EDITORIAL _

Finance Minister Michael Wilson’s minimum
income tax plan is, ostensibly, intended to snare those
wealthy Canadians who legally avoid paying any tax
at all in some years. It is at best a public relations
gimmick to boost the Mulroney Tories’ sagging popu-
larity with the majority of voters. At worse, it is
another of the government’s efforts to fool the people.

During the the last federal election campaign,

. Teports of rich Canadians evading income tax legally
prompted the Liberals and new Democrats to promise

a minimum tax if elected. Not to be outdone, Mulro-
ney jumped on the bandwagon. Now, with a miser-
able record on election promises, the Tories hope to

_ calm the outrage of the poor, the unemployed and the
hungry — as well as workers’ and farmers’ families
eking out an existence — by appearing to soak the

It’s not quite like that. The “alternative minimum
tax” which draws its inspiration from the U.S. will

_ mainly guarantee an end to reports such as the one
about 8,000 wealthy Canadians who in 1973 paid no
_ income tax at all.

What the government wants the people to perceive
is that those with incomes from about $50,000 up will
have to pay some tax every year. It doesn’t mean
they'll pay any more than they do now. As the Finan-

Looking at the two bank fiascos presided over by the
Tory federal government and the capitalist system it
serves, prompts questions.

Apparently, such collapses of financial institutions
are acceptable to the system, in the interests of the
freedom of the private sector — since the ones to
suffer are the ordinary taxpayers, the working people,
the family farmers and others in the same boat.

Did a single bank president or lesser official have to
give up anything he acquired while raking in dollars
specializing in bad loans? Did anyone in the govern-
ment have to give up any pay because of failure to
properly regulate the Canadian Commercial and

_ Northland banks?

Why should trusting depositors, small businesses
and the like have to take a disastrous loss?

They don’t, you say; they’re covered. Covered at
whose expense? Minister of State for Finance Barbara
McDougall didn’t reach into her savings to settle
accounts. Neither did the minister of finance. So it
must have come out of that big pot into which
workers’ dollars run like a flood every April in income tax.

Basic tax reform needed

cial Post notes: “...the amount by which this tax
exceeds the regular tax can be carried forward to offset
regular tax over the next seven years.” It is difficult to
see where New Democratic Party leader Ed Broad-
bent gets his enthusiasm for the new tax as a “good
beginning toward tax reform.” Besides, it comes on
top of the Mulroney governmment’s gift to rich inves-
tors of a $500,000 lifetime exemption from capital
gains tax.

What is needed instead of the window dressing of
the minimum tax, and the ever-proliferating loop-
holes, is basic tax reform to put an end to the onerous
tax burden on working people — and sections of the
middle class.

Workers, the trade unions and the whole labor
movement will have to put up a fight to get their kinds
of tax reforms. The Financial Post’s idea of reform is
the “planned restructuring of corporate tax incen-
tives.” The Globe and Mail says “‘tax reform is neces-
sary,” and the Toronto Star says, ““What’s needed is
comprehensive tax reform.”’ Anyone who has been on
a picket line knows that these big business papers
haven’t got in mind a better deal for workers. Genuine
tax reforms that will benefit those who need
them — lower income Canadians — will only be
won through the struggles of working people.

Time to nationalize banks

The system has its pat answers. “I didn’t know,”
says Barbara McDougall, the junior finance minister.
Regarding information that U.S. bank regulators in
California had told Commercial’s California agency
to take its bad loans back to Canada, McDougall said:
“This is totally new to me.” Who kept it from her?

Some persons obviously got away with millions of
dollars which the Canadian taxpayers now have to
make up. Is this lackadaisical attitude by government
ministers expected to settle the matter?

The Communist Party of Canada has long called
for the nationalization of banks and other financial
institutions, under democratic control, so that the
elected representatives of the Canadian people do
know what’s going on and can protect the people’s
interests. That is assuming that those are the interests
they care about.

Since it is clear that the Tories’ interests lie else-
where, a powerful people’s anti-monopoly coalition is
needed to ensure that instead of being prey to the
banks and trusts the workers and farmers of Canada
have a say in their operation.

—

(wee. ABD THEN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR PRODUCED THOUSANDS.
g AND THOUSANDS OF JOBS AND |

B EVERYONE LIVED HAPPILY M

My elnina)
\

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, which is battling it
VISA workers seeking wages, dignity and a union contract, made >
after-tax profit of $361.4-million in the year ended Oct. 31, com-
pared to $282.4-million a year earlier. CIBC, battling its largely

immigrant and female workers, cleared $101.4-million in just the
fourth quarter.

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

Subscription Rate: Canada — $14 one year; $8 six months
Foreign — $20 one year; 3

Second class mail registration number 1560

t was several months ago, as readers
may recall, that Vancouver East NDP
MLA Alex MacDonald introduced a pri-
vate member’s bill into the legislature to
declare British Columbia a nuclear wea-

People and Issues

mR a i a a a aI EE IER

out of order...”

hide of apartheid in more ways than one.

