Se Lee Cee ip, “yp Se _Robarts tricks the gullible By BRUCE MAGNUSON There are “no hard and fast answers to the problems of mu- nicipal financing,” says Tory Premier John Palmete Robarts of Ontario. To this rather censori- Ous observation, made at a press conference and not in the Legis- lature, the Premier hastily adds his intention of putting an end to the system of giving grants to municipalities. Instead, he will give the local governments a share in some taxes hitherto col- lected exclusively by the prov- ince. Specifically, he mentions liquor revenues or retail sales taxes. : ; The Premier’s political ploy worked wonders on a number of gullible and opportunist loca! po- liticians. York Mayor Jack Mould hail- ed the announcement as “the most progressive step toward helping municipal governments ever made by a Canadian prov- ince.” North York Mayor James Ser- vice welcomed the Premier’s an- nouncement as “the tax-sharing system I’ve been advocating for about five years.” Etobicoke Mayor Edward’ Hor- ton expressed a desire to meet with the Premier at the first Op- portunity to discuss the propo- sal East York Mayor True David- son Says a new system of money Taising for municipalities would be fine provided the province stopped “imposing obligations on the municipalities.” Miss Da- vidson referred to the new coun- ty school boards as a “unilateral” provincial decision that “greatly increased the cost of education.” Scarborough Mayor Abe Camp- bell thought the Robarts’ an- nouncement was “vague” on spe- cifics but that “in principle, it is better for municipalities not to be dependent on provincial hand- outs.” Toronto’s Mayor Wm. Denni- son, whose exposure of the pro- vincial government’s financial squeeze on the municipalities provoked the Premier into his political counter-offensive in the first place, suggested the grants be replaced by a municipal in- come tax, e - What is overlooked by all these local politicians is the fact that no municipal government anywhere in Canada today is in the constitutional or administra- tive position to tax the great cor- porate wealth and gigantic per- sonal fortunes that are accumu- lating at a national and interna- tional level. The highly concen- trated economic power in the hands of multinational corpora- tions and monopolies, and fabu- lously rich individuals, can only be effectively taxed by federal and provincial governments. These governments must there- fore collect personal income taxes from the wealthy; taxes on corporate profits and capital gains; and devise the formulas by which to allocate the needed revenue to individual municipali- ties to pay for services made necessary by the profit-making operations of this corporate and. monopoly structure. The only alternative to this, is for senior governments to take over the financial responsibility for meeting the cost of ever-in- creasing community services, such as: education, health, wel- fare, pollution control and abate- ment, cost of arterial through- fares, express-ways and other transit facilities, etc. Any municipal income tax, re- tail sales taxes, or other form of local taxation would inevitably fall on small businesses, working people of modest and inadequate incomes, and people living on fixed incomes. It would be a mat- ter of more: discriminatory taxa- Winnipeg A public meeting on May 15 in Winnipeg gave unanimous support to the campaign of the Communist Party for Canadian withdrawal from NATO and NO- RAD. In a sharply worded tele- gram to Prime Minister Trudeau the meeting called on the federal government to immediately with- draw from NATO and NORAD. “Instead of eliminating family allowances the government should cut the arms budget by 50 percent and use the money to build homes and provide for the needs of the people,” the message said. Don Currie, national organizer of the Communist Party, and speaker at the meet, declared that continued Canadian partici- pation in NATO encouraged the most bellicose interests in Bonn and Washington. “Canadian gov-| ernment complicity in every U.S. imperialist adventure since the founding of NATO plus $40 bil- lion in wasteful defense expen- ditures is the price Canadians have paid for our membership in this cold war aggressive alli- ance,” he declared. Canadian participation in NATO led to Canadian approval of the re- armament of West Germany un- der ex-Hitler generals and helped to open the way to the danger of unrepentant nazi officers get- PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MAY 23, 1969—Page 6 for NATO pullout meet calls ting their fingers on nuclear wea- pons. Currie charged that Cana- da has its own military-industrial complex that is making huge profits out of sharing in U.S. de- fense contracts and in supplying arms and ammunition for U.S. forces in Vietnam. Canadian de- fense exports totalled $429 mil- lion in 1968 or about 6 percent of total export trade. “Defense Minister Cadieux and the whole defense department establish- ment has a big stake in keeping Canada in NATO,” Currie said. The fact that Trudeau admit- ted in Calgary that foreign poli- cy was being dictated by our NATO and NORAD agreements and later promised a pull-back of forces at some future time re- vealed the popular sentiment in the country for withdrawal from NATO. “The progressive forces in Canada should be encouraged by these developments and step up the campaign for withdrawal from NATO,” he asserted. “Can- adian withdrawal from NATO would have an effect on the world balance of forces in favor of peace and could be decisive in defeating the pro-imperialist side of Canadian government foreign policy and open the way to an entirely new and peaceful direction for Canada in world af- fairs,” tion on the masses of home own. ers and tenants, equally as re- gressive as the already