BRITISH COLUMBIA City council is being asked by the city manager and city engineer to endorse in principle the federal government’s plan to deregulate the transportation industry in Canada. Council decided to postpone a decision until after all interested parties had had a chance to submit their views to the city’s committee on economic devel- opment. Deregulation of transportation would mean that current laws and regulations which govern the transportation industry in Canada (airlines, railways, trucking, shipping and pipelines) would be abol- ished These industries would be on their own; they could do as they like when it comes to the rates they charge and the services they provide. There would be no consumer or public protection. The proposed new government policies are outlined in a report titled Freedom to Move: A Framework for Transportation Reform. It says that in the deregulated industry “current restrictions and acquisitions within the industry will generally be relaxed,” which is another way of saying that the big and strong will swallow the small and weak. : “Confidential contracts will be permit- ted between a railway and a shipper for all domestic, overseas/export.” That means that big companies will be given preferen- tial rates over small ones. “There will no ongoing regulation of domestic tariffs” which means they will charge all the traffic can bear. About the only good thing in the whole federal policy is that coast shipping trade will continue to be reserved for Canadian ships. However the new policy doesn’t say a thing about the major issue, which is that all ships used by companies operating in Canada (such as the oil companies, the CPR and the forestry comanies) should be built in Canada, and crewed by Canadians and registered in Canada. We should also have laws which require 40 per cent of our exports to be carried in Canadian bot- toms. The report concludes with the state- ment that “greater reliance on competi- Harry — Rankin tion and market forces will result in lower unit costs, more competitive prices, a wider range of public service to shippers and the public.” That’s just plain fertilizer from the male of the bovine species. You don’t have to be an economist to know that when big business organiza- tions in Canada, led by the Royal Bank, pressure Ottawa for deregulation, they do so with only one aim in mind: higher prof- its. They will get higher profits through deregulation by increasing prices to the Customer will pay cost of transportation deregulation | consumer, by lowering the levels of service and cutting out all branches of their servi- ces that do not produce a high rate of profit, and by squeezing out small compe- titiors and centralizing transportation, more than ever in the hands of just a handful of corporations. A further result will be greater pressure on unions to give concessions to employers on the grounds that their employers must be “competi- tive.” The Globe and Mail reported (Jan. 5, 1985) that as a result of deregulation of the airline industry in the U.S., a new pheno- mena has come about: “the development of an oligopoly in the airline indus- try...the industry appears to be coming under the control of five powerful corpo- rations” and a handful of major giants “are tightening their grip on lucrative routes and squeezing weaker competi- tors.” ‘ In Canada, CP Air has already taken over Eastern Provincial Airways and Nordair. The Canadian Air Line~Flight Attendants Association has charged that since Time Air bought out Inter-City Air, and Air Canada and PWA have each bought a 24.5 per cent interest in Air Ontario, the three of them have entered into an agreement not to compete with each other in prices. Because deregulation is bad for the con- sumer and for labor, the whole trade union movement and scores of consumer groups in Canada are fighting it. In spite of these obvious facts, the city manager and city engineer want the city to endorse the deregulation proposed by Ottawa in principle on the grounds that they “may prove beneficial” to Vancouver because “the efficient movement of goods and people are vital to Vancouver’s econ- omy.” Deregulation would prove very benefi- cial to the trucking, airline, railway and shipping companies because they will increase their rates and cut their services. But it will not be beneficial to the people of Vancouver who will have to pay more for less, and will result in still more people being thrown out of work as firms merge and lay off staff. We don’t need less reuglation of trans- portation in Canada, we neéd more. Rates should be kept down and equal services to all citizens should be provided as a condition for these companies remain- ing in business. And we need regulatory bodies that will protect the consumer, not the sham regulatory bodies we have today which just look after the interests of the companies they are supposed to be con- trolling. This is the message that city council should be giving Ottawa. aad traaaeadindatainadeendmaatal -ELP seeks Xmas GAIN rate hike End Legislated Poverty, the 12-group member coalition formed to fight for increased welfare rates, has called on the provincial human resources ministry to add a basic $100 to each GAIN cheque for the The organization, which cites a lengthy period between January and February wel- fare payments and the astronomical increase in hydro costs due to the recent cold spell, has also hit the ministry for “mis- leading” information concerning emer- gency aid. ELP’s Stephen Learey cited a small vic- tory in deputy Human Resources Minister John Nobie’s