canadian work-
ers ashore and afloat.

That step in itself, however,
would not break the grip of the
shipping cartels. |

The record shows that private
Canadian shipping firms in the
past have become docile mem-
bers of the conference cliques in
order to get in on the gravy of
rigged freight rates, preferential

treatment in berthing facilities,

and other privileges.

It is within this perspective,

perhaps, that one should view
the recent threat by Canada
Steamship Lines, this country’s
largest shipowner, to transfer
its ships to foreign registry un-
less amendments are made to
the Canada Shipping Act.

CSL, which has a large fleet
on the Great Lakes but no regu-
lar deep sea operation, wants
Canadian registration restricted
to vessels owned by firms with
at least 75 percent control in
Canada.

This proposal has met with
predictable opposition from the
CPR and other companies which
would fail to qualify under the
proposed 75 percent ownership
clause.

CPR, through subsidiaries in
Britain and Bermuda, operates
several deep sea ships under for-
eign flags, some of them in con-

year.

e An increase in the contri-
butions to the pension fund of
1.5 percent, gringing it up to a
total of three percent.

e A union label on all gar-
ments.

These demands were present-
ed to the Association as far back
as February of this year.

In the four sessions of nego-
tiations between the Union and
the Association, the Union has
received no significant offer.
Federman explained that a simi-
lar situation existed in Montreal.

He furher stated that in
Montreal, according to the Que-
bec labor laws, the Union will
be able to call a strike around
May 6, while in Toronto, the
Union, in accordance with pro-
visions in Ontario, has applied
for a conciliation offcer. But, he
added, if the workers in Mont-
real declare a strike, the To-

-ronto Fur Workers will join

them. These remarks brought
resounding applause from the
union members present.

MAY 3, 1968—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 6

junction with B.C. forest indus-
try monopolies. It pays no taxes
in this country on these vessels.
CPR also has a fleet of coastal
ships which would be affected
by the proposed changes in law.

CSL undoubtedly is interested
more in winning specific exemp-
tions and privileges for itself
than in bringing CPR and other
runaway flag operations to heel.
The current squabbling, despite
its spotlighting of CPR’s nefari-
Ous Overseas operations and the
degree of foreign control over
our domestic shipping industry,
is unlikely to result in advancing
of alternatives favorable to Can-
adian workers.

Threats by the CSL to put its
Great Lakes fleet under a non-
Canadian flag, and CPR’s blatant
use of foreign shipyard workers
and seamen to build and sail ves-
sels designed to facilitate the
giveaway of Canadian natural
resources, only point up the need
for a new national shipping pol-
icy.

Significantly, the labor move-
ment in Australia — another
country which, like our own, tra-
ditionally has been held to ran-
som by the shipping conferences
— has adopted a firm position
in favor of a government oper-
ated National Shipping Line.

Spearheaded by the seamen’s,
longshoremen’s and other mari-
time unions, Australian unions
at times have lent qualified sup-
port to certain domestic ship-
owners who were prepared for
expansion of the domestic Na-
tional Line into overseas trade.

The campaign was taken to
farmers, businessmen and public
forums in both city and rural
areas and resulted in public pres-
sure which recently forced the
Liberal government to initiate a
government operated overseas
service. ;

Currently building for the Aus-
tralian National Line is an 11,000
ton, 21 knot roll-on, roll-off
freighter which will maintain a
monthly service to the Far East.

Given the type of wide cam-
paign necessary, the beginnings
of an overseas national line can
also be won in Canada.

First of all, of course, labor
will have to decide whether it is
prepared to fight for a merchant
fleet under some measure of pub-
lic control and capable of chal-
lenging monopoly interests when
necessary. Alternatively, it can
support the subsidizing of pri-
vate shipowners through direct
handouts or, as was suggested
in a recent Seafarers’ Interna-
tional Union brief, by giving
shipowners tax and import duty
privileges and exemption from
the Combines Investigation Act.

Although conference line ac-
tivities seldom have been chal-
lenged seriously, concern at
some of their effects have been
reflected on a number of occa-
sions. The Helga Dan incident
referred toearlier for example,
finally led to a 1965 report on
“shipping conference arrange-
ments and practices” by the Re-
strictive Trade Practices Com-
mission.

And the B.C. provincial gov-
ernment in 1963 commissioned a
report on the effects of exorbi-
tant freight rates on trade be-
tween Canada and Southeast
Asia.

