By KERRY McCUAIG

Groups working to preserve the unem-

ployment insurance system will focus their

attention on the Senate, urging it take a
“sober second look” at legislation gutting
the program.

The Mulroney government used its parli-
amentary majority Nov. 7 to push through
its legislative overhaul of UI. The passage of
Bill C-21 will adversely effect 780,000 Can-
adians when it goes into effect Jan. 1, 1990.
It is the first serious attack by the Conserva-
tive government on a major Canadian
social program.

Armine Yalnizyan of the Toronto-based
UI Action Group says her organization,
along with the Quebec coalition, Movement
Action Chomage, will be mounting a
country-wide campaign to pressure the
Senate into providing the full public debate
around the changes to UI that the parlia-
mentary committee denied.

“We call on the Senate to give a full and
fair hearing to all relevant evidence regard-
ing the implementation of Bill C-21, care-
fully review the submissions so thoughtfully
prepared by groups across this country, and
permit Canadians to address the ways in
which the UI Act, should, and should not,
be reformed at this time in order to meet
workers’ needs in a rapidly changing econ-
omy,” Yalnizyan said at a press conference
held in front of the Canada Employment
Centre in downtown Toronto.

The UI Action Group is angered not only
by the changes, which will disqualify
hundreds of thousands of unemployed
workers from collecting benefits, but also
by the undemocratic process the Tories
employed to “muscle through the bill” they
introduced in April this year.

Ignoring traditional procedure, the govern-
ment invoked closure in House of Com-
mons after only two days of debate;
undermined public hearings by holding
them in the summer months; denied MPs
and the public access to government impact
studies; imposed stringent deadlines on
submissions; failed to advertise the hearings
properly; hand-picked deputations and
confined debate to the technical wording in
the bill.

Despite the restrictions, 202 groups did
make presentations during 18 days of

Labour

New Ul law prompts
national Campaign

committee hearings. An analysis done by
the UI Action Group finds 157 were so .
strongly opposed to the changes to the Act
that they called for its withdrawal, even
though rejection of the bill was not a permit-
ted proposal. Another 45 briefs called for
substantial rewording of various sections of
the bill.

“Virtually none of these concerns
expressed by these groups are reflected in
the final version of Bill C-21,” said Yalni-
zyan.

A press release from the group accuses
the government of breaking its promise to
protect social programs. The legislative
amendments remove Ottawa’s financial
commitment to UI, tighten up qualifica-
tions, impose harsher penalties and reduce
payments.

“The results will be devastating,” said
John Clarke of the London Union of
Unemployed Workers. “It will mean a mas-
sive transfer of people from unemployment
insurance onto social assistance. This is
being done while most provinces are cutting
back on social welfare.”

With the exception of Ontario, “where
modest gains have been made,” Clarke
noted a disturbing trend towards provinces
and municipalities forcing recipients to do
menial work for their welfare benefits.

“In the final analysis cheap labour is
what Mulroney is all about,” Clarke said.

The UI Action Group estimates that the
Municipality of Metro Toronto will have to
add a minimum $2 million to its welfare
budget in the first year of the new legislation
as more and more people are denied UI and
forced onto welfare. Despite this, Metro
was not permitted a spot before the com-
mittee.

“With the accelerating dislocation of
workers due to mergers, technological
change and the pressures of free trade, it is
more imperative than ever to ensure that the
UI system is responsive to the needs of Can-
adians across this country,” said Yalnizyan,
inviting people to join in the campaign to
push the Senate.

“This is the last opportunity to provide a
forum for Canadians to challenge the Tory
agenda and respond creatively to it,” she
warned.

Fish alliance founded

Continued from page 1
agement policies, “and foreign overfishing
on the Grand Banks,” it stated.

The alliance selected CAW president
Bob White as national chair, with UFAWU
president Jack Nichol and FFAW president
Richard Cashin as co-chairs.

The statement said an executive commit-
tee comprising representatives of the found-
ing unions will “ensure ongoing dialogue
with the alliance.” The alliance plans to
meet yearly to develop a national program.

Nichol said last summer’s UFAWU
strike, in which fishermen and_ shore-
workers fought industry concessions de-
mands, was the first “‘anti-free-trade” strike.

When the free trade disputes panel ten-
dered its ruling last month, Nichol called it a
“bloody disaster” and said the union would
take its lobby to Ottawa, and meet with
other fish unions.

Nichol said then that B.C.’s union fish
workers may take to blocking trucks carry-
ing unprocessed fish to the U.S., similar to
an action carried out by the Canadian Auto
Workers against National Sea Products.

Contrary to the unions’ position, Ottawa
has been terming the ruling a “victory”
since it apparently allows Canada to impose
the landing and grading requirements on
some 80 per cent of the fish caught in B.C.

