“The price has gone up so much we're thinking of
calling it Concorde !.” — Eccles, Morning Star

EDITORIAL

The injunction blight

Ake2t unmistakable signs are beginning to emerge
since some of the big wage contract’ Struggles got
under way in B.C. of a renewed government-management

<a upon the economic standards and rights of organized
abor.

First of these is an alarming and rapid rise in the issu-
ance of exparte court injunctions and/or other “réstraints”’
against unions seeking long overdue wage increases and ad-
justments in order to keep somewhere near in pace with
rapidly rising living costs, taxes, etc: injunctions and re-
straints designed to deprive labor of its inalienable right
to strike and picket in defence of its wage and working
conditions in the modern scheme of things.

The second indication to -be closely noted is the fact that
the big oil, timber, food, public service and other power-
ful concerns, are precisely the same people who are de-
manding, receiving, and using the courts to secure more
and more injunctions, just as they have managed to ‘‘use’’
the governments of the day in the production of other ‘‘le-
gal’’ and legislative restrictive measures: the same inter-
ests who find the courts and other establishment ‘‘forces
of law and order’’ highly ‘cooperative’ and amenable to
their anti-democratic and anti-labor demands.

Thirdly, and by no means least in point of significance,
their now public and tearful appeals for the support of the
Bennett Socred government, come the next provincial elec-
‘tion.

Just recently we had the spectacle of the chairman of
MacMillan and Bloedel, J.V. Clyne (reputed author of

the IWA, to call publicly for the re-election of the Bennett
government, lest the ‘‘disaster’”’ of NDP “‘socialism’’ befall
us.

The old gag about NDP (or CCF) “socialism need fool
no one. It is neither new nor true. Back in 1965 the West-
coast pipeline oil baron, Frank McMahon promised B.C.
workers ‘‘10,000 new jobs’’ in an effort to head off a
Bennett defeat and avert a ‘socialist disaster’’. :

When the votes were in B.C. workers didn’t get the ‘‘10,-
000 new jobs” then, and B.C. won’t have ‘‘disaster’’ now,
or later — if it elects an NDP majority. But if it com-
mits the same error as before, it will have disaster com-
pounded — the re-election of a Socred government of, by

oligarchy
only of robbing the people of B.C. of their natural re-
sources heritage, jobs, and democratic rights — but of
drafting slave-labor legislation designed to shackle them —
and using the Courts to
legal” injunction approval.

For a short time during 1967-68 the B.C. Federation of
Labor gave some minor attention to the menace of exparte
court injunctions. This campaign however; despite the readi-

hess of rank-and-file unionists to fight, barely ‘‘got off the
ground’’.

monopoly fraternity who resort to the use of the courts
and the injuction menace to protect and extend their profit

gouging is one of the prime essentials to victory and
unity.

Bill 33) taking time off from the injunction beat against:

and for Big Business monopoly; an industrial and financial .
which has already achieved the distinction, not’

provide such shackles with ‘“‘extra-

In the current strike struggles, a ‘‘new look”’ at this Socred-

Editor—TOM McEWEN — Associate Editor-—MAURICE RUSH
Published weekly at Ford Bidg., Mezzanine No. 3, 193 E. Hastings St.
Vancouver 4, B.C. Phone 685-5288.

’

Subscription Rate: Canada, §5.00 one year; $2.75 for six months.
North and South America and Commonwealth countries, $6.00 one year.

ist ration number 1560,

RR
_ PACIFIC TRIBUN

Pacitic Tribune

‘West Coast edition, Canadian Tribune |

JAM COUNCIL CHAMBERS

Freeways scheme delayed
by giant public protest

By ALD. HARRY RANKIN

City Council has not complied
with the demand of the freeway
promoters that a decision on
traffic approaches to a new
Burrard Inlet crossing be made
by May 15. Instead city officials
and private engineering
consultants have been asked to
make a further study of
alternative approaches.

These will include a new one
favored by several aldermen and
many civic groups which would
limit the city’s commitment at
this stage to a Thurlow street by-
pass and tunnel from the inlet
crossing to Seymour Street and
costing about $29 million.

Council’s refusal to be
stampeded into a quick decision
can be directly attributed to
growing public opposition to the
whole freeway idea as presented
by the Swan Wooster-CBA
engineering firms.

On May 22, the day that
Council was to make a decision,
the council galleries were filled
to overflowing by an audience
demonstratively hostile to
freeways through the downtown

RATEPAYERS
OPPOSE ABM

The White Rock Ratepayers
Association has gone on record
opposing Canada’s participation
in the ABM program. This action
followed a discussion on “‘ABM
Missiles — are they good or
bad?”’ at its meeting May 14.

Copies of the resolution were

sent to Prime -_Minister
Trudeau, Foreign Affairs
Minister Sharp, MP Barry

Mather, and T.C. Douglas.
Members of the association

Pointed out in the discussion that —

at best the ABM system would
be a costly continuation of the
cold war. It was felt that instead
of going along with the ABM
system that Canada _ should
disentangle itself from NATO
and Norad and become a neutral

peace keeping nation,
disassociated from military
alliances.

