Striker urges aid
for Steelworkers’

struggle

_ It’s been six months without
wages, without many of the things
that most Canadians take for
granted. But most of all, the 11,000
strikers in Sudbury, Ontario are still
without a contract, and their strike
- against INCO is as solid as ever.

Bringing that message to the west
and hoping to bring financial and
moral support back to Local 6500
of the United Steelworkers of
America is Shirley Hawes, Local
6500 member who arrived in Van-
- couver Tuesday for a two week

visit.

Hawes, a crane operator and one

of the 35 women strikers amidst the
thousands of men, says that morale
in Sudbury has never been higher,
despite the wear and tear of six
months of picketing and despite the
bitter northern Ontario winter.
__ ‘They will be hanging Bill Corall
this morning,”’ she said cheerfully,
referring to the chief negotiator for
the company who had a week
before sent personal letters to each
of the strikers. ‘‘He will hang at the
main gates of Coppercliff (in effigy)
and they will build a bonfire out of
the letters.”

The letters that the company sent
to the strikers listed a phone
number in case any of the workers
or their families wanted to
««discuss’’ the company’s last offer.
««They have cut off the telephone
line,’’ she reported, “People used
the phone number allright, but to
tell the company where they could
stick it.”’

The spirit of defiance and deter-
jnation: to win the strike runs
rough the entire membership,
Ysawes stresses. On February 8

ren the union broke off negotia-
tions the packed membership
‘meeting gave a Standing ovation to

the bargaining committee.
(a =

at INCO

The company must be feeling the
pressure by now, she said, but there
is no sign of a breakthrough in
terms of a settlement yet, or even
when negotiations will resume. The
company’s original offer of four
cents per hour has been raised to 35
cents per hour in the first year and
another 10 cents per hour in the se-
cond, but without a COLA clause,
without maternity leave, without a
proper grievance procedure,
without improvements to the pen-
sion plan, and, says Hawes, ‘‘there
is no way the membership will go
back until a decent package has
been put on the table.’’

The union is also feeling the
pressure she admits, and that
is why the support and solidari-
ty from across the country is so im-
portant. The strike has had a heavy.
toll *on Sudbury as purchasing
power has all but: dried up. Car
payments, mortgage payments,
even rents, haven’t been paid for
months.

Strikers receive $25 per week in
strike pay from the International
strike fund, with an additional $5
per week for the spouse and $3 per
week for each child. It buys food,
barely.

Local 6500 has undertaken to pay
the medical and life insurance
policies for the strikers which runs
the local a bill of $500,000 per
month. The local is also paying for
all emergency drugs needed by
union members and that costs
another $100,000 per month.

It has only been possible, she
said, because of the ‘‘unbelievable
support’’ that they have received
from all across the country, from
the U.S. and even from other coun-
tries. Just days before, she said, a
cheque for $1,000 was received

\ ews
SHIRLEY HAWES...

from the miners’ union in Warsaw,
Poland.

: Altogether * financial contribu-
tions from the labor movement and
supporters have totalled more than
$400,000 — an enormous amount,
but equivalent only to month’s
payments of medical insurance.

In Sudbury itself, the support for
the Strikers is remarkable, Hawes
said, with local merchants donating
monthly and theatres, roller rinks
and other entertainment spots con-
tributing free evenings for the
Strikers. ‘

A large wives support committee
has set up clothing depots around
the city and a comic book has been
Produced to help the children
understand what the strike is all
about and why families are ex-
Periencing tough times.

: A citizens committee is also ac-
tive in Sudbury, headed by a local
lawyer. It raffled off a new car to
Talse¢ money for the strike and last
week produced a button reading,

. in Vancouver on speaking tour.

— Sean Griffin photo
“INCO is a four letter word.’”’ A
box of the buttons are apparently
on their way to Vancouver.

As large and as broad the support
for the strikers is, however, it seems
small to the $370 million annual
profits of INCO, its $85 million
loan from the federal government
for an investment in Guatemala, its
$385 million in deferred federal
taxes.

