te

By WILLIAM KASHTAN

It is somewhat ironic that the Canadian Labor Congress
leadership, at least a good portion of it, which did so much to
destroy the autonomy of the Canadian trade union movement
in connection with the job done on the Canadian Seamen's
Union, is now compelled by events to take up the cudgels on
behalf of Canadian trade union autonomy and the sovereignty
of the trade union movement around the current conflict be-
tween the Ca-adian Maritime Union, which it helped to bring
into being ana che Seafarers International Union, which was
originally brought into Canada.

It would be wrong to see this conflict
as merely a jurisdictional one. It has taken
on a character far beyond that and by the
very nature of the struggle is forcing the
working class of this country, certainly the
organized labor movement, to look cioseiy
at the entire question of relationships be-
tween the Canadian and U.S. trade union

movement.
&

What is involved here is the basic, yet
elementary, right of Canadian workers to belong to a union
of their own choice, to build a Canadian union under demo-
cratic leadership, free from outside Control, be it the contro: of
the companies or the control of U.S. officers of an international
union.

It is this right which is being challenged by the SIU and
by the Maritime Department of the AFL-CIO as well as some
officers of the AFL-CIO.

What the SIU leadership and these other groups are say-
ing in effect is that the Canadian workers have no right to form
a union of their own choice and, more particularly, have no
right to form a Canadian union.

Not only are they saying it; they are moving heaven and
earth to make certain this does not take place. This includes
picket lines and other forms of pressure which should be con-
sidered when putting up a common front against employers,
but not when it is a matter of resolving inner union problems.

This pressure which is being exerted on the CMU and on
the CLC is not separated from other factors in this struggle.

Is there a connection between the efforts at imposing U.S.
control over Canadian seamen and efforts at imposing U.S.
control over Canadian waters? And what role is the Kennedy
administration and its agencies playing in this situation?

Apparently this was one of the questions discussed by Pre-
sident Kennedy and Premier Pearson out of which it wag
agreed that there be a top-level discussion between the Caina-
dian minister of labor and the U.S. secretary of labor, as well
as Messrs. George Meany and Claude Jodoin from the AFL-CIO
and CLC respectively.

It remains to be seen what will come out of these discus-
sions. But the Canadian trade union movement has the right
to ask of Mr. Pearson:

“What is the position of your government on the matter?
Will this be another one of your government’s giveaways in
the interests of good will and harmony with the U.S. or will
you stand up in defense of the true national interests of the
country?”

It was a Liberal administration that helped do the job
on the Canadian Seamen’s Union. Will history now he repeated
and another job be-done on the Canadian Maritime Union?
Will the Liberal minority°government throw its weight behind
unions like the SIU and scuttle the trend towards autonomy,
sovereignty and independence of the Canadian trade union
movement?

Sd * Bo

# No union, no union local, no active and progressive trade
unionist can afford to sit idly by at this rather critical juncture
of the trade union movement.

The failure to respond strongly enough at an earlier
period led to the destruction of the CSU and other unions
which stood for Canadian sovereignty and independence. That
mistake must not be made again.

Irrespective of the various shadings involved in the for-
mation of the CMU itself, the basic fact which stands out is
that around the issue of the CMU and the SIU a dramatic
struggle is unfolding on the issue of the Canadian trade union
movement, the right of unions in Canada to their autonomy
and, yes, to their independence, if that is tne will of the Can-
adian membership.

The effort to destroy the CMU is part of the effort to
weaken that striving for autonomy which is breaking out in
all directions and which no amount of pressure can circum-
vent for long.

It is possible that’some officers of the CLC may try to
work out a compromise and a deal. Mr. Jodoin is too addicted
to support of the Meany position to be prepared to lead the
fight through to its logical conclusion and may well agree to
some face-saver at the expense of the true interests of Canadian
seamen. This danger must be seen and checked.

Any deal which would undercut ‘the sovereign rights of
the Canadian trade union movement, including the rights of
Canadian seamen, cannot possibly be supported or accepted,
and this should be made clear to the officers of the CLC, to
Meany ang to all others concerned, by all sections of the
trade union movement.

OR FRONT | AVERAGE CANADIAN TOILS 141/

WEEKS TQ PAY YEAR'S TAXES

work-
year

Canadian
each

The average
er toils 14%
just to pay his taxes.

This startling revelation of the
impact of the tax bite on pocket-
books throughout the nation was
presented to the Royal Commis-
sion on Taxation by United Elect-
rical, Radio and Machine Work-
ers this month.

The union brief showed that on
the average weckly wage of
$76.66, taxes paid are $21.48, total-
ling $1,117 a year. This is 26.8
percent of fotal annual wages. If
the wife worked part time and
earned an additional $1,595 a year,
taxes jumped to $1,688, or 29.4
percent of the combined family

weeks

income.
The statistics, based on Domin-

ion Bureau of Statistics’ figures
up-dated to 1961, presumed. that
the average Canadian had a wife
and two children, a girl aged
eight and a boy of 13. The brief
contended that the family should
be the Dasie unit for taxation pur-
poses.