recent announcement that the ministry has moved up February’s payment schedule one week, from Jan. 29 to Jan. 22. __ Learey said ELP’s demand, for $100 and _ $60 for each dependent, would mean less in costs for the ministry than entailed by appeals for crisis grants certain to pour in during the season. He noted GAIN rates have not risen since 1982, while the Consu- mer Price Index shows a 15-per cent cost-of- _ Ina letter to Human Resources Minister issued for January,” pointing out that the statement ignored the option of appealing Learey said that if ELP’s demand is “education program” on applying for crisis grants in January. By STEVE GIDORA Steve Gidora ais was a candidate for the electoral alli- ance, Surrey Coali- | tion of Progressive | Electors (SCOPE), in the municipal election Nov. 16. The centre-left labor alliance that _ emerged in Surrey during the last munici- ~ pal election netted the highest percentages of the popular vote for progressive candi- dates to date. The three aldermanic candidates and two school board contenders for the Sur- rey Coalition of Progressive Electors scored even higher than in 1980, when I garnered more than 4,500, or 25 per cent of the popular vote, in a try for school board Lack of a strong, unified labor presence during the campaign and an extremely low voter turnout are the chief causes for the failure of progressive candidates to win office in 1985. The final results of the Surrey election for each SCOPE candidate were as fol- lows: [SCOPE is an alliance of the Coali- tion for Responsible Development (CRD) and the Surrey Alternative Movement (SAM)]: ® Don Carter (CRD), candidate for a two-year aldermanic term, netted 3,034 _ Votes (7,066 required for election) or 20 * per cent of the popular vote; @ Steve Gidora (SAM), netted 2,788 votes in the two-year aldermanic race for 19 per cent; @ Terry Lawrence (CRD) achieved 2,597 votes, (4,686 required for election), in the one-year aldermanic race, receiving 2 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, DECEMBER 4, 1985 16 per cent of the popular vote; Ee SSA Labor presence could mean victory in future Surrey municipal race @ Josephine Arland (SAM) received 4,417 votes in her bid for a two-year school trustee seat (8,087 required), for 32 per cent; © Gord Savard (SAM) netted 3,917 votes (7,816 required) in the one-year trus- tee race, for 25 per cent. Re-elected Mayor Don Ross received a serious challenge by Ald. Bob Bose in an election with a voter turnout only slightly higher than in the 1983 mayoral race: 23 per cent in 1985, compared to 22.53 per cent. In that year I received 1,671 votes, or 12 per cent, while Savard received 2,101 votes, or 15 per cent. Last year, with no mayoral contest, the voter turnout was only 16.3 per cent. In that race SAM’s percentage increased, with Savard receiving 18 per cent and myself garnering 14 per cent of the popu- Jar vote.«4 —. The upshot is, while voter turnout since 1982 has fluctuated between 23 and 16 per cent of the eligible electorate, candidates representing labor’s program have gradu- ally increased their popular vote percen- tages. The absence of 77 per cent of the electo- rate from participation in Surrey’s last election contributed to the defeat of the . candidates representing labor’s interests, with fightback-against-cuts policies, and Opposition to Surrey’s developer-oriented An analysis and comparison of the 23 per cent who voted, to the 77 per cent who abstained, woud likely reveal that the majority of labor’s vote is contained within the latter. Their absence from the polls is due to the failure of organized labor, with a few: notable exceptions, to become involved in the campaign. The fact is that a prominent and cohesive labor Presence in the civic scene does not exist in Surrey. As a result, candidates with policies relevant to working people, unemployed, seniors and youth did not get the broadest — possible exposure, and the necessary pub- © lic support. ; However, the successes that were real- _ ized, with the limited involvement of cer- _ tain trade union locals — Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 728, Carpenters Local 452 and 1251, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, Local 30, and the Surrey Teachers Association (which limited its — support to the school board candidates), — and the East Indian Workers Association — — point to the conclusion that labor’s — involvement can be decisive. The SCOPE campaign received a boost, also, with the support of Charan Gill of the Progressive Indo-Canadian Organization (who also endorsed Bose’s — campaign) and former federal NDP can- © didate Mike Villeneuve. Since 1980, the left and anti-Socred for ces in Surrey have been fragmented. Three groups — SAM, Citizens for a Better Surrey (CBS) and the Surrey Municipal Electors (SME) — have vied for labor’ nod of approval, but in 1985 only two of — these, SAM and SME, were active. SME, — which dominates council, has a minimal anti-Socred presence, but the fact tha’ there were less groups competing for the working-class vote — despite the con- tinued division of labor’s forces — helped increase the vote for progressives. In contrast, the right wing and pro- developer forces, with their well-financed campaign and connections to the Socred electoral machine, delivered their support to the polls, But the network of support that has evolved with the SCOPE campaign means “we can now build on our successes and concentrate on the task of involving lab _and the left to a great extent, and deliver the so-far untapped support to the polls.