BRITISH COLUMBIA.

tious Columbia River treaty.

Renegotiation of the treaty
could save B.C. Hydro, and in-
directly the province of B.C.,
billions of dollars by obviating the
need for several costly power pro-
jects which B.C. Hydro has claim-
ed are necessary to meet power
| needs in the 1990s.

Originally signed in 1963, the
bitterly-disputed treaty is to run for
60 years but the terms can be
renegotiated at the half-way point
— in 1993 — provided 10 years
notice is. given on intention. to

given next year.

“In our view it is in the best in-
terests of both Canada and British
Columbia that the treaty be
renegotiated and that no time be

Communist Party leader
Maurice Rush has called on the
provincial and federal govern-
ments to serve notice on the U.S. of
intention to renegotiate the conten-

renegotiate. That notice must be

lost in serving notice on the United
States that Canada intends to re-
open the treaty,”’ Rush stated in his
letter to premier Bennett and prime
minister Trudeau June 4.

He emphasized that the Com-
munist Party ‘“‘strongly opposed
the terms of the original treaty”’
which, he said, was a sellout of
Canadian interests.

Under the existing terms,
Canada built storage dams on the
Columbia at a cost of $233 million
which, while producing no power
themselves, enabled the U.S. to
generate an additional 9.7 million
kilowatts of power through in-
creased capacity on existing dams
and through additional construc-
tion.

Half of those ‘‘downstream
benefits’”> — some 4.8 million
kilowatts — accrued to Canada but
were sold to the U.S. for aone-time
payment of $425 million. In addi-
tion, the U.S. paid $56 million plus

$13 million interest to British Col-
umbia as benefit payment on some
228,000 acres of B.C. land which
was flooded as a result of construc-
tion of treaty dams.

If the treaty were renegotiated,
however, the 4.8 million kilowatts
could be fed back into the pro-
vince’s power system, with
minimal construction costs.

.That contrasts dramatically with
estimated costs of more than $9
billion for Hydro’s three proposed
projects, Site C, Murphy Creek
and Hat Creek. And the power
generation of the three projects
combined is only 3.3 million
kilowatts, less-than 70 percent of
the downstream benefits that could
be regained by Columbia River
treaty renegotiation.

Moreover, the environmental
costs resulting from the proposed

new projects, particularly the coal-
burning Hat Creek thermal plant,
would be incalculable.

Significantly, although
estimated costs have been rising
enormously on B.C. Hydro’s pro-
posed projects — Hat Creek, for
example, is estimated now to cost
more than $5 billion — the crown
corporation has not itself raised the
issue of treaty renegotiation as an
alternative. In fact, Hydro direc-
tors, especially chairman Robert
Bonner, have long pursued a policy
of exporting power to the U.S.

The issue has been raised
elsewhere, however. Ralph Loff-
mark, a former cabinet minister in
the W. A. C. Bennett government
when it was negotiating the Colum-
bia River treaty, has called for ter-
mination of the sale of Columbia
River power to the U.S. And last
November, NDP leader Dave Bar-
rett echoed his remarks, noting that

Reopen Columbia River treaty, CP demands

it was “absolutely essential to re-|
capture the (Columbia River) ele},

tricity.”’

Rush’s letter made the formal]
demand that the federal and pro]
vincial government move im-|.
mediately to open talks with the

U.S. on renegotiation.

on the United States that Canad
intends to reopen the treaty,” h
said.

ed under the second 30-year term0
the treaty if, instead of cash pay-}) ]
ment for downstream benefits;
hydroelectric power was returned]}
to B.C. as its payment under thé]

provisions of the treaty.”

Layoffs unjustified —TWU

Continued from page 1
the TWU turned down company
demands that the hours for all
11,000 TWU members be reduced
by five per week.

Clark denied the reduced-hours
request was a work-sharing pro-
posal, terming it ‘‘another form of
layoff.”” He said it would provide
workers with no guarantee that
they would not be laid off even af-
ter they had accepted the cut in
hours.

The company, which did suc-
ceed in carrying through the reduc-
tion in hours for some 3,000 super-
visors, claims that installation or-
ders and long distance calls are
down as a result of depressed eco-
nomic conditions and that it needs
extra money to attract investors.

B.C. Tel financial records throw
doubt on that claim, however.
B.C. Tel showed a-profit of $15.9
million for the first quarter of 1982
— and that was before the 12.5 per-
cent increase for residential phones
and 15 percent increase for business
phones granted by the CRTC went
into effect.

Clark also challenged company
claims at Wednesday’s press con-
ference. as

“We do not accept B.C. Tel’s
pronouncement that the layoffs are
required for economic reasons,”’
he told reporters.

“They (B.C. Tel) have received a

15 percent rate increase this spring
which is already in effect and giving
them millions a month more in
guaranteed revenue. Orders are still
high — we know through our
members that requests for new in-
stallations are as high as ever and
demand for telephones has no
fallen off.”

ms iN

BILL CLARK ... ‘we won't ac-
cept B.C. Tel pronouncements.’

He also. emphasized that B.C.
Tel had ‘‘not followed through’’
despite announcements in April

“that, because of economic diffi-

culties at the time, temporaries
would be laid off, all leaves and
early vacation requests would be
granted. ©

“There is still overtime being re-
quested by the company .:... tem-

‘poraries have, in some cases, been

hired back and leave has been de-
nied to many employees,’ he said.