The union (ax tabulation did not
include levies for unemployment
insurance and Ontario hospital
service which would increase tax-
ation paid where the husband
alone worked to 28.7 percent of
income and to 31.1 percent where
the wife was employed part time.
POOR PAY MUCH MORE

The tax burden weighs more
heavily on those least able to pay,
the union brief said. It called for
a complete taxation overhaul,

Council hit for cut
in aid to outpatients

In a letter of protest to the
Vancouver City Council, W. E.
Stewart, Vancouver Secretary’ of
the Communist Party of Canada,
sharply criticized that body for
its decision on Wednesday, May
22nd, to cut off aid to the Vancou-
ver Outpatient Dept. of the Gen-
eral Hospital.

“While we are: in agreement
that the costs of such service
should ‘be borne by the Provincial

Suslov will head
Soviet delegation

MOSCOW—The central com-
mittee of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union has an-
nounced the composition of its
delegation which will meet
with representatives of the
Communist Party of China in
bi-lateral talks scheduled to
open here July 5.

The delegation will be head-
ed by M. A. Suslov, member of
the Presidium and secretary
of the central committee, and
will include Y. V. Andropov,
L. F. Tlychev, B. N. Pono-
maryev, and the Soviet ambas-
sador to China, S. V. Chervon-

enko.

Government, we consider it dis-
graceful that the Council should
carry on its negotiations in such
a way as to present the provincial
government with an ultimatum in
which either the provincial gov-
ernment pays, or thousands of
Vancouver citizens requiring the
‘services of the Outpatient Clinic
suffer’’ said Stewart.

“We consider it impermissable
that the health and welfare of
these citizens requiring the serv-
ices of the Outpatient Clinic
should be used as a pawn in the
financial chess game being play-
ed between the Vancouver City
Council and the Provincial gov-
ernment,’’ ke went on to say.

“Irrespective of the basic re-
sponsibility of the Provincial
government for provision of these
services, I must state that the
‘Vancouver City Council will be
held responsible for injury to
health which may well arise out
of this ill-considered and callous
act.

“We suggest that City Council
should reconsider its hasty and ill-
conceived action and _ instead,
firmly negotiate such a transfer
of authority without jeopardizing
‘the health and welfare of those
concerned’’, Stewart concluded.

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA — MAY, 1963
>. 4 "ote oe

Xefo%s

ECCLES (British Daily Worker)

shifting the onus onto the owners
of industry.

“The Canadian tax structure,”
it states, “is highly diserimina
tory as it applies to workers, Com-
pared to owners of the businesses
which hire them.”

Shifing the tax
union said, ‘vould add up to great-
er purchasing power in the hands
of the citizens who most need it
and who would spend,it on goods
and services. ‘The economic stim-
ulation of the move, it said,
“would be the creation of 130,000
additional jobs.”’

The union brief seeks a sales
tax reduction to a maximum of
two percent and its complete elim-
ination from food and_ clothing.
It calls for income tax exemptions
of $2,500 fora single person and
$6,000 for a family.

To offset the cost of these two
major proposals the union pro-
posed that the federal government
allocate funds from the military
budget which are described as
“largely wasteful.”

Also proposed is ‘‘a more reg-
ular progression of rate increases
on incomes above the exemption”
which would climb to an 80 per-
cent tax on incomes in excess of
$100,000 a year in place of $400,-
000 now.

“We firmly believe,’ said the
brief, “that tax policy must move
steadily and fairly rapidly in the
direction of eliminating the re-
gressive, {ax-pyramiding retail
sales tax; of reducing the num-
ber and rates of all other indir-
ect taxes; of exempting the aver-
age worker’s family, which needs
to increase its consumption, from
income tax; of maintaining the
required level of government
revenues from increased personal
tax collections levied on all kinds
of wealth accumulation x
BIG BUSINESS FAVORED

Backing up its contention that
current tax policies discriminate
in favor of the owners of busin-

burden, the

”

nesses, the union cited these
“three main elements’’ as_ re-
sponsible:

@ The regressive nature of tax-
es levied on consumption expendi-
tures or shifted to ultimate con-
sumers in the retail prices of
goods and services.

e@ The avoidance of expendi-
tures made with tax-paid dollars
by executives, businessmen and
owners.

@ The shielding from tax of im-
portant. increments fo personal
wealth.

The brief scored “expense ac-
count living’’ where the top eche-
lon of business can evade taxes
while living in luxury. It quoted

figures which charged “expense

account living’’ in the U.S. total-
led $5 billion a year.

Using the usual 12 to 1 ratio
for economic. statisties and up-
dating the 1958 estimates to 1962,
a Canadian figure of expense ac-
count spending would be a “‘little
over $500 million, with resulting
tax loss of $125 million based on
a conservative 25 pereent tax

rate.
TAXES DUCKED

In other areas of faxes as they
apply to business, the» union
showed that capital appreciation,
“except for those in the business
of making a particular capital
gain, goes completely untaxed in
Canada. Yet capital appreciation
is the basis of most of the large
personal fortunes — not accumu-
lation of tax paid income.”

“Tax havens,” such as the Ba-
hamas and Switzerland, were ex-

See TAXES, pg. 6

May 31, 1963—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 2