Pen etecenme, By MAURICE RUSH In a major move to win big business support for the Federal Liberal government, consumer and corporate affairs minister Tony petition Act in Parliament March 15. The new Act would replace the present Combines Investigation Act and open the way for a greater growth of monopoly in Canada. The main gist of the new legislation is that it will remove all restrictions on companies to form mergers or monopolies even if competition suffers, so long as the new combinations increase ef- ficiency of the companies involved. The provisions of the bill represent an entirely new approach to monopolies by the _ federal government, and will have serious repercussions on consumers and the general public. Under the act, a new competition board with wide discretionary powers to conduct civil reviews of proposed mergers, monopolies and agreements between companies, would replace the _ existing restrictive trade practices com- mission. The key difference is that the government has reversed priorities. Instead of a board to investigate ‘‘restrictive trade practices” the new board will work under provisions which welcome the formation of monopolies if they “Improve efficiency.’’ The effect on competition and consumers would no longer be the stated Easter peace action slated Members and supporters of the Peace Action League, representing six Vancouver peace groups, will take to downtown streets Easter Saturday, April 9 from 12 noon to 4 p.m. to urge Canadian support for a global ban on nuclear arms and to protest the Trident nuclear sub base at Bangor,- Washington. Signatures will be sought on a postcard to prime minister Trudeau from the public. Those wishing to participate can phone 733-1761 or contact any of the groups involved: B.C. Peace Council, Voice of Women, Fellow- ship of Reconciliation, Canadian Campaign for Nuclear Disarma- ment, Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) and Women’s In- ternational League for Peace and Freedom. Abbott tabled his Com-~ purpose of combines legislation. For many years now the federal government has failed to enforce its anti-monopoly and restrictive trade practices provisions against Canadian and multinational corporations. It has permitted many monopoly practices to take place andhas in fact turned a blind eye to takeovers by giant conglom- erates like the Argus Corporation and Power Corporation. B.C. Tel and similar monopolies, ‘many controlled in the U.S., have had little interference. under the present Combines Investigation Act. Inrecent months the main thrust of the existing restrictive trade practices commission has been to attack the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, seeking to prove it was in violation of the combines legislation. In doing so it has had its investigators force © their way into newspaper editorial and radio broadcasting offices in search of anti-union evidence. These activities by the federal : agency have in fact signalled a sharp shift to the right and an attempt to misuse the purpose for which the anti-combines legislation was set up — to protect the public against monopoly practices which restrict com- petition and make consumers victims of these practices. iThe new legislative proposal provides that companies would no longer have to register planned mergers, and the competition board, which would be set up, would have no authority to stop a merger if the companies involved can show that it would produce “substantial gains in efficiency.” This would give a green light to mergers, takeovers and new monopoly formations. Under the guidance of Tony Abbott, a right-wing spokesman for big business in the Trudeau cabinet, and himself a force in the big business community, the new legislation stands in sharp contrast to the legislation proposed in 1971 which was known as Bill C-256. This ill-fated bill was never adopted because of the strong opposition from business and big corporations. A contrast between the approach of the government in the 1971 bill and the new legislation now before parliament, shows the shift which has taken place in the govern- ment’s thinking. The preamble to Bill C-256 hails competition as, “the best.means of allocating resources, of enhancing Sens Labor protests cut _in Pharmacare plan te B.C. Federation of Labor Tuesday attacked cutbacks in Pharmacare announced by human resources minister Vander Zalm. In a statement federation secretary-treasurer Len Guy charged Vander Zalm and his cabinet colleagues with brutal callousness. “These people are inhuman in the extent of their brutal and callous attitude toward all of the less fortunate in our society. After previously ‘introducing reactionary measures affecting the handicapped and those on social assistance, they have now taken the knife to senior citizens, many of whom have a daily struggle to make ends meet. - “Tn announcing that he will save money by excluding non- prescription drugs from Pharmacare, Vander Zalm has dealt a heavy blow to senior citizens. “Tt also appears likely that Pharmacare recipients will have to pay for prescription drugs initially and then apply for reimbursement. This means that many of the elderly and chronically ill will go without. required medication because they cannot afford the initial ex. ure. _ “The health of our Rae citizens will suffer: ant for what? In- creased administration costs and the heavier use of hospital facilities which will result will eliminate any savings that might have been — realized: by implementing the cutbacks. ‘There seems to be some doubt we can grow without merging!” awa bill opens door to monopoly in the production and distribution of goods and services and of trans- mitting the benefits of efficiency to the public.” The new bill’s preamble drops all reference to “competition” or “benefits ... to the public.” In- stead the focus is on ‘“‘providing an economic environment conducive : to the efficient allocation and utilization of society’s resources, stimulates innovation in technology and organization (and) expands opportunities relating to both domestic and _ export markets... .” This different approach in the 1971 bill and the new legislation runs throughout the wording of the two bills. The 1971 bill was bad enough, but it did at least attempt to hold up competition and protection of consumers as desireable objectives. It provided that mergers with a detrimental effect on competition could be approved by the Competitive ’ Practices Tribunal under certain . circumstances — only on condition that ‘‘a substantial part of the benefits derived from such merger be passed on ... to the public within a reasonable time in the form of lower prices or better products.”’ In the new legislation there are no provisions requiring that the fruit of these gains be passed on to the public. The main objective is to allow the companies to achieve increased efficiency through mergers, and any merger that would increase efficiency may not be blocked by the new Competition Board. The new law, which would make legitimate mergers, monopolies and related practices, reflects the strength of the giant corporations. in Canada and their influence on the federal government. It repre- sents a. long step toward strengthened monopoly control of the state and government and would have serious repercussions for the consuming public who will be increasingly at the mercy of the monopolies. - It will also have a serious impact on the trade union movement since it will give the big employers much more economic clout in dealing with labor’s needs and demands. The new Competition Act is misnamed. It is not an act to en- sure competition between businesses, but one which will open the way to the further growth of monopoly in Canada. In time it will . virtually eliminate what little “free competition” is left and replace it by monopoly control. The act should properly be called the Anti-Competition Act, or more accurately, the Canadian Monopoly Act. ‘Reduce cont'd from pg. 1 called on Western countries to pursue constructive international dialogue, strengthen mutual relations and reduce the danger of war. He said the Soviet Union attaches great importance to the positive development of U-S.- Soviet relations. ‘At present, he said, :these relations are characterized by three basic factors: first is the sound foundation in the form of important agreements and treaties, concluded between 1972 and 1974. The second is a certain stagnation in relations that has set in and was explained by the U.S. by the presidential election campaign last year. However, the first two months of the new administration do not seem to show much change. Third is the existence of large possibilities for further cooperation in several key areas such as the drafting and signing of anew agreement for the limitation of strategic arms and the : possibility for a reduction in these weapons; joint initiatives in banning ehcmical weapons; other - measures to restrain the arms race, and development of mutually-beneficial trade relations based on the removal of discriminatory barriers. Urging that the main content of the forthcoming Belgrade meeting should be a concern for peace and security in Europe and not merely fae of another fal my by a gove am that ' to sum up past achievements, cares more about juggling the finances of this province than staying J » real needs of senior citizens andthe chronically ill.” PACIFIC TRIBUNE—APRIL 1, 1977—Page 12 Brezhnev stressed that when the parties to the Helsinki conference meet in June concrete proposals danger of war’ and recommendations for further cooperation should be made. Prohibiting of nuclear weapons is an extremely important question, pointed out that opponents of a test ban have raised the problem of control, but said the USSR is convinced sufficient means for detection and control exist today. The CPSU general secretary called on other states to reconsider the proposal of the Warsaw Pact Vernon Bellecourt, spokesman for the American Indian Movement in the U.S., told an Ottawa news conference last Thursday that president Carter and prime mini- ster Trudeau should put their own houses in order before setting themselves up as_ international advocates of human rights. said. Brezhnev. He nations that all participants in the. Helsinki conference undertake not to be the first to use nuclear weapons against each other. Talks on troop and armament reduction in central Europe began four years ago and the USSR proposed all states refrain from increasing their armed strength while the talks were in progress. The USSR has done this, said Brezhnev, but the Western countries continue to build up their forces. ‘‘We repeat here,” he.said, “that the USSR will not increase its forces if NATO agrees not while talks for an agtpement on . reduction continue. Turning to the Middle East, Brezhnev called for the recon- vening of the Geneva conference. He restated the USSR’s view that sucha settlement must be based on. these principles: The right of all states in the area to an independent — existence and security and the impermissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. He reaffirmed ‘the right of the Palestinian Arab people to self-determination and to their own state. Z Referring to the Western campaign over ‘‘violations of human rights,”’ Brezhnev said that Washington’s efforts to teach others how to live cannot be ac- — cepted by any sovereign state and — pointed out that neither the U.S. record at -home nor its foreign policy abroad give it justification for doing so, The USSR will not tolerate interference in its internal affairs by anyone under any pretext, he said.