{t was pointed out in the
discussion that in the last 20
years, since belonging to NATO,
Canada has spent approximately
$35 billion ‘‘which Canada can ill
afford while education, health,
housing and all necessities that
need financing are _ being.
starved. : é

Another point brought out
sharply was that if ABM missiles
were intercepted over Canadian
soil, our population would be
cremated with those escaping
either being blinded for life or
suffering an agonizing death by
radioactive fallout.

The resolution adopted said.
“This gathering of the White
Rock Ratepayers Association
are opposed to - Canada’s
participation in the ABM
programs since it is a means of
activating the cold war; that it is
is bringing Canada closer to
financial bankrupcy; that

instead Canada assert itself asa ©

peace loving nation by
withdrawing from military
alliances.”’

area. Thirteen briefs were
presented and only one, that of
the Vancouver Board of Trade
presented by a banker,
supported freeways.

Almost all of the briefs
demanded that priority be given
to a rapid transit system to move
people rather than cars in and
out of our downtown area.

Objections raised to the
freeway scheme in the briefs
submitted by the Vancouver and
District Labor Council, the
Marine Workers and
Boilermakers Industrial Union,
the Committee of Progressive
Electors, ratepayers groups, the
Communist Party, Chinese
Benevolent Association,
Community Arts Council and
others included:

e The freeway scheme is
designed to serve primarily the
Block 42-52 and Project 200
promoters and therefore
amounts to a public subsidy to
these private interests;

e To agree to any of the six
Swan Wooster approaches would
in fact commit the city to'the
whole freeway scheme;

e The freeway scheme would
mean a tax increase of an
average of $80 per home

annually for the next 20 years,

with a corresponding increase in
rents;

_can still defeat this

e It is a political plum 1
to wealthy West Vance a
residents, with Vancol
taxpayers footing the bill; be

e Part of Chinatown would ©
destroyed;

e Any new _ inlet cross
should be at the centre He 4
harbor and niss the dow? xtor
area entirely, not at Brot

Point; ke 1
e Council should m4 xactly
decision until it knows ments

how much senior gover
will contribute: its
e Council should draw i .
own plan for the long rang© wet
all development of va
and submit it to citizens rapa
months discussion and %
before final adoption: ic
e The greatest ira
congestion is not over the
Gate bridge but 1” tof
approaches from the €45
Vancouver; ill
The freeway promoters ‘wi
continue their pressure ion
Council. But public opp nole

uld
scheme. The most that we ae
settle for now is 4 street
approach along Thurlow

his
to Seymour. And evel

decision should be conting hal 18

an undertaking by Coun
rapid transit system W

given priority over freeways =

Communists urge 4-poinl
program on city fransif

The Vancouver Communist
Party, in one of twelve briefs
presented before Vancouver City
Council last Thursday against
the Swan Wooster scheme for
freeways and a third inlet
crossing, pointed out that the
decision Council had before it
“could determine not only the
physical future of our city, but
the tax burden its citizens will
have to carry for the next
quarter century.”’

Presented by Nigel Morgan on
behalf of the Vancouver
Regional Committee, the brief
said that ‘‘we are strongly of the
opinion that solution of the real
traffic problem for Vancouver
lies in the movement of people
eastward and southward from
the city centre, rather than in
provision of a third vehicular
crossing of Burrard Inlet.’’

The brief also urged that ‘‘City
Council must insist on the full
costs, not only of Burrard Inlet
crossing and approaches being
borne by the senior
governments, but the facilities
to carry such traffic through the
city to the extent the city cannot
be bypassed.”’

Morgan analysed the scheme
put forward in the Swan Wooster
report and pointed out that what
is called Scheme 1.1 neither
provides a solution to
Vancouver’s growing traffic

problem, nor is it the cheaper in

the long run— as Swan Wooster
claimed. ;
“‘Instead of solving
Vancouver’s real problem of the
east-west movement of people,

Scheme 1.1 would seem to doom

- establishment of a rapid ©

; =
any real prospect of getting
cheap, efficient rapid '@
system in the foresee ip
future,” the brief said. the
recommendations urged bY
Communist Party were:

: a
1. Immediate launching of

regional survey looksiies it

. nd, 4
system for the Lower Maine ic

with opportunities for the P neil
and organizations to make
views known.

2.In order. to keep ae
maximum traffic off the st he
of the city centre, to avo 3s
need of an immediate major.
west freeway, and to allow

ster jD
wie the city}
greatest flexibility for Gat fl

{-

is urged to reject 5
The alternative course proP'™ 4)
was that ‘‘a substaf the
proportion of the traffic fro
southern end of the propose y
crossing be move ard
underground tunnel southy
via the Bute-Thurlow corride!
the Granville and Bur is
bridges, without either the F tor"
Creek or Burrard ‘distribu
additions.” ne!
3. Work for a toll-free ‘U” af
under Burrard Inlet to avoid @ d
further encroachment
damage to Stanley Park. ore
4. City to seek a ™ ith
equitable arrangement a
Federal and provin’
governments for financiNé ity
“through” traffic so that the ©
could give high priority nies
demands for low-inc0”
housing, health services
education. a

SS ee