“Cost of ocean transportation
significantly affects placing Ca-
nadian goods in foreign markets
in competition with foreign pro-
ducers,” the Restrictive Trade
Practices report conceded.

“Ocean freight rates enter into _

the cost of imported goods (and)
it is vital that reliable ocean
liner services be available to
Canadian shippers.” ;

The B.C. report pointed out
that the Southeast Asia coun-
tries import goods valued at
“four billion dollars per year
(but) Canada shares in less than
four percent of this trade in
spite of an obvious community
of interest among our Pacific
Rim neighbors.”

The reason for this, the report
indicated, is clear. General cargo

Canada needs merchant marine

der clutches of monopoly ship
ping concerns,

Within the context of out
own country, proposals for #
national shipping line can hardly
be considered unreasonable. The
nucleus of such a line exists
the coastwise Canadian National
Steamships, and overseas ship
ping services have been oper
ated by the federal government
in the past. “

Past attempts failed mainly 4
a result of national sell-out poli-
cies. In any case, obsolete wal

Canadian ships should carry cargoes carried on these ships: :

freight rates charged by confer-
ence lines between B.C. ports
and Southeast Asia are as much
as double those charged to Euro-
pean exporters, despite B.C.’s

“significant advantage in terms of

distance. é
Canada’s huge bulk exports of
coal, iron ore, lumber, grain,
gypsum and other commodities
may travel on ships owned by
conference line members or their
subsidiaries. On the other hand,
they may be carried on non-con-
ference tramp vessels. Generally,
rates in this field, as opposed to
those for general cargo, are like-
ly to reflect current world ship-
ping demands more directly.
An example of how a socialist

country uses its national ship- ©

ping line to prevent freight rates
gouging was given, wistfully
perhaps, by the Canadian Mari-
time Commission in one of its
annual reports. Referring to high
rates which had prevailed earlier
on bulk cargoes, the report said:

“’, .- Conclusion of a Cana-
dian-Soviet trade agreement .. .
started a flurry in the Pacific
grain section of the market
(but) the Russians held rates in
check by threatening to employ
Soviet tonnage.”

Obviously, a socialist country
can apply such pressure more
easily and effectively than a cap-
italist state which’ attempts to
challenge foreign control. Never-
theless, nationally owned ship-
ping lines have become a hall-
mark of “emerging” countries,
as well as those which have
adopted socialism.

This is true of socialist Cuba
and China, and of course, of the
Soviet Union which now has a
30 year long history of frustrat-
ing blackmail tactics employed
by foreign shipowners..

It is true also, to varying deg-

rees, of India, Pakistan, Egypt,,

Israel, Ghana, and many other
countries relatively new _ to
statehood, none of whom, ap-
parently, are willing to entrust
their foreign trade in its entire-
ty—as Canada does—to the ten-

_ realistic alternative policies. —

time tonnage was hopelessly 1"
adequate to challenge the domi- %
nant position of efficient foreig?
shipping in times of peace. __

Today's national line wo
have to be Comprised of :
incorporating the latest techn?
logical advances and tailored tO

the specific-needs of our ovel-

seas trade. Apart from bulk cal
riers, it would have to include
fast automated  general-carg0
carriers which, where necessary
could play a meaningful role 1?
stabilizing freight rates and eX:

panding trade independently of —

foreign interests.
The campaign for such a Can:
adian shipping program woul

weave itself into the broadel —

struggle for national sovereigt”
ity, development of secondary
industry and, in general, assist
the advance from our curret
status as colonial hewers 2
wood, storers of water and eX"
porters of jobs and iron ore.
The CLC convention will hav@
before it a resolution from thé

35,000 member Canadian Broth-

erhood of Railway, Transport

_and General Workers calling fot —

an intensified drive by the labor
movement for building and man
ning of a stable Canadian me!-

=e

chant marine capable of hand-
ling a significant section of out
foreign trade. Parallel demands
are contained
from the Marine Workers a
Boilermakers Union. :

Similar resolutions have bee? —
adopted by Congress conven —

tions and provincial labor fedef-
ation conventions in the past but
have not been acted upon.

This is all the more regret-
table because lack of a national
shipping policy is a clear reflec-
tion of Canada’s continuing role
of subservience to internation
monopoly.

Results of our dependence on
foreign shipowners affect wide
sections of the population an
hit every Canadian in his pock-
etbook. Labor has an obligation
to make this known and to offer

264092 ISG aad Peed

in a_ resolution

a