excessive and intolerable property tax. e What must be seen in the pres- ent situation is the conscious ef- fort by federal and provincial governments alike, to shift the heavy cost of highly profitable military spending and corporate subsidies to the back of working people, and to cut needed social service spending to the bone. This is indicated in the federal government’s effort to cut back its financial aid to provinces and to get out from under on shared- cost programs, such as medicare. There is talk about cutting fam- ily allowances and abolishing the principle of universality in the matter of social security. What is involved here is a struggle as to how the national income is to be divided between working people who produce all wealth, on the one hand, and big capital which appropriates the lion’s share of this through monopoly profits, on the other hand. ) As for Premier Robarts’ dou- ble-talk about trimming munici- pal grants and tax sharing, this is simply pure and undiluted hog- wash for the benefit of the gul- lible. If Premier Robarts was in the least sincere in wanting to re- lieve hard-pressed local taxpay- ers from their unbearable bur- dens he would take immediate steps to implement the 24-year- old broken Tory election promise of Col. George A. Drew in his No rate increase, nationaliza- tion of Bell Telephone and an integrated country-wide tele- phone, telecommunication, mic- rowave and satellite system to provide service at cost are the proposals of the Metro Toronto Committee of the Communst Party in its submission to the Canadian Transport Commis- sion. The Commission has be- fore it an application from Bell Telephone for increases in their rates. In its submission the Com- munist Party made the follow- ing points to substantiate the need for nationalization: e “The justification given by the Company for its application is the need for a higher rate of return to its investors. This is set forth on page 15, paragraph 37, which states: ‘A rate of re- turn of 8 percent on total aver- age capitalization, assuming a 40 percent debt ratio, is essen- tial under current and immedi- ately foreseeable conditions to meet the need of the Applicant and to improve its financial po- sition.’ e “Records will indicate that Bell is unique in that since 1881, without any break, it has paid dividends. Its stock has always wealth . 22-point 1945 campaign platform for re-election to office. The Toronto and Hae would result in a subs is perty tax reduction, a promise was to assume at least ers i 50 percent of education costs nanza to the local toes paid by property taxes at the the heavily populayy r meaniné municipal level. True, this is not Let action speak than empty enough in present conditions ful tax reform, rae gopbledee ‘ when the province ought to pay words and poll 5 ‘monoP! 100 percent of such costs. But gook to cover up 10 , for the bigger cities, like Metro interests. a ee “YOU'VE BEEN SHORT-CHANGING ME, BUB! u Fin Stat the ing i " and : Se ial Ceg footie | Con Nal | Th the | e 6 lA igy ationalize Bell — ? ( 3 ° d x oronto Communists deman@ |: : wag and # \ta number of smaller Ontario and light of data processin’ lop Bt Quebec telephone companies be- tellite communication f publi | Wa ing absorbed. ments. As vast sum O"for 1 vor e “As the Communist Party inoney are expended we con Sep has indicated in previous sub- search in these fields, peratine tto missions to you, we think the tend that the utilities a ; Doy time has come when serious in them must not re ains ime consideration should be given private hands mae ravi ing to public ownership and control, the public expense and © gtr! |p, rather than private, in the field dangerously inordinate © =) © of communication. - over stored data. er 10 | gt e “Bell’s own submission e “In addition, in ort af | ma makes clear that the increased have a_ unified, integral - | Wa service, for which they wish in- proach to communicati? allite® | Coy creased profits, came about from postal service to cont Jo} through technoiogical improve- it is necessary to haV onts0h Me ments which meant savings in plete governmental - ple By cost, which they, do not propose which remains impossiD©s 38 | my, to pass on to the consumer. This long as so large a compe by took place as telephones ‘in ser- Bell remains in private a ‘ thi vice increased 73.5 percent - esull (1968 over 1958) and long dis- _ © “Furthermore, as 3 ations? V6 tance messages increased 83 the intercompany fF qamel | the percent. between Bell Canada ae egrap” W, e “These technological im- can Telephone and ‘ect 10 the lit provements, it is our contention, Canadians become sure? | ha should be of benefit to the pub- Profit demands of a commu ie ed lic and this can only be achieved in the vital field of eed pic i‘. ing through public ownership and_ tions. Decisions are ta ad2” |}, control. may or may not be !n e “Torontonians should be in interest. at be P | in a position where not only are The brief, which Nid on Df | W, there special privileges for Bell sented by Norman Bru 4 om | gy Canada in relation to municipal half of the Metro Toron gtatine W taxation, but where increased mittee, concludes by atione th costs of telephone service are that the proposals for ‘e 4 9% Stk imposed on a public in order ization and the integra acess diy - to achieve an 8 percent return tem are the direction ? be | of sold well. Its yield is amongst the highest. e “Bell Canada’s position of dominance in the communica- tion field has increased again in the last 10 year period, with a to the investors. e “Further, we feel that an examination should be made of the effects of private ownership in the communication field in so Canada’s interests. 5e5 served, not “granting inc to a private corporation benefit solely of a small 8” of private investors.”