Letters

___ Jim Green, organizer, Downtown Eastside
| Residents Association, writes: Mr. Anthony
J. (Tony) Brummet, minister of lands, parks
_ and housing, recently wrote a letter which
appeared in the July 31, 1985 issue of the
_ Vancouver Sun.

As many people know, the federal and

)

Provincial governments are currently nego-
_ Uating an agreement to allow the provinces

greater control over the delivery and fund-
_ Ing of social housing. In his letter, Brummet
States: ‘Public comment is welcome and
my ministry encourages dialogue.” With
this in mind, I want to respond to the major
points he raises.

Brummet maintains that some existing

_ CO-ops are not targetting as many low-

income people as possible. He would like to

_ Tedirect subsidies, a move he believes would

benefit those who truly need help.
I agree that the current CHMC program

_ could be improved to reach more low-

income people. But let’s examine Brummet’s
Position more closely. Why doesn’t the

_ existing program house more low-income

people? Why do many co-ops in this pro-

_ vince have difficulty assisting those who

need the most help?

One of the reasons is that, unlike most
other provincial governments in Canada,
the. government of B.C. does not add any
money to federal funds to help subsidize
low-income people. In fact, B.C. has the

Worst social housing record in the country.

Past events make it clear that the Social
Credit government is actually opposed to
co-operative housing and non-profit rental
projects. In May of 1984, DERA, the First
United Church and the Chinese Benevolent
Association put before Expo 86 a proposal

for a housing program. We suggested that
we could build 500 units of housing under
the CMHC program and rent these units
during Expo to international participants in
the fair.

As we explained to the Expo Board, if the
500 units were rented to Expo at rates equi-
valent to hotel prices in the area, we would
be able to make enough “‘profit” to house
low-income people for the life of the project,
or approximately 70 years.

The 500 needed units would have been an
example of truly “cost-efficient housing.” It
would have also been a golden opportunity
for the provincial government to demon-
strate, through its Crown corporation, sup-
port for innovative, low-income housing.
Yet, without any discussion, the proposal
from the three groups was turned down.

If, as Brummet says, he and his col-
leagues in Victoria are concerned that co-
ops and non-profit rentals should more
effectively target low-income people, why
did they refuse this chance to do so? The
answer can only be that the Social Credit
government is not prepared to support low-
income housing, that the Social Credit
government opposes the social housing
movement in general.

Brummet further states, “The industry
believes increased competition will reduce
costs substantially more than any profit
they may gain without compromising qual-
ity.” This is a basic contradiction. Afford-
able land is a crucial factor in co-op and
non-profit rental housing.

But increased competition drives land
prices up; when land prices go up, the
amount of money available for developing
housing for poor people goes down. Both

Nothing ‘social’ in Socred housing

the quantity and quality of the housing
suffers.

The development of the DERA co-op,
like all co-ops, involved hundreds and
hundreds of hours of volunteer labor. A
private industry scheme would have to
include not only salaried people to do that
work, but a sufficient profit margin to inter-
est the private sector in the first place.

How could it possibly be less expensive to
house poor people under such a scheme
unless quality were compromised? Even
under the restrictions of the existing pro-
gram, and without the help of a provincial
subsidy, the DERA co-op was able to house
people below the poverty line in 75 per cent
of its: units.

People most in need were targetted with-
out being isolated and ghettoized. This
allowed the DERA co-op to bring together
people from varied socio-economic and cul-
tural backgrounds.

Brummet closes his letter by stating “Our
mandate is to protect overall the best public
interest.” If this is true, I would like to know
why Brummet’s ministry has raised seniors’
housing rents from 25 to 30 per cent of their
income. And why do ministry regulations
specify that rent-subsidy benefits received
by seniors through the provincial Shelter
Aid for Elderly Renters (SAFER) program
must be deducted from any other assistance
they receive?

But that’s the way the Social Credit
government has dealt with housing issues
right down the line — if they give with one
hand, they take with the other.

Given this record, it is with dread that I
look forward to any turnover of the federal
program for housing to the provincial
Socreds.

Canadian sovereignty challenged again

Emie Knott, secretary, Vancouver Island
region, Communist Party of Canada, writes:
Canada’s sovereignty, this time involving
our internal Arctic waters, is once again
being challenged by our great “‘ally” to the
south. At the same time the U.S. is also
challenging our sovereignty over offshore
areas of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the
Dixon Entrance near Prince Rupert. Some
months ago the U.S. advertised the sale of
oil leases to an area in Dixon Entrance. We
should bear in mind that our Arctic water-

ways also possess oil and gas, and perhaps
other valuable minerals.

These actions demonstrate that the U.S.
government has in the past and is now exer-
cising its imperialist demands on Canada’s
territory. The U.S. appetite, whetted by
Mulroney’s attitude at the “Shamrock
Summit” .and on defence policy, by Tory
concessioLs on energy policy, by proposals
for “free trade” and by other proposed con-
cessions, is hungry for more. The lesson
here, and this is well known to people in the

More on Patent Act amendments

Frank Archer, president, B.C. Pharmacists
Society, writes: Your July 11, 1985 edition
contained an article by Harry Rankin con-
cerning drug prices and a proposed
amendment to the Patent Act which might
Serve to increase drug prices in Canada.
While not arguing with the gist of the article
I would like to point out several inaccura-
cies,

When new drugs are put on the market a
patent is taken out. However the patent in
Canada pertains to the process used to
manufacture the drug. Rankin states that a
Patent is taken out when a drug is marketed
under a new name. He may be confusing
patents with trade marks and the protection
of a brand name. This has nothing to do
with patenting the process of manufactur-
ing which occurs only once.

