CANADA

Students back South African

Students at Saskatchewan’s two uni-
versity campuses have added their voi-
ces to the international criticism of the
racist South African government.

Earlier this term, students at the Uni-
versity of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon
voted for a boycott of South African pro-
ducts by their student union. Their
example was followed at the University
of Regina on March 28, when a similar
Teferendum passed with a 52 per cent
Majority. On both campuses, the pro-
ducts in question are mainly Carling-
O’Keefe beers and Rothman’s cigaret-

tee

BATA walks all over
its South African
workers.

Put the shoe on
the other foot !

BOYCOTT BATA

——

7u -S£°S SN

From
Regina

Kimball Cariou

tes. They are produced by companies
which are majority controlled by Roth-
man’s of South Africa, a major corporate
power in that country.

On both campuses, the referenda were
preceded by several weeks of intense
debate. Very few in the university com-
munity will openly defend the apartheid
regime. Nor would many speak of the
‘‘reform’’ of apartheid through economic
links, given the current wave of killings
by police and attacks against the United
Democratic Front and other freedom
groups. Instead, opponents of the boy-
cott concentrated on two other argu-
ments — that boycotts only harm Black
workers, and that Canadians must have
“freedom of choice’? of commercial
products.

In Regina, a campaign led by the South
Africa Solidarity Coalition was joined by
student leaders and professors. A special
debate on the issue was judged by those
in attendance to be aclear victory for the
boycott organizers. Later the same day,
Yusuf Saloojee, Canadian representative

of the African National Congress, spoke
to over 100 students at another forum.
Saloojee outlined the background of
the apartheid system, and stressed a new
factor in the present situation. More than
ever before, he said, Black protesters
refuse to be intimidated by police vio-
lence. Rather than dispersing when fired
upon, they are increasingly holding their
ground. Even small children have taken
to taunting police with freedom slogans.
The Black trade union movement, he ad-
ded, is growing much stronger, con-
ducting important strikes in recent
months, such as in the Port Elizabeth
area where some of the most militant
anti-apartheid actions have also taken
place. Under such conditions, said
Saloojee, it is wrong to imagine that
South African Blacks are unwilling to
endure some temporary economic hard-
ships to rid themselves of the racist sys-
tem. As for the ‘‘free choice’’ argument,
he pointed out that South African poli-
ticians have often stated that every dollar
spent on South African goods or invested
in the country is ‘‘another brick in the
wall for apartheid’’. ‘‘ Freedom”? for con-

YUSUF SALOOJEE: Black protesters re-
fuse to be intimidated by police violence.

sumers thus simply means worse op-
pression for most South Africans, he
concluded.
Organizers of the boycott campaigns
say the successful votes are an indication
of growing awareness of the nature of
apartheid. In Regina, however, the uni-
versity’s Board of Governors must now
give approval to the proposal before

‘changes can be made in campus liquor

sale regulations. It remains to be seen
whether a strong pressure campaign will
be needed to force the Board to respect
the students’ vote.

r

By KERRY McCUAIG

Economic Conference last month thatit is possible to both
cut the defficit and create jobs, there was no principled
disagreement. In fact National Action Committee on the
Status of Women head, Chaviva Hosek provided the
most just and plausible of solutions for balancing the
budget: tax the wealthy and cut the military budget.

the deficit on its head. The deficit wasn’t always with us,
as the Tories were so fond of pointing out during the last

_€lection campaign. In ten years Canada went from a
budget surplus to a $34-billion debt. That it is here today
is not a mystical occurance, but the logical outcome of
Policies which the Conservative Party may not have
initiated, but certainly endorsed.

Mother of the deficit is the catch-all inflation cure of
the past decade — restraint. According to B.C. econ-
Omist Emil Bjarnason, restraint has two aspects: the
money supply is curbed by high interest rates, and
government expenditures, particularly public sector
employment, is cut back. Consumer spending is als
Teined in through wage controls. :

These policies have brought inflation down but they
also have the planned effect of increasing unemploy-
Ment, says Bjarnason. With the rising jobless rate, de-

lays increased from $2-billion in 1974 (the year of the

Anti-Inflation Act) to $10-billion in 1984. At the same
_time, while social services were being cut, the defence

budget was increased from $2.5-billion to $8-billion.

