Rares:

Saskatchewan people

are paying for

Thatcher's handouts

| to big business

eg C. BEECHING
Pbudget dee the Saskatchewan
Bee has done so far
© lay out some of the

80vern
‘ ment
big busi ess. handouts

shways

1

Minister David
| Years of anced it will take 10
tar jy Pending $56 million a

'ghway construction
his involves spend-
alf a billion dollars
In the neighbor-
Or every vehicle
wv& €ach year.
ay to come. Accord-
Mie dover’ because of econo-
i i ee the province
‘Tas on é
#29 y°5580,000,000 in the vent
pisbways. This
axpayer is go-
Ey. a an additional
Whe prov; e€hicle operating
ithe ney hee every year for
j Whether” oe
lank Not it’s to be an
.» IS Still top secret.
POwin ae Underlines the
le Thate X crisis and where
ts emph er government puts
Who Riek this does.
his me Pay? “The raising of
Non op Hl require examina-
@x~structure,” said
beg Minister, Premier
arkly warned on
SCcasions . that his
Will have to raise

Province

on
Bing” that the
.S to have
j°400 ¢

>
=
ate

'gh
ete

i Mani
ele Ito ;
acon, ba committee of
“rply ust Party has
fhe 17 Protes; ; :
i” Ho Se-Sp €d the refusal of
Sue Bone Committee on
Fon the woes to hear its
WS Neay © 8TOunds that it does
1. Near. S that it does
Nhiticg
ly
V4 let
ae fet the committee,
Beecndae 8 party's provin:
f s der, note: provin
jh, DUC eee?
/ a Ren
Aija'tded Secision Can only be
t Urpose f,. MC Onsistent with
fai °° Wag ay Which the com-
- Poj Stablished—(o hear
View on how
as : ow to
f Prices. Consumer from soar-

&

1 Nesses < :
| Parties representing

as made
old pub-

; : p
3 how ess the country,
ey tividua any organization
mtn if be excluded from

hig : Views?
a Most undemocra-
9 other parlia-
. parlia
Sion nite or royal}
; re Prices has fol-
es Bree cce: Represen-
Roy party appeared
Mi:5 Spreg . Commission on
iggy td befop M Ottawa in
Slon te the Royal Com-
ino Pr Tice Spre:

Be toda. Preads_ of
hh fy ae mic M 1958. Only re-
@ anito a comunittee
mttion before the
Ssion C€s Price Costs
and received a

ao

tr)
(0 [fens an
ae es
FSE

es

ae eer

xe

“0 catch up on the’

ik.
BUA Ot AG~ Sak bo Vi ize,

taxes. He always says so when
anyone asks for social aid, in-
creased pensions and more
schools. and homes. He said so,
loudly and often, when the fe-
deral government announced
cutling equalization payments to
Saskatchewan.

This huge expenditure will be
funneled into the pockets of the
construction companies. Guess
who they’re going to support in
the next election? Specially with
a provincial government that’s
dead set against any ‘damned
socialist experimentation” with
government-run road_ building
outfits.

That the workers and farmers
will pay more there is no doubt.
CCF MLA W. J. Berezowsky
charged in the legislature that
low-income trappers and fisher-
men are now being charged
game licenses, whereas the pre-
vious CCE administration had
allowed .them free trapping.
hunting and fishing permits.

In February, the small tract
entitled “Phone Facts,” which
usually goes out with the month-
ly phone bill, announced an in-
crease in monthly phone rentals.

Important needs are being
sacrificed. The Regina General
Hospital, if it were someone's
private home, would have been
condemned as unfit. The local
fire department is worried about
it. It faces loss of accredition

‘Prices probe gets

courteous hearing. The New De-
mocratic Party in Saskatche-
wan also appeared before this
commission.

“Representatives of the other
political parties have had the
opportunity to speak on the
question of consumer prices in

the House. Our party is, as yet,”

unable to do so. To deny us the
right to present our views at
the public hearings of your par-
liamentary- committee in Win-
nineg constitutes an act of dis-
crimination and a denial of free
speech.

In the brief it had planned to
submit to the committee the
Communist Party outlines in
considerable detail some of the
facts to substantiate its charge
that “increased food costs cre-
ate additional hardships for
Manitobans, because our prov-
ince—apart from the Maritimes
—has the lowest wage and sal-
ary levels in Canada.”

The brief adds the comment:
“If that isn’t bad enough, the
Roblin government has imposed
a five percent provincial sales
tax, to commence in June 1.
This is a most unfair and dis-
criminatory tax because it is
not related to income and falls
most heavily on the low income
groups. It can only result in
severe hardships and a further
lowering of living standards for
many families.”

A A NARS NE A Sa A RR SAN NS ANE RE A

’

because of the serious state the
operating theatres are in.

The press recently carried pic-
tures showing falling plaster,
toilets which looked as though
they were just lifted out of slum
tenements, overcrowded _hall-
ways and the like. These were of
the Monroe Wing for mental
patients.

The Local Government Board
turned down money bylaws to
provide for much-needed new
schools, hospitals and some pub-
lic work construction last fall.

