SMAL
| A oa Stoup of Canadians,
7 ably Concerned about the
Mately at a Vietnam, met. pri-
uph, Ont © Guild Inn, Scarbo-
On ‘the M0, on April 29 and
ian Fr ee of the Can-
HANS €rvice Commit-
ose of eaucation program.
Out potie © gathering was to
that mig eS and lines of action
aang 4 be taken by Can-
toment y the Canadian gov-
te - Would hel :
ae 'n Vietnam. They in.
» Ursula Franklin, Pro-
pent, Rev. Ray
son €vine, Murra
ehh = *2d_ Colonel Bradley

This ;
-ABteeg : the statement of policy
u ae he Participants:
NE sity ith a rapidly deterio-
¢ ok in Vietnam, we
ae MCreasingly dis-
failure of our Can-
3 pant to take strong-
Ndependent action.
a Opportunities
“lutions ‘ Constructive
an oe ine Conflict in Viet-
ein » IN our opini
Silly utilized,
i
ane: that the Canadian
ion i nog a moral
Nitlate a pro
i Tea include: a
Pore ‘of thie ve and public sup:
} Mber jogge tt Proposals (30
___-“86)"by U Thant, Sec-

; 4
}
)
fp

retary General of the United
Nations.

“Since support of the United
Nations traditionally has been a
cornerstone of Canadian foreign
policy, the present Canadian
stand on Vietnam appears a re-
gretable departure from this po-
sition. The Canadian govern-
ment should re-align itself with
the proposals of the Secretary
General which include:

. (1) the unconditional cessa-
tion of the bombing of North
Vietnam;

“(2).the scaling down of all
military activities by all sides in
South Vietnam;

“(3) the willingness to enter
into discussions with those ma-
jor parties who are actually
fighting, including the National
Liberation Front;

“(4) a return to the policies of
the Geneva Agreements and to
the political intent of. these
agreements. ;

“2. A fresh and independent
attempt to build constructive
relationships with the Peoples
Republic of China.

“An independent Canadian
foreign policy vis-a-vis Cuba has
been taken and maintained to
our mutual advantage. Today,
the major peril before the world
appears to be the threat of war
between the United States and
China, Communication between

these two powers has» largely. |

FORD vs. UAW

broken down. The situation is
complicated by distorted under-
standings on both sides.

“Canada can and does talk
trade with both parties. She
could, and should, play a vital
role in keeping a bridge across
a widening chasm. Canada is in
a favorable position to do this.
Her present trade, the past
achievements of Canadians like
Dr. Bethune, as well as a con-
tinuing possibility of private tra-
vel between the two countries
provide important points of con-
tact, but to date Canada has
been slow to exploit these op-
portunities. ;

“The escalation of the Viet-
nam conflict and the vital role
that China will have to play in
a final peaceful settlement’ in
‘Asia make Canadian initiatives
for improved communication
‘with the People’s Republic of
China essential. Thus, it is a
matter of most urgent concern
that Canada should give full
diplomatic’ recognition to the
People’s Republic of China, now.

“Furthermore, Canada should
work for the admission of the
Peoples’ Republic of China to
the United Nations as a member
of the General Assembly and of
the Security Council.

“3. Curtailment of the sale of
military -supplies to all com-
batants. :
_.“Much of the sale of weapons,

aircraft and other military sup-
plies to the United States is car-
ried out within the framework
of the Defense Production Shar-
ing Agreement between the U.S.
and Canada. This agreement
gives Canadian manufacturers
equal status with U.S. manufac-
turers in bidding for, and receiv-
ing U.S. defense contracts. This
arrangement, entered into for
the benefit of Canadian indus-
try, is facilitated by the presence
of Canadian procurement offic-
ers in the U.S. and Ottawa to

‘channel and expedite tenders

and contracts. The Defense Pro-
duction Sharing Agreement is
not a legal treaty and thus en-
tails no legal commitment on the
part of the Canadian govern-
ment. It was entered into at a
time when the U.S. was not in-
volved in active warfare.

“Since World War II, Canada
has consistently refused to sell
arms to combatant nations,
‘even if they were members of
the Commonwealth or of NATO.
Thus it has established a posi-

tion consistent with the Charter

of the United Nations which the
present sale of arms to the
United States for use in the Viet-
nam -war seriously violates.
“Canada requires at all times
that manufacturers of arms and
war material © obtain export
licenses prior to any sale abroad.
This regulation now applies to

How Canada could help

bring peace to Vietnam

all nations except the United
States.

“We feel that the regulations
that Canada has laid down, as
well as the principles of the sale
and supply of war material,
must be equally binding in our
relationship to the United States
as they are to ail other nations.

“4, Encouragement of public
debate on Vietnam in Canada.

