Provincial-Municipal Conference

Words, but no action to solve crisis

By WILLIAM BEECHING

The most important point to
be made about last week’s first
Ontario provincial-municipal
conference is that the problems
facing the municipalities have
become so grave and extensive,
senior governments are no lon-
ger able to ignore them. They
are compelled to either try to
deal with them in part, or to at
least make the pretense. As one
delegate said, a vast backlog of
need for services has built up,
which is exerting enormous
pressure for government action.

This basic fact should not be
lost sight of when studying the
glaringly stage-managed  con-
ference, from which everyone
got the whiff of a forthcoming
provincial election.

Early in the game it became
clear that Ontario’s Tories aimed
at uniting Ontario’s municipal
governments behind it in its
struggle with Ottawa. In sum-
ming up the two-day conference,
Premier Robarts said that the
aim of his government had been
to begin a dialogue and to have
a forum where his government
could place a number of its
ideas.

He said that the role of the
municipality within Confeder-
ation is a current question, and
when the constitutiuon is dis-
cussed at the federal-provincial
level, the advice of the munici-
palities must be sought. There
must be a review of the distri-
bution of functions of govern-
ments as between provinces and
municipalities, and he warned
that in Ontario this would be
closely tied in with his govern-
ment’s decision to switch from
conditional to unconditional
grants to munuicipalities.

Many of the questions con-
sidered by the conference have
far-reaching implications for the
struggle to extend democracy
in Canada. The delegates and
government officials seemed to
be united behind the idea of re-
structuring Ontario’s municipal
system.

MORE AUTHORITY

The struggle of the munici-
palities for more authority is
part and parcel of the struggle
to widen democracy — an im-
portant component of the strug-
gle to curb the great power of
the monopolies, and to give the
working people a greater say in
all questions affecting their
lives.

It was apparent that it cannot
be left to the representatives of
the bourgeoisie to conduct a
consistent struggle. The involve-
ment of the trade unions and
farm movements, allied with
other progressive sections of so-
ciety, will be decisive.

Almost as if to consciously
prove the foregoing was the
statement of one delegate to the
effect that because of rising
costs of education in his muni-
cipality he favored a_ united
front of all Ontario School
Trustees against the Teacher’s
Federation.

The struggle of the municipal-
ities for a greater share of the
tax dollar, and for structural
changes to give them a greater
voice in all decisive economic
and social questions is objec-
‘fively progressive. It contains
the element of opposition to the
policies of both Ottawa and
Queen’s Park — policies which
favor the big monopolies.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MAY 1, 1970—Page 6

LABOR POLITICS

The development of working
people’s participation in munici-
pal politics will help it to~be-
come a powerful arena for
struggle and change. It could be-
come the main arena for muster-
ing a wide and forceful attack
on Ottawa’s war spending, and
its refusal to do anything mean-
ingful about jobs and farm mar-
kets.

Discussion at the conference
also reflected the fact that taxes
have become, if not the biggest,
one of the biggest problems fac-
ing the working people. A single
worker pays approximately 50
percent of his wages in taxes
and hospitalization in Ontario.
The crises affecting all aspects
of people’s lives — unemploy-
ment, markets for farm prod
ucts, poverty, housing, medical
care, education and recreation
—have deepened to such a de-
gree that elected municipal rep-
résentatives speak almost in
desperation and despair.

The Ontario Tory government
is compelled to recognize the
problems of social unrest and
its implications for the munici-
palities at least to the extent of
the following three points.

(1) Taxation; (2) the need for
structural change in municipal
governments; (3) the existence
of disparities from area to area
in Ontario.

NO STEPS TAKEN

Not a decision was taken and
not a promise was made by any
government speaker to indicate
that these problems would be
meaningfully tackled, let alone
resolved. The delegates were
unanimous on the need for more
money from senior govern-
ments.

The government speakers in-
dicated that the Tory govern-
ment is thinking along three
lines. First, it wants to have
less money taken out of the
province by the federal govern-
ment, and attacked the whole
idea of taking money from the
“have” provinces and spreading
it around among the “have not”
provinces — a policy with at
least the kernel of understand-
ing that the big monopolies that
are concentrated in Ontario ex-
ploit the whole of the country,
but cannot be taxed on the
prairies or in thé Maritimes.

Secondly, the Robarts govern-

ment proposes to amalgamate

some municipalities, with the
idea of*saving money through
increased efficiency. Thirdly, fu-
ture grants to the municipalities,
usually earmarked, may be made
as unconditional grants after
municipal amalgamation is com-
pleted to the satisfaction of the
provincial government.

Not one of: these proposals
will relieve the working people
of Ontario of the unfair and
Onerous tax burden they now
bear. The Ontario government,
while claiming to pay 50 per-
cent of the province’s ' educa-
tional bill, actually pays only
approximately 25 percent of the
costs of education in Toronto
where one-third of Ontario’s
population lives.

ARMS SPENDING

Not a voice was raised for the
cutting of the huge, out-of-
proportion arms expenditures.
By entirely eliminating military
spending, it would be possible

to cut municipal taxes by 75
percent in Canada, while main-
taining the same services.

No one called for shifting the
burden of taxation onto those
who make the money. The Com-
munist Party of Canada calls
for a restructuring of the muni-
cipal tax system so that the
burden of taxation is lifted from
homes by the senior govern-
ments assuming responsibility
for al! educational costs; for tax
reform to give special exemp-
tions to low-income people; and
for business taxes to be levied
on a graduated scale. No one
called for a public and open in-
vestigation into the actual as-
sessments of the properties of
big business that are either
underassessed, not assessed, or
subsidized outright.