The TWU president linked the
company’s actions to technological
change and to bargaining on a new
collective agreement, scheduled to
begin in September.

“The company is installing
multi-million dollar equipment
which is already reducing the num-
ber of jobs by the hundreds,’’ he
said.

In an earlier demand for con-

cessions — in March, when it asked

Vancouver, B.C. V5L

City or town
Postal Code

|

Published weekly at Suite 101 — 1416 Commercial Drive,

Read the paper that fights for labor

| am enclosing:
Tyr. $14 0 2yrs. $25 O 6mo. $8 0

3X9. Phone 751-1186

Old O New Foreign 1 year $15 0

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JUNE 25, 1982—Page 12

that workers each forego a day’s

pay to “improve the company’s
financial health’? — B.C. Tel cited
its need to attract new investment,

particularly the $450 million need-.

ed for a modernization and auto-
mation program. That program is
expected to make several hundred
workers redundant.

Clark noted that under the cur-
rent collective agreement, the com-
pany is not allowed to lay anyone
off, for reasons of technological
change, if that worker has two

. years’ seniority or more. Those
. with less seniority still must have
_. one year’s notice.

- “The company does not like that
and would certainly be eager for
any opportunity to lay off employ-
ees for so-called economic reasons

“-to get around the technological
change provisions of the agree-

ment,’’ he charged.

Concurrent with the application
for a hearing before the CLRB, the
TWu intends to launch an arbitra-
tion to argue that the layoffs are, in

fact, the result of technological -

change and therefore in violation
of the collective agreement.

He also questioned whether the : “

announcement by B.C. Tel was
timed ‘‘to provoke confusion and
worry’’ among 11,000 TWU mem-
bers just before bargaining on the
next agreement is to begin.. The
union and the company were to ex-
change bargaining proposals im-
mediately after Labor Day on the
agreement which expires Dec. 31.

B.C. Tel has a long black record
of labor relations, having provok-
ed a strike or lockout in virtually
every set of recent negotiations, in-
cluding the last in which settlement
was only reached after an occupa-
tion of B.C. Tel buildings by TWU
members and after the first in what
was to be a series of regional gen-
eral strikes organized by the B.C.
Fed in solidarity with striking tele-
phone workers.

Clark also commented on re-
ports that some TWU members
were circulating petitions calling
for acceptance of the reduced-
hours proposal, noting that the pe-
titioners were mainly ‘‘21- and
22-year-old members who never
come to union meetings.

_“TIt’s-our job to convince them
that they’ré wrong,”’ he said.

The B.C. and Yukon
Building Trades Council, armed
with a strike vote passed by 74
percent of its membership, will
head back into contract negotia-
tions with the: province’s con-
struction firms next week.

The talks have been at a vir-
tual standstill since last March.

The council, which represents

- more than 40,000 construction
workers in 17 unions, is seeking
a wage and benefits hike of
about 40 percent over a one-year
contract. There is also a ‘‘key
demand” regarding health and
safety, according to council
‘president Roy Gautier.

A 72-hour strike notice was
served Monday when the build-
ing trades council announced
the results of the month-long
strike vote. The construction
Labor Relations Association,
representing 800 employers,
countered with a lockout notice

ROY GAUTIER ... bargain-
ing stalled as CLRA waited
for wage controls.

it said it would impose if any
construction firm was hit with a
strike.

Two factors have been re-
sponsible for the slow pace of
the talks which could cause a
province-wide strike or lockout
whenever the union invokes the
72-hour notice.

The first stumbling block was
overcome May 3 when the ‘La-
bor Relations Board (LRB)
made a ruling under Section 57
of the labor code and imposed a
joint bargaining council on the
construction unions.

Strike vote backin
bargaining council —

The unions had been unable
to form a voluntary council be-

cause of opposition from the

Plumbers Union, which claim-
ed the traditional wage gap be-

tween its members and non-me-

chanical trades was being erod-
ed by across-the-board settle
ments achieved by the previous
joint council.

The building trades council

stated it was opposed to such
compulsion, but added that it
hoped a voluntary agreement

among member unions would

soon render the LRB decision
redundant.

But the Construction Labor
Relations Association has also
stalled negotiations over the

past month, likely because they

had been hoping for wage con
trols legislation, Gautier told the
Tribune Wednesday.

With the announcement of
the strike vote and the 72-hou!
notice weapon, ‘‘I think the em
ployers realized they have to gel
down to serious negotiations,”
he said.

In seeking a wage and bene
fits increase of about $7.50 al
hour over one year, the building
trades bargaining council has
noted the current inflation rat¢
and high interest rates, and the
fact that most constructio#
workers are employed for only
about two-thirds of each year.

But they also placed consid
erable emphasis on their ‘“‘key
demand” concerning health
and safety.

That demand arises out of
last year’s ‘‘Bentall tragedy’’ 10

which four carpenters fell 3

storeys to their deaths in Val

couver. A ministry of labor if
quiry into the accident led to 4
number of recommendations

which have inspired the building

trades council demand,
The council is seeking tw?

cents an hour per worker from
the industry to establish a fun
to pay for the continuous monk

toring of safety conditions D

specialists. They would work

“in tandem’’ with the Worke
Compensation Board, sal&
Gautier.

I,