“The recent initiative of the
House of Commons Standing
Committee on External Affairs
to ask informed Canadians for
their views on certain aspects of
Canadian foreign policy, was
welcomed by the group. It was
hoped that this practice would
continue and increase, that high
priority of the Committee would
be given to a thorough exam-
ination of Canada’s position in
the Vietnam situation, and that
‘statements by experts and rep-
resentatives of citizens groups
‘would be heard and debated.

“Such debates should help to
translate the mounting concern
of many Canadians over the suf-
fering that the escalating war is
inflicting upon the Vietnamese
people, and the threat to world
peace that this escalation con-
stitutes, into a more clearly de-
fined and active policy of the
Canadian government that is
consistent with Canada’s obliga-
tion as a member of the United
Nations.”

| A counter-attack on union's demands

€ Hr Wituiaw ALLAN
Pavengs 2088 (Mich.)

Nand, BOULWARISM”

Were  “alistic demands

Fhe
bye iteq piatees levelled at

4 : pe ukers union
top \ Ise, vice
‘ a : pre
Conn 89tiator f Telations and
ae for Ford Motor
ug gti has p

Union. the labor eee

G4, USting tact; vement
anq actics devel-

e
One of stl Electric Co,

tcg’ Lome cae relations

i.
ZEAE
pu

a ~~ Proposal
Workers "igidly seek =
or. them, away from their

Jaa
the te with his

wt Uni v88e rater? Cqualiza-
Nited'Startes. in Canada

€s and bet
rs ween
Ong. CO empl

Miside Actors, acer, OY
Betti, fell & work

Saj eco
d he ne
1S)

as the One

Thi

&
ary
EF tec, .
ac OE ar a

JU f

are ar ater

that will be struck.

The UAW economic -package,-

claimed to be the biggest ever,
is reckoned by newsmen cover-
ing the auto scene to be about
$1 an hour in wages and fringes,
with most emphasis on wages.
The automobile industry is in
an affluent condition for such a
substantial wage proposal, hav-
ing squeezed over $5 billion in
profits from its employees since
the 1964 contract signing. The
output in 1965, for example, ex-
ceeded 1955 by two million cars

and trucks produced by 50,000

fewer workers.

In 1965: some $3.1 billion in
profits was coined by Ford, Gen-
eral Motors, Chrysler, reaching
the astronomical levels of $5,570
per employee at GM, $3,581 at
Ford, and $2,689 at Chrysler.

Denise blamed “buoyant op-
timism” for “the pretty hefty
demands of the auto workers,
based on hefty negotiated settle-
ments in other industries.”

With his eye on the prosper-
Ous period since 1964 for man-
agement, where by the end of
1967 its expected the auto bar-
ons will have made close to $6
billion since 1964, in profits,
Denise comments wryly: “The
UAW and our employees regard
this as vintage year for wages
and fringe benefits improve-
ments.”

6 ae ae a a Te a a

SHIA 4 ~
SWATH TSE LT OS OM

He ‘said further: “I have: the

feeling that overall employee ex-

pectations are unrealistic and in
a number. of respects influenced
by a misconception of the facts.”
Just what facts, he didn’t go
into, especially the union claim
of the great profit take of the
companies since the signing of
the contract in 1964.

Reuther’s pitch for a “Guar-
anteed Annual Income” of pay-
ing workers unemployment cony-
pensation, plus makeup money
from the Supplemental Unem-
ployment Benefit plan, estab-
lished through a nickel per hour
per man: in SUB fund, to be
possibly increased to about 94

percent of the worker’s weekly |

wage while they are jobless, was
attacked by Denise on grounds
they don’t pay for time not
worked.

Denise turned down flat the
UAW demand for eliminating
the 41 cents an hour wage differ-
ential between Canadian and
U.S. auto workers and the $1
difference in wages between
skilled Canadian and U.S. work-
ers.
The many scores of resolu-
tions presented to UAW top
officials, especially Ford, for
curbs on speedup and improve-
ment in working conditions,
dramatized at the recent UAW
economic convention by thous-

ands demonstrating before Reu-
ther on the convention platform
on production workers demands,
was scoffed at by Denise. He
refused to recognize that UAW
has any voice in production
standards and said “we will re-
sist wrong moves in this direc-
tion.” This is a strikeable issue.

Ruther dramatized speedup at
the convention, pointing to 1947
when 626,000 workers produced
4,792,000 vehicles, as compared
to 1966, when 671,000 workers
produced 10,358,000. In other
words seven percent more

workers turned out 116 percent
more cars, trucks.

Denise also attacked the
UAW’s constitutional. change
which sets separate ratification
votes by skilled and production
workers on contract settlements.

He charged the minority thus
frustrates the majority on set-
tlement and going back to work.
He said it encourages minorities
to vote down settlements “to
make negotiators go back for a
bigger and second slice of the
pie.” He is so right and will find
that out in 1967.

“Are you the man studying on a C.I.A. grant?”

May 26, 1967—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 3

“eager re secu

2a