No program emerged from the
conference to deal with poverty,
slum clearance and the provi-
sion of low-rental homes, and
for policies to overcome the ap-
palling conditions people are
compelled to endure in big ci-
ties.

‘SLOW APPROACH’

Nor did anyone at the con-
ference challenge the Tory gov-
ernment’s policy on pollution:

the slow approach. Pollution is -

presented as a “social” prob-
lem, supposedly as a result of
our “affluence” in which every-
one is to blame, rather than big
business.

The corporation tax has drop-
ped from over 25 percent of the
total income of the province to
little more than 10 percent, while
the personal income tax has ris-
en from 15 to 25 percent. Direct
taxes account for about two-
thirds of the province’s income.

Whatever aims the Ontario
Tory government had, processes
once under way have a logic of

-their own. The Ontario govern-

ment’s action in convening this
conference will give the move-
ment for change a further impe-
tus. The key to where the move-
ment will go is the active par-
ticipation of the working peo-
ple in the struggle.

Tim Buck
improving

We are happy to announce
that Tim Buck's health con-
tinues to improve. We have
been asked to pass on his
heartfelt thanks to his many
friends for their well wishes.

The Ontario Provincial Com-
mittee of the Communist Party
declared that “Premier Robarts
much touted provincial-Munici-
pal conference was a cheap
political stunt to drum up sup-
port for the Tory party’s anti-
Ottawa crusade.”

“Robarts is trying to recover
lost ground in the Province
through appealing to the anti-
Trudeau sentiment arising out
of the Federal government’s
disastrous austerity program,”
the CP statement said.

“The Conference was a cyni-
cal attempt to muster support
from the municipalities for the
Robarts line and to divert the
mounting criticism by Ontario
municipalities against provin-
cial-municipal tax relations, re-
gional government plans, and
the whole range of government
municipal policy. Adding insult
to injury was the fact that mu-
nicipalities were talked at, but
had no opportunity to answer
or engage in any meaningful
discussion on their problems.

“Robarts is obviously laying
the ground for an Ontario prov-
incial election and this confer-

ence was a_ carefully staged
part of those preparations, at
great expense to the public
purse. Also painfully obvious
at the conference was the lack
at either level of governmenh
of representatives of the wort
ing class.

“The labor movement and all
democratic forces must quickly
draw the conclusion from this
debacle that the only way !
wards’a solution to the crisis
of Ontario municipalities
through grassroots action at @
local level involving masses of
people in struggle for altern@
tive policies.

“The Communist Party out
lined what it considers to be?
meaningful alternative to thé
present provincial government
policy in an open later to Mf.
Robarts on the eve of the com
ference. We call on all progres:
sive people to move qul¢
into action around such a fig
ing anti-monopoly program 4”
lay the basis for’ the defeat ©
the Tories in the next provincl@
election and the election 0
progressive labor alternativ®
including Communists.”

Not out to oust shopkeepers
Farmers Union tells press —

The National Farmers Union
has issued a statement denying
that it is out to destroy small
rural based business through
the collective bargaining pro-
cess, a charge that has been
levelled’ at it by some rural
shopkeepers.

“Our aim is to strengthen the
economic position of the farmer
by reducing corporate profits
through collective bargaining,”
the statemennt says. “The rural
business community must come
to grips with the realization
that when there is no money on
the farm there is no money in
town.”

“The fact that many rural
businesses have had to fold up
and board up their doors during
the past several years is an in-
dication that the rural commun-
ity is in trouble,” the statement
points out. “By strengthening
the economic position of the
farmer, the NFU can reverse or
at least stem this trend.”

The farm union calls up
small business in rural areas es
support it, hitting at the: points
of division in the past: “In”
past rural businessmen hav”
generally accepted price in
creases on farm inputs with
measure of approval because if
enabled them to increase the®
profit margin.”

_ The release, signed by NFU
research committee chairmal
William Dascavich, warns oF
“siant corporations have ind
cated that they plan to mové Me
to rural communities with hve
bartering complexes where they
will take farmers’ produce ;
exchange for any and all inpU?
he requires, and will accom”
date his financing needs as We
all under one roof and on ¢ it
terms ... I view their supP®
by local businesses with dist
because through this atte
local businesses are allowit
themselves to be led like lam
to the slaughter.”

‘Stop closures!’

The following resolution was
adopted by the Ontario Conven-
tion of the Communist Party:

“Working people are more and
more being faced with the phe-
nomena of plant.closures, often
throwing out of work, long sen-
iority and older employees with
little chance of securing perma-
nent employment again.

“Often, as.is the case in Dun”
iop, Toronto and Kelvinator in
London, the plants are branches
of multi-national corporations
who accept no responsibility
whatsoever to the community or
the country as a whole.

“The workers in these plants
have a vested interest in their
jobs, and the community has a
major stake in the continued
operation of such plants.

Vested interest in jobs

“Workers’ rights to jobs ant
security must take preceder,
over individual greed and Plog
profit. Government _ legisi@ de:
must recognize this essentl@

mocratic right.

“We call on Ontario WO
involved to stay on theif Jig
and fight. Refuse to be evie
from your livelihood. We sip
on the labor movement tO i
ize all unions and the com™’ ig
ty to support such worke
their struggle.

“We demand legislation Pry
vincially, and where neces”;
federally, to prohibit the “99
trary closure of productiv™ °
terprises, and in the face % or
durate management, to také es.
the plants as public enterpris

ets
rk ;