The figures indicate the power of
the company, but they also tell the

‘steelworkers that their demands are

justified and that they can win the
strike. Part of the determination to
win the strike stems from the fact
that people have been politicized,
Hawes said, ‘‘We’d like to see it
(INCO) nationalized. Make it
responsible to the people.’’ ,

Hawes will be a feature speaker at
a special benefit dance for the IN-
CO strikers and for the Canadian
Union of Postal Workers, March 17
at 8:00 p.m. in Bayview School, 8th
Ave. and Collingwood.

Change in
code urged

Continued from pg. 1

tend the appeal hearing,’’ Snell em-
phasized, ‘‘and Gervin mus: be
removed from any board hearing
those appeals.’’

Four hearings are scheduled over
the next few months to hear the ap-
peals on behalf of unicn members.

Elsewhere in council business,
delegates gave unanimous endorse-
ment to the brief presented by the
Provincial Council of Carpenters to
the provincial cabinet citing the in-
adequacies of Section 37 and 53 of
the Labor Code, and demanding
further protection for censtruction
unions.

Provincial council secretary
Lorne Robson told the council ihat
since 1958, when the Social Credit
government stripped unions of the
right to organizational picketing,
“‘building trades organization has
been going steadily downhill.’’

Although the two sections in the
Act were ostensibly intended to give
some measure of protection against
the widespread practice in the con-
struction industry of setting up
““dummy’’ companies, in fact they
have been ‘‘virtually . useless’’,
because of rulings of the Labor
Relations Board.

“*By the time we get a Board deci-
sion, 99 percent of the jobs are
finished,’’ Robson said.

The labor council added its de-

- mand to that of the carpenters for

administrative and legislative
changes to provide for the
streamlining of LRB_ operations;
the elimination of loopholes in the
two sections of the labor code;
changes in union certification
allowing for geographic certifica-
tions; licencing of construction
companies to ensure stability and
solvency of such companies.

The labor council and the
Carpenters have also asked for the
enactment of a Public Works Fair
Employment Act which would
stipulate that government contracts
be let to union firms only, thus
guaranteeing fair wages and
benefits. 4

By FRED WILSON
The Socred government is plann-
further significant changes to
e Municipal Act which could
slow developers to run roughshod
>ver municipal planning procedures
snd push through developments
\with high social and environmental
3sks attached to them.
Socred minister Bill Vander Zalm
utlined the pro-developer thrust of
his proposed ‘‘Planning Act’’ — tc
introduced in the next session of
\he legislature — in a speech last
eek to the Real Estate Board of
yeater Vancouver. The new Act
jl] ‘‘further define the Municipal
Act’’, he said.
Vander Zalm’s speech was met
th applause by the real estate
owd as it attacked “municipal
\jureaucracy”’ and promised ‘‘less
overnment — less control over
eople.’’ Actually, the minister pro-
tnised only less control over
developers while indicating that the
new legislation will place more
‘yestrictions on the ability of
municipal governments to plan and
control developments.
| The key points of the new Act
ould: :
_@ Make planning procedures
niform throughout the province.
| @ Place a maximum time length
on the processing of development
pplications.
@ Speed up the public hearing
ocess for rezonings.
The propsals seem harmless
nough at a first glance, but put in-
‘0 practice the legislation could reap
voc with municipal planning pro-

cedures intended to protect the
public against bad development.

Vander Zalm suggested that the
new law would put a maximum time
limit on the processing of an ap-
plication for a development permit,
and if the time expired without a
decision, the application would be
considered approved.

The effect of that would be to
give developers the right to stall on
bad developments, make complex
applications with controversial side
effects, and then just wait out the
necessary period for an uncondi-
tional approval of the project.

Vander Zalm did not state what
the time limit on an application
would be, but presumably it would
be shorter than the average time
necessary at present. And that,
planners say, would only com-
pound the problem of bad
developments, while doing relative-
ly little for good developments.

