Labour This autumn should be a hot one with plenty of action for the labour movement and the pro-Canada forces. With a likely strike coming in the auto industry, Can- adian Auto Workers members will be joining workers from steel industry who are now off the job. Anew fly in the ointment comes from U.S. President Bush who will ask Con- gress in September for authority to neg- Otiate a trade deal with Mexico on the same “fast track” used to secure the U.S.- Canada free trade deal. A parliamentary committee has been | Labour must work to prevent new free trade pact ted that a number of business groups and organizations have been urging the fed- eral government to take part in order to . “protect” Canada’s trade interests and the “gains” negotiated under the Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement. It would be fatal to assume that the unpopularity of the Tories will save Can- ada from entering into free trade with Mexico. The many forces who are trying to integrate us into a continental market still have lots of life left in them. The troops have to be mobilized to stop Ottawa from getting involved in John MacLennan holding public hearings over the summer on Mexico-U.S. free trade and a majority of its members favour Canadian involve- ment in the talks. During his meeting with the committee Trade Minister John Crosbie pointedly asked it to make rec- ommendations to the government on Canada’s role in the negotiations. But events this past week have forced an unexpected acceleration in the talks between Mexico and Washington and that could force the Tories to move faster into a new trade agreement than they had initially planned. Having to table a new free trade agreement, when the casualties of the current one are dropping like flies, pre- sents a dilemma for the party. A govern- ment which has struck out on nearly every policy initiative it has taken, from Meech Lake to international affairs, doesn’t relish sparking a new anti-free trade campaign. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney also has to deal with dissent in his caucus as MPs witness the thrashing Tory candi- dates are getting in byelections. Drop- ping from 12,000 to 1,000 votes in Quebec’s Laurier-Ste. Marie riding and picking up only 6.5 per cent of the vote in Oshawa, Ont. makes them nervous. But on the other hand the corporate sector as witnessed in the business press — columnists, big business spokesper- sons and political pundits — have been pushing the Tories to get involved in the USS. talks with Mexico. Committee chair John Bosley admit- LABOUR IN ACTION these new talks. This job falls first and foremost to the labour movement. Thousands of jobs have been lost due to the free trade agreement; 97 plants have closed in Ontario alone in the first six months of 1990. The implementation of the Goods and Service Tax in 1991 will only add to numbers of unemployed. It’s clear there is a direct link to the current strike struggles taking place and the fight to save Canada. The neo-conser- vative agenda is being implemented by the Tories at the behest of big business as the only way to compete with other world trading blocks. This is being done on the backs of working people. But Canadians are fight- ing back through coalitions of labour and popular groups that are now well estab- lished in our political life. There needs to be a coming together of all the pro-Canada forces as soon as possible to meet head on this new fast track proposal from the Americans. This issue has to be on the agenda of the executive council of the Canadian Labour Congress when it meets in Sep- tember. True, labour already has a full plate with all it plans this fall against the GST and other Tory initiatives. But tack- ling free trade with Mexico now is a way of strangling the idea before it gets too far off the ground. INOS is re ae es, Address: . ines SS 8 « Pacific Tribune, August 27, 1990 [mi l=1 9) / = Published weekly at 2681 East Hastings Street Vancouver, B.C. V5K 1Z5. Phone: 251-1186 jaa a Ser eee r= oP OTEIMCOOOL. 5a: & = ST SRS: NS | amenclosing: 1 year: $20 C2 2 years: $35 Os years $50 Foreign 1 year $32 We need to discuss aborigi Labour Forum By JIM RUSHTON The landscape of aboriginal issues across Canada is shifting rapidly and dramatically. In recent months political events, court de- cisions and the actions of governments have brought this issue to the forefront. Native people like many others in our society were excluded from the constitution- al process that was Meech Lake. The dif- ference was that Native people, due to cir- cumstances, were able to do something about it through the actions of Elijah-Harper in the Manitoba Legislature. This was a monumental political event, a watershed in advancing a new constitutional and legal relationship between the whole of Canada and aboriginal peoples. This has provided tremendous encouragement and new determination, uniting aboriginal people across Canada. ’ The federal government walked away from the constitutional debate making threats against Native people, stating that their position in Canada | has been under- mined by their actions. The deliberate actions of the Quebec and federal governments at the Mohawk block- ade in Oka, Que., served only to fuel the flames of confrontation. Sparked by the Oka situation, British Columbia is riddled with blockades and counter-blockades. Bill Vander