The 1969 amendment to the Patent Act
concerned the importation of drugs. Even
before 1969 any company could gain a
licence to manufacture a patented drug in
Canada by applying to the Commissioner
of Patents. For obvious reasons of econo-
mies of scale this seldom happened.

The length of the patent was not reduced
to four years but remained at 17 years. It
was the effective length of patent protection
that was reduced to about four years for
Widely prescribed drugs. Less popular drugs
Continued to enjoy the 17 years of patent

protection and even longer unless a generic
equivalent was marketed after the patent
life had expired. The suggestion that generic
drugs sell for half the price charged for
brand names is a conservative estimate.
They usually sell for even less.

The income taxes paid by multinational
drug manufacturers are another matter. A
better word to describe these companies is
“transnational” since they carry on their
activities across international boundaries
with research in one country, development
in another, manufacture of the raw drug in
a third, formulation in a fourth, etc. rather
than doing all their activities in every coun-
try in which they are located. This results in
the so-called “transfer price” where a drug
may be manufactured in one country and
imported into another country at an arbi-
trary price from the parent company. Con-
sidering that drug prices in the United States
are the highest in the world due to effective
patent protection is makes sense for U.S.
companies to pay most of their income tax
in the States in order to maintain a strong
lobby in that country. Of course this does
not make sense from a Canadian point of
view. In other countries such as Great Bri-
tain, lawsuits against transnational drug
manufacturers have been successful in
reducing transfer prices to more realisitc
levels and thereby increasing the revenue
subject to income tax.

labor movement, is that the outcome of
concessions is always the demand for more
concessions.

Paradoxically, on the one hand we are
barring Polish fish trawlers which bring mil-
lions of dollars into the local economy, from
local waters, while at the same time we are
giving free unpermitted passage through
our Arctic waters to vessels from the U.S.
whose history is that of taking money out of
Canada.

Three times in the past Canada has
upheld its sovereignty against U.S. aggres-
sion. We must not let down our forefathers.
We must demand that the federal govern-
ment stand up to and defend Canada’s
interests against this latest U.S. aggression.

Classified
Advertising

COMING EVENTS

VICTORIA
SEPT. 8 — Annual Picnic and Salmon Bar-
becue. 1 to 6 p.m. Lots to eat, friendly people to
meet. Come for the weekend and camp out at the
Knotthole.-.4810 Sooke Rd. Phone 642-5120.

SEPT. 28 — Conference of Solidarity for a
Democratic Chile. King Edward Campus, 1155
E. Broadway. Fee: $15/organization; $8/indi-
vidual. Sponsored by Canadians for Democracy
in Chile. Phone 254-9797 for more info.

COMMERCIAL

GRAMMA PUBLICATIONS. Complete print-
ing services. Brochures, menus, leaflets, etc. A
union shop. 1595 W. 3rd Ave., Vancouver.
Hours: Mon-Fri. 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. 733-6822.
ELECTRIC PLUMBING, appliance repairs.
Don Berg 255-7287.
GENERAL INSURANCE, home, business,
trade unions. Dave Morton, bus. 986-9351;
res. 433-4568.

VICTORIA
BILL HARTLEY your Auto Plan man. All types

of insurance. Mail in or phone in. 2420 Douglas
Street, Victoria, V8T 4L7. 388-5014.

LEGAL SERVICES

RANKIN, BOND, McMURRAY. Barristers
and Solicitors. 2nd Floor, 157 Alexander Street.
682-3621.

DIRECTORY

COMMUNIST PARTY OF CANADA offices
located at 102, 2747 E. Hastings St. Vancouver.
Phone 254-9836. Office hours 9:30-12 noon;
1-5 p.m. Mon to Fri. For information on political
issues or assistance in political activity.

HALLS FOR RENT

RUSSIAN PEOPLE’S HOME — Available for
rentals. For reservations phone 254-3430.

UKRAINIAN CANADIAN CULTURAL
CENTRE — 805 East Pender St. Vancouver.
Available for banquets, weddings, meetings.
Phone 254-3436.

Classified advertising rates $7 per line per
week. Deadline for insertions: Wednesday of
week prior to publication.

RANKIN
&
COMPANY

Barristers & Solicitors

4th Floor, 195 Alexander St.
Vancouver, B.C. V6A IN8

682-2781

Offers a broad range of
legal services including:

Personal Injury & Insurance claims
Real Estate & Conveyancing
Divorce & Family Law

Labour Law

Criminal Law

Estates & Wills

JOIN THE GREAT

With
GLOBE TOURS

For any of your travel needs
big or small. Let Globe Tours
find the best way for you.

Specializing in tours
to the USSR |

GLOBE TOURS 2679 E. Hastings St., Vancouver, B.C. V5K 1Z5
253-1221

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, AUGUST 28, 1985 e 7