In Vancouver, for example, it
hardly ever takes more than two
months for major development per-
mits to be approved. One applica-
tion, for a three storey apartment
building at Gravely and Commer-
cial Drive, was made November- 9
of last year, and both the develop-
ment and building permits were
received by December 31.

“Developers know how long it
will take and they calculate their in-
vestment and costs on that basis,”’
the local planner commented,
“There really isn’t much wasted
time.”’

Outside of Vancouver, where
small municipalities have less
sophisticated procedures, it rarely
takes that long. According to Doug
Halverson, an urban planner
specializing in small municipalities,
the only developments that are held
up for any length of time at all are
highly controversial projects with
potentially serious consequences.

Much of the pressure on the
Socreds to change the laws is likely
coming from developers such as
those in Parksville, he said, where
applications to build on the
Englishman River and French
Creek estuaries are subject to
lengthy and indepth environmental
Studies. The proposed development
by Dolman Industries on the

- Cowichan: River estuary also falls

into that Category, “‘for good
reason.”” To give automatic ap-
proval to developments of that sort
after an arbitrary time limit would
be a “‘travesty’’, he said. x

Where land has to be rezoned for
a development, it does take slightly
longer, but developments which are
in good order and not subject to
public criticism find little delay. In
Vancouver a rezoning will take four
months; a ““CD-1”’ rezoning, which
is a special zoning for the individual
project, takes six months. The pro-
cedure is a simple one: a review. by
the planning department; a decision
by city council to go to public hear-
ing; and then a public hearing and a
decision by council.

Outside of Vancouver, where it
often takes far less time; the pro-

cedure is for the application to be
reviewed by the planners, read twice -
by the municipal council, put to a
public hearing and then approved at
a third reading by the council.

Vander Zalm wants to move the
public hearing’ up ‘‘so it comes
earlier on the list’’. According to
the minister, developers are spen-
ding money only to have their pro-
jects turned down by the public.

Exactly how the public hearing
would “come earlier on the list” is
a mystery to planners. Outside of
Vancouver, municipal councils take
the first and second reading of the
application for rezoning at the same
meeting, and then it goes to public
hearing. In Vancouver, it is. con-
sidered just once by council and
then sent to public hearing.

The effect of Vander Zalm’s pro-
posal would be to hold public hear-
ings without the planning depart-
ments of municipalities having
studied the proposed developments,
or else holding automatic public
hearings—often needlessly—with-
out approval from the municipal
council. Another possibility would
be that developers would go to a
public meeting with only a vague
concept such as “We want to build
a shopping mall and apartments,”
without any detailed plans. The end.
result of any of the possible out-
comes would be chaos, with
developers getting approval for
almost anything they wish.

Halverson doubts that Vander
Zalm’s comments will find their
way into legislation, simply because

Socreds promise fewer controls on developers

they would be unworkable. Other
planners share this view and suggest
that the minister is “shooting from
the lip” in a pre-election period at-
tempting to make political capital
out of a complex subject which peo-
ple understand little about.

The trend of govemment policy is
definite, however. In 1977, the
Socreds passed Bill 42 which
eliminated impost fees, fees which
municipalities charged developers
to cover some of the costs that the
municipality faced to supply
sewers, water and so on, and which
also eliminated land use contracts.
Land use contracts enabled the
municipality to-sign an agreement
with a developer over a specific site
with terms established for the use of
the land, the services the developer
would provide and other matters. It
was an important tool for
municipalities like Surrey and Rich-
mond that faced quick, sprawling
development. Now, only broad
zonings are allowed and developers
have less controls over the nature of
their developments.

Yet another feature of Bill 42
gave the minister of municipal af-
fairs the ultimate power to overmule
the decision of a municipality with
regard to a zoning or development
decision.

lt appears that the next stage of
Socred policy will be to severely
restrict the use of the remaining
powers that municipalities have to
control development in the public
interest.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MARCH 9, 1979—Page 3