Zalm, while saying he wants to “help” Native people deal with the federal government, is in a back- handed way encouraging non-Native retal- iation in an effort to squirm out of real action on land claims by his government. His hopes to initiate a backlash prevents his govern- ment from acting. Recent court cases taken up by Native ~ people in British Columbia and Nova Scotia have upheld basic fishing and hunting rights. This based on law; some declarations and treaties are over two hundred years old. The courtrulings didnot distinctly define these rights or how they are to be exercised in 1990. And rightly so: these are social and human issues which must be dealt with politically. The court rulings have raised the expec- tations of Native people, particularly in Brit- ish Columbia, and heightened fears of others in the fishing industry. What has the government’s response been? Has it been to convene a dialogue among the interested parties in an attempt to begin developing fishing plans and a consensus? No. The government has refused requests by some Native leaders and the UFAWU to do so. Instead, it has been moving unilateral- ly and bureaucratically, changing fishing plans without real consultation or with the meaningful involvement of anyone, Native or non-Native. Obviously, the government strategy is to foster confrontation in an effort to justify radical actions consistent with its plan to rationalize the industry through privatiza- tion and to reduce its responsibility to man- age and develop fishery resources. What then lies behind federal and provin- cial governments’ refusal to deal forth right- ly with land claims, fishing plans, and con- Stitutional recognition of Canada’s First Nations? Why are governments encourag- ing confrontation rather than consultation and resolution? Present-day governments, similar to pre- vious governments, have legislated and managed the lands, the resources and the people of our country for one purpose, and that is to provide security and profit for the corporations which control the economy. It nal title is the corporations which have the greatest stake in maintaining the status quo. This is why sometimes openly, some- times behind the scenes, but consistently, the corporate community promotes an “us OF them” scenario: between working people and Native people, between working people and environmentalists, between environ- mentalists and Native people and the trade unions. They hope to sow enough division and fear among people to frustrate all attempts at unity and consensus. They hope to drive the wedge so deep in the fishing industry as to guarantee no united action on fish prices, wages and:working conditions, job protec- tion for Canadians or resource privatization. The fish companies with which we deal control the bulk of processing facilities, the bulk of the fleet, the bulk of the production and the profit generated by resource and the people who harvest and process it. The one thing they fear is unity among those who work in the industry. If Native and non-Native fishermen could achieve consensus on allocation, and if all fishermen understood that it is com- pany profits and not wages which determine fish prices, we would develop the united strength necessary to protect each other from the greed of the companies. We would have the political strength necessary to pro- tect the environment and fish habitat, to force real government action on building fish stocks. This is the only real guarantee for anyone’s future and is.a basis to address land title questions with some degree of harmony. The alternative is to follow the lead of the governments and companies. To escalate the confrontation would be to seek outa solution through power politics and gamble on a “winner takes all” approach. Most people in society accept the status quo will be changed. The real question is how things will be changed and what the effects will be. We must find the way for those who have lived on this land for more then 10,000 years, for those who have roots in Canada going back hundreds of years and for those who arrive daily, to live in harmony, to share the resources in a sensible way, building an environmentally sound and prosperous fu- ture for our children. Not all non-Natives are responsible for the historic injustices against the First Na- tions of Canada. But, we are all responsible forfinding a present-day solution. The basic human rights of all people must be respected and this means taking into account the posi- tion of all working people whose lives are involved in the fishing industry. Achieving this mutual respect is the only way the dif- ficult practical problems we face will be made easier. In 1985, representatives of the Native community and the trade union movement met in Nanaimo. The document adopted at this conference stated in its preamble: “We, aboriginal and labour leaders of British Col- umbia, make the following declaration, con- fident that through dialogue and mutual un- derstanding, we can make common cause to win political, economic and social justice for all the people of our province.” It is now time to get on with that dialogue © or those we represent will surely suffer the consequences as Ottawa continues to write off our industry. Jim Rushton is an organizer for the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union and president of the Prince Rupert Labour Council.