8 « Pacific Tribune, November 13, 1989

NICHOL WHITE

waters. But UFAWU spokesperson warn
that the 10-20 per cent that allowed
exported unprocessed constitute the number
of fish that must get through to spawn, and
that it leaves the question of counting fish ©
stocks up to U.S. buyers, notorious for
altering their reports.

The landing and grading requirements

themselves were a watered down response
by the federal government to a previous
GATT ruling that found Canada’s ban on
unprocessed fish exports a violation of
GATT regulations. The GATT actions
were launched by the U.S., which also plans
to fight the move to subject 80 per cent of

the B.C. catch to the landing and grading
requirements.

to choice,

By MARION POLLACK

The number of working women is
growing, and the forecasts for the 1990s
show that this trend can only continue.
At the same time, statistics show that
women are the most rapidly growing
portion of trade union membership.
These two facts have major implications
for trade union activity and policy. Some
of these will be discussed and debated at
the upcoming B.C. Federation of
Labour convention.

Women in British Columbia earn
approximately 65 per cent of what men
earn. And unfortunately that gap has not
significantly changed over the past 10
years. At the same time women must pay
the same amount for bread and rent as
do men. There is not a special line at the
supermarket which allows women to
‘buy a quart of milk at 35 per cent less the
cost of what a man pays. This is one
major reason why pay equity, also
referred to as equal pay for work of equal
value, is such an important issue.

Various CUPE locals, the Telecom-
munications Workers and many other
unions have made or are making pay
equity a major focus in their bargaining.
Unfortunately, the B.C. Federation of
Labour has not been at the forefront in
developing the political and social cli-
mate that would help make pay equity a
reality.

At the 1988 B.C. Fed. convention,
there was a fair amount of discussion and
debate on pay equity. This was followed
up with resolutions that committed the
federation to promoting the concept of
pay equity and to organize a coalition on
this subject. In March of this year, the
federation held its annual women’s con-
ference on the issue of pay equity. It was
one of the most well-attended conferen-
ces, and engendered a great deal of
enthusiasm. But the Fed has not directed
or channelled this.

Ontario has some form of pay equity
legislation. The impetus for this came
from a coalition of labour, community
and women’s groups. There is no ques-
tion that it wasn’t always easy to work in
that coalition, but what remains very
clear is that the efforts of that group
forced the Ontario government to bring
in legislation.

At a recent pay equity convention in
Washington D.C., speaker after speaker
emphasized that the formation and
development of broad pay equity coali-
tions were a crucial step in the pay equity
fight. Yet the leadership of the federation

Labour federation
must be. committed

pay equity

Labour Forum

is still extremely reluctant to participate
in the fledgling pay equity coalition —
Women For Better Wages. Without an
active organized coalition the struggle
for pay equity will be weakened and pro-
longed.

Choice is another issue facing not only
trade union women, but all Canadians.
The federal government has recently
brought in legislation that will still crimi-
nalize women’s rights to control our
bodies. It is legislation that is completely
unacceptable to union women.

Some people in the trade union
movement argue that choice is not a
trade union issue. Others offer a more
sophisticated argument, citing the recent
Industrial Relations Council decision in
the Wilofsky affair. This ruling centred
around two teachers who were allowed
not to join the B.C. Teachers Federation
because of their opposition to the federa-
tion’s stand on choice. Some people have
said that this decision means that unions
should either tread very, very softly or
ignore the question of choice.”

To do that is to allow the state to
control our union activities. In the past
unions have rejected government bans
on the right to strike. We cannot aban-
don taking strong positions affirming the
right to choice any more than we can
abandon our struggle against Bill 19.

The argument that we should recon-
sider our stance on the right to choose
has another insidious side effect. It will
end up limiting our participation in the
trade union movement since we won’t be
able to speak our minds or take what
actions are necessary for fear of an unfa-
vorable IRC decision.

In Ontario, the federation of labour
and the Metro Toroffto Labour Council
are two very strong organizations in the
Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics.
We have to ensure that our federation
not only renews its commitment to cho-
ice, but has its voice heard more loudly
and more frequently.

Pay equity and.choice are two crucial
issues for union women. Without them
there can be no equality. We have to
make sure that the B.C. Federation of
Labour is an active and eager participant
in both of these struggles.

Marion Pollack is a member of the
Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

(GScSa RD ES ER Te Bs Se a eee eee
TRIBUNE
§
-Published weekly at 2681 East Hastings Street
Vancouver, B.C. V5K 1Z5. Phone 251-1186

Namiesies: = ei ed.) 8 Ge ee, ees. &
WAC CTOSS rs ne oe a cose hod telgpncans Bseeaeenas Rises eee sates
Sie err ES ie SDastel Cous decinty Crbenig eects mance ier
lamenclosing 1yr: $200) 2yrs.$350 3yrs. $500 Foreign 1 yr. $320 M

Bill me later + Donation$........ E

6

yi