EDITORIAL Bargaining sovereignty Like it or not for this government, the issue of Arctic sovereignty just will not go way. Still smarting from last year’s embarrassment when Canada gave the U.S. permission to navigate the Northwest Passage, even though the: Americans, who don’t recognize our sovereignty there, didn’t ask for permission, External Affairs Minister Clark denied any secret deal was in the hopper. Clark was denying a Maclean’s magazine story which said Canada and the U.S. have reached agreement which would give the U.S. full access to the Canadian Arctic in exchange for acting as our policeman up there against other nations. The magazine said, “Now the Americans propose to uphold Canada’s claims against everybody but themselves ...”While Joe Clark says this isn’t so, it certainly sounds like something Washington would propose and, unfortu- nately, the sort of demeaning deal the Mulroney government would accept. This Tory government’s record of protecting Canada’s sovereignty in other areas is dismal, and there’s no reason why the country should believe Clark when it comes to the Arctic. Whether it’s steel or lumber, fish or shakes and shingles; whether it’s the auto pact or book publishing or acid rain; whether it’s signing on for another five years of U.S. cruise tests or the coming bomber treetop overflights in Quebec and Ontario — the Tories have sold Canada out. It’s that simple and that dreadful. In Tory thinking, selling out in the Arctic to get a free trade deal from the Americans (upon which Mulroney has risked his political neck) would make perfectly good sense. Sovereignty has never been a problem for the Tories, it’s simply a temporary obstacle. The U.S. proposals Maclean’s speaks of also have the advantage for the Tories of giving the so-called “Soviet threat” its regular mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Veiled references to “protecting the Arctic” continue, despite Canada’s own admission it has no record of Soviet submarines entering Cana- dian Arctic waters. What is confirmed, is that last year, three U.S. submarines surfaced at the north pole having traversed Canadian waters without informing Ottawa. It follows that Canadian Arctic sovereignty is threatened — and it’s threa- tened by- the United States which both rejects our claim to the waterway and regularly violates our borders with its submarines and military surface vessels. Having Uncle Sam’s navy “protecting” Canada’s Arctic would be like putting Dracula in charge of a blood band. ae : RUGET THs, (fF We te EACT HE OWNS Tees We Get fais ee «fe RECOGNIZE ELOCI Tate: Ghee veep TRIBUNE Editor — SEAN GRIFFIN Assistant Editor — DAN KEETON Business & Circulation Manager — MIKE PRONIUK Graphics — ANGELA KENYON Published weekly at 2681 East Hastings Street Vancouver, B.C. V5K 1Z5 Phone (604) 251-1186 ISSN 0030-896X Subscription Rate: Canada — $16 one year; $10 six months Foreign — $25 one year; Second class mail registration number 1560 No one can accuse the United Steel- workers, representing the workers at Algoma Steel, of not taking the financial grief of their employer seriously. Last year you'll recall, Algoma Steel, a subsidiary of Canadian Pacific and Cana- — da’s third largest steelmaker, button-holed the union with a proposal to re-open their contract in order to slash their wages bill. The company coupled their offer with screaming headlines announcing the pub- lic evisceration of their company including 1,500 more lay-offs (in addition to the 4,500 sacrifices they made to Mammon in the 1981-82 economic crisis.) The union said: “No way! Open your books and prove your case.” Confident that the union had fallen into its conces- sionary trap, the company agreed. That the company was in some diffi- culty came as no surprise. But their revela- tion that concessions by the workers would not be the answer no doubt per- plexed the company. The problem, they revealed, was management. Algoma, is not unproductive. It is a modern opera- tion trapped in a quagmire of investment decisions over which the workers had no control. In short, Algoma was after fewer workers, producing more for less, so that the CPR and the banks could amass greater profits without addressing Algo- ma’s (and the community’s and the workers’) problem. In the final analysis, those who called the shots at Algoma weren’t necessarily interested in the future of Algoma, it seems, but rather the balance sheets at the bank and at the CPR. Concessions from the workers and more layoffs in the com- munity seemed perfectly logical to them. Nice try! Immediately prior to the release of the independent consultants’ report, Steel- workers at the Soo formulated contract demands for 1987 bargaining. Labor in action George Hewison Naturally, the work force in such an industry could not help but reflect the doom and gloom which Algoma had been pumping out. Everyone had noted the long and bitter USX strike in the States settled on the basis of wage cutting. Often in Canada in recent times, such an economic and political climate has meant capitulation, hold-the-line , “roll- over” agreements, if not concessionary contracts. Such has not been the approach by the union at Algoma. Yes, they have their eyes on the unem- ployment rolls, but not with a view to intimidating the workers, but rather to prove the need for some fundamentally new and innovative demands. And new demands they have. In addi- tion to the shorter work week, 32 hours at forty hours pay, they are proposing major penalties for overtime worked while brothers and sisters are unemployed. One such innovative proposal is for unemployed workers to be paid a penalty in the form of regular wages in addition to double-time for those workers working overtime. Sounds reasonable to me. The sympathy of the community is being sought for these proposals. For it is the small merchants and other taxpayers of the Soo, who will suffer from the lack of disposable income or purchas- ing power resulting from an additional 1,550 lay-offs. We can be sure that money normally Steel sets sights on shorter hours at Algoma headed for a pay packet but diverted to the banks and the CPR will never see Sault Ste. Marie, let alone Canada, again. The winning of the union’s demand will not be easy. But there is growing precedent in the metallurgical industry. West Ger- man metalworkers won a shorter work week a few years back, opening up thou- sands of new jobs. In Denmark, only afew - weeks ago, metal workers succeded in winning a 37.5 hour work week phased in over a number of years. New technology, growing productivity and mounting unemployment demand shorter work time. To win this and other such demands will require the all-out support of the rest of the Steelworkers, and more. It will require the support of the entire trade union movement and more. It will require the support of the community and more. It will require an understanding that part of the struggle at the bargaining table must involve a new industrial strategy for Canada which sees an expansion and diversification of our basic steel industry. It precludes a free trade agreement with the United States. This will require fundamental restruc- turing of our economy so that the CPR and the banks no longer have the exclusive say over whether steel towns like Sault Ste. Marie, Hamilton or Sydney, N.S. live or die. The struggle of the United Steelworkers at the Soo is everybody’s struggle. 4 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, APRIL 1, 1987