Not only was a demonstration three
weeks ago against a South-Africa spon-
sored travel seminar successful, it also
elicted a vitriolic response from the Cana-

pons free zone. MacDonald’s bill was
patterned after the bylaw passed by Van-
couver city council in 1983 and a similar
| bill subsequently adopted by the Manit-
| oba legislature.
Apparently, the bill was a non-issue in
most of the media and it wasn’t until we
got Hansard for Nov. 21 that we found out
| what happened to the bill, which was given
| second reading that day.
| We could probably sum it all up in a
couple of paragraphs but the brief
exchange in the legislature is, we think of
great educational value. These are some
excerpts — which give some idea of the’

_ level of priority that the Socreds assign to
the most basic issue of our time, disarma-
ment.

MacDonald: “Mr. Speaker, we’re deal-
ing with a very grave subject on this bill. I
would hope that the government would
not raise any objections to the technicali-
ties of the bill. It’s an expression that
should be made a unanimous one in this
house. At the very least, I think, because

| there are tuggings of conscience in a bill
_ like this, it should be a free vote. ..

“We now have the situation where
something loosely called Star Wars is
going to be embarked upon and deployed
by our good friends the Americans with a
lot of dissenting Americans who unfortu-
nately do not have the influence necessary
to stop that program. . .they’re powerless
because of what General Eisenhower, in

his parting remarks, called the power of
the military-industrial complex. These
things seem to have acquired a momen-
tum of their own. If we in this chamber can
check that nuclear arms race in any way,
we should do so, ..

“We’re not suggesting in this bill that
we should pull out of NATO. We’re not
suggesting that we are not allies in many
ways with the United States of America
.. But we’ve got to call a halt to the arms
race that is spinning out of control, so we
say here in British Columbia that we
declare we do not want nuclear weapons
on our soil...”

Health Minister Neilson: “Mr. Speaker,
I just wanted to make a few comments. . .
The concept and concern he expressed
with respect to nuclear annihilation is such
a serious matter that it, in my opinion,
deserves to be aired and heard...

“The house permits an opportunity for
members to speak on matters of interest to
themselves on Fridays by members’
statements. The opportunity to do some-
thing similar by way of an act introducing
a bill perhaps could be considered not as
proper in procedure in that, again, this bill
is out of order. ..the bill fails because it
calls for fines and/or imprisonment, and is
out of order. But I wanted to say and point
out that the matter is of such importance
that I thought that, although being techni-
cally out of order, the mover should have
the opportunity to express his opinion
with respect to it. But I would suggest it is

Bob Skelly: “I should ask the govern-
ment house leader. . .to accept this private
member’s bill and to accept it as the
government’s. In that way, this legislature
can allow all members to speak on the bill.
I think that that would be the most
appropriate way to go. So rather than
taking the step of calling for this bill to be
ruled out of order, I think that the best
approach that can be taken, Mr. Speaker,
is that the government accept the bill as its
own, allow members of the legislature to
express their opinion on the bill and then
allow the legislature to resolve itself in
favor of the bill.” :

Deputy speaker: (Socred Prince George
MLA Bruce Strachan): “The point made
by the minister of health and house leader
is correct in that it does involve penalties
and therefore is out of order. I so rule.”

Neilson: “Mr. Speaker because of the
inclement weather and some of the diffi-
culties members and members of the staff
will have returning home, I would move
that the house do now adjourn.”

The whole process took a little less than
12 minutes. Apparently the Socreds are
more concerned about driving home in a
little snow that they are in taking steps to
avert the threat of nuclear winter.

* *

or Vancouverites actively opposed to
South Africa’s racist social system, it
must be nice to know one can prick the

dian representative of Satour (South Afri-
can Tourism Board), Andre Malan.

In his letter Dec. 2 to the Anti-Apartheid | —
Network, Malan, clearly piqued at the |
affrontry of Canadians who protested |
apartheid outside the Holiday Inn Har- |
borside, wrote: “Following your recent |
attempt in Vancouver to try and disrupt |

our tourism workshop, I am happy to

advise you that our evening was an over- |
whelming success...we have received |
commitments for many group tours in ~

1986.”

The network itself takes issue with |_

Malan’s claim of a “success” since one

participant of the demonstration counted —

only 20 people at the Satour seminar. —

But perhaps the best response is to note

the information contained in the net-
work’s leaflet distributed outside the

seminar — the leaflet Malan would not -

“dignify. . .with a comment.”
Among the items mentioned was the

fact that South Africa is desperately seek- | —

ing to bolster a sagging tourist trade that
saw more than 113,000 bookings cancelled

by Oct. 31 this year, and that overseas —
airlines such as Scandinavian Airlines Sys-

tem have cut off all service to South
Africa.

Such examples show that the world is
speaking out against apartheid — and the
feeble protests contained in one small let-
ter won’t change that fact.

12 PACIFIC TRIBUNE, DECEMBER 18, 1985