In Regina, new districts have
been developed which have no
schools, so that within the city.
school children have to be trans-
ported by bus to already serious-
ly overcrowded public schools.
In all city school districts, re-
gulations as to school commence-
ment age are enforced so that
many school children cannot
begin until they are going on
seven years of age.

There's enough money in
Canada to pay all these things.
There’s more money in the pro-
vince too. If those who are able
to pay were compelled to bear
their full share — such as the
big chains, the big monopolies
who are on a royalty and tax
holiday — the money. could be
found. And, of course, the auto-
mobile companies. Highway con-
struction is really a form of sub-
sidy for then.

protest

The brief emphasizes the need
for both federal and provincial
government action “to protect
the consumers from excess pro-
fiteering by the giant food mon-
opolies.”. Among the things it
suggests the governments can
do are:

(1) A Prices Review Board
under the federal government.
on which there should be repre-
sentation “from labor, farm,
consumers. business as well as
government.”

(2) Consumers affairs depart-
ments “under a minister in Ot-
tawa and in each provincial leg-
islature.”

(3) Strengthening — of
combines legislation,

(4) Control expenditure on ad-
vertising. (“For many companies
excessive advertising cosis only
help them to avoid income tax.
The law should be changed so
that all advertising over a spe-
cified amount is not deductible.
This would also meat a greater
contribution by the big corpora-
tions to the general social needs
of government spending.”)

(5) Control over — profits.
(“Back in 1959 the Royal Com-
mission on Price Spreads pro-
posed that there be a profit level
set and everything above that
levei shoud go in taxes. It’s time
that recommendation was im-
plemented.)

anti-

THE ONTARIO. LEGISLATURE
IN. SESSION

nti)

Urgent need: action
on labor safety

OT so long ago the McAlpine Construction Company Ltd.-
charged before the Ontario Labor Relations Board that
members of Local 183 of the International Laborer’s

Union were engaged in an illegal strike and wanted permission
to prosecute the union. :

The union involved admitted its members had stopped
working but justified the action by pointing out that the com-
pany was breaking safety rules and thus endangering work-
ers’ lives.

The labor board made a majority decision in favor of the
company but in doing so also stated “that it will not hold any
stoppages of work unlawful where it is established that the
conditions are unsafe or where it finds that the employees are
under a reasonable apprehension of danger.”’ At the same time
the board qualified this position by stating that this did not
mean leaving the door open to bring pressure on an employer
without contravening the Labor Relations Act by simply claim-
ing fear of safety and then going out on strike.

The importance for the labor movement of the labor
board's findings in the McAlpine case cannot be overempha-
sized. As George Harris, secretary-treasurer of the United
Electrical Workers union, wrote in the Jan. 23 issue of UE
News, the real issue at stake is “who has the right to decide
when life and limb are endangered, the workers who are the
potential victims, or the employers and the Labor Relations
Board.”

The point Mr. Harris makes is that the union cannot but
insist that it is the workers’ unqualified right to decide, and
that under no circumstances can this right be given to employ-
ers, “even though laws favor the employers on this issue at
this time.”

Obviously there is a need to change the law in this res-
pect. To advance the argument for this I take the liberty to
further quote the UE News:

“Whether or not the legislators were callous in their fram-
ing of the (Labor Relations) Act can be debated. What is un-
debatable is that government and legislators have been more
than callous in virtually ignoring important recomendations
made by a royal commission set up by the government in
1966. It is of interest to refer to some important observations
made in that report. They are:

“Your commissioners further recommend facilities for
the establishment of management-labor safety committees at
the plant level...

“Enforcement requires adequate inspection that should
include communication with the working force as well as the
supervisory staff.’ :

“The commission also had strong words on the attitude
of the employers that safety is the sole management respon-
sibility in the decision-making sense. stating ‘the commission
is unable to accept this submission.’

“An item in the press on Jan. 14, 1967, recalled the col-
lapse of the Heron Road bridge in Ottawa in late 1966, and the
tragic death of 10 workmen and injuries to 50 others. The Jan.
14 item contained the information that the City of Ottawa had
laid two charges against the construction firm involved, claim-
ing a violation of Regulations 11 and.131 of the Construction
Safety Act.

“If the construction firm is found guilty and the ‘if? may
be a big one, then the maximum penalty will be $5,000 on each
count. Ten deaths and 50 injured will equal $10,000 under pre-
sent law...

“At the inquest . . . it was disclosed that two safety in-
spectors had seen the lack of proper bracing on the project.
but had failed to report it because they were assured that the
structure was designed by professional engineers. The inquest
was told:

“It is provincial government policy that safety inspec-
tors are not to question designs of professional engineers.’ ”’

“If this constitutes government policy, then Mr. Robarts
and his cabinet should be in court, and charged with crim-
inal negligence. In any event, it is clear that the laws govern-
ing safety in Ontario are long due for complete overhaul.

“But even when the law is given teeth to establish and
enforce fully adequate safety regulations, the right of work-
ers, whose lives may be at stake, to decide whether a hazard
exists, and to refuse to work, must be unqualified. Better a
hundred work stoppages. legal or illegal, than the death or
injury of one worker.”

To which T must add that it is high time someone in this
Legislature take up this issue and demanded some effective
government action now.

March 17, 1967—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page