20-Billion in Interest

Increased expenditures for these items helped create
the deficit and the government was forced to borrow at
the high interest rates it set — in the name of restraint.
Over the intervening 10 years the effect multiplied until
today the government is borrowing $20-billion a year to
Cover the interest on past borrowing.

But as Hosek so wisely pointed out, the deficit isnt
just caused by what the government pays out, it 1S also
affected by what revenues it doesn’t bring in. Obviously
8overnment income would increase if the country’s two
Mhillion unemployed were back at work paying taxes. But
their contribution would be small potatoes in compari
Son to the vast amounts corporations have avoided pay-

ing.

Tax reform

When Prime Minister Mulroney told the National

Hosek may not be an economist but her proposals hit -

-Mands on the unemployment insurance fund rose, out-_

ee

pay no taxes.”

During the election campaign it made good news for
politicians from Tory blue to New Democratic orange to
trot out the 239 Canadians earning over $250,000 who
paid no income tax. It was only the Communist Party
which zeroed in on the many large corporations who also
escaped without paying a cent and managed to accu-
mulate an astounding $24.2-billion in deferred taxes.

“Good corporate citizens’’ such as Northern Tele-
com, Bell Canada, Consolidated Bathurst, Shell Canada
and. Stelco have entirely avoided the tax collector. And
several other big names including the major banks paid

Cone 2 same rate as a wage earner with an income of

The net effect is that revenues lost through deferred taxes
alone add up to two-thirds of the deficit.

Deferred taxes are only part of the welfare package
government offers corporations. In addition the private
sector receives $18-billion annually in direct and indirect

government subsidies, according to a recent Globe and
Mail article.

could help tame deficit

‘porations with no job creation benefits.

‘orial University professor Douglas May found that “‘in-

-budget is tabled in May.

Of course government staunchly defends these ac-
tions as hallmarks of its job creation program. But even
bourgeoise economists will argue that such tax breaks
and grants are little more than cash windfalls for cor-

An Ontario Economic Council study reported in the
January issue of Canadian Business magazine argues
that the eastern Canadian pulp and paper industry
walked away with $300-million in federal subsidies to
update its equipment without creating a single job. ‘“‘We
argue that modernization would have proceeded without
the grants and that you would have had the same level of
job loss with or without them,’’ says an author of the
study, Lakehead University professor Norman Bonsor.

Similarly in a 1975 study on corporate tax breaks
specifically designed to stimulate employment by Mem-

centives actually had the opposite effect. They generate
a certain amount of unemployment.”’

In addition to the tax breaks and grants are the highly
lucrative contracts fielded by the defence department.
Although Canada does not keep separate figures on cor-
porations in the military business a recent study by Dr.
Arthur Donner estimates that these companies — mostly
foreign owned — accrue profits at rates three times
higher than average, while creating a quarter of the jobs
that government spending on social programs creates. _

It is hardly surprising with corporate dining at the
public trough being so scrumptious that business
“‘cures”’ for the deficit leave these areas of spending and
lost revenues unmentioned.

The corporate solution to the deficit was familiar to the
prime minister and his finance minister long before they
orchestrated last month’s economic conference. The
Business Council on National Issues, a high powered
business lobby, the Fraser Institute, the Royal Bank and
C.D. Howe Institute have made government acquainted
with their alternatives which include selling profitable
crown corporations, dismantling universal social bene-
fits, gutting the CBC, Petro-Canada and public sector
wages, chopping rail transportation subsidies, industrial
and regional development grants and job creation pro-
grams. Most of their suggestions found their way into
Wilson’s November mini-budget. Unless labor and the
other people’s movements start articulating and cam-
paigning around a people’s economic alternative it will
be business which prescribes the remedy when a full

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, APRIL 15, 1985 e 9

iis