SK il ima et 0 | RW eo EER 4 0B eee a)

The Tribune asked Communist Party leader William
htan to comment on the latest developments in the free
rade debate as the U.S.-Canada talks are set to begin:
* * *

Prime Minister Mulroney keeps on stumbling on sharp
'Ocks and President Reagan continues to stab him in the
ie This is seen in the shakes and shingles episode; it
i. in the move against Canadian softwood and

Mber imports to the United States. Both actions are
80ing to play havoc in the economy, not only in British

umbia, but in the country as a whole.

Ye can see now how opposite are the promises Prime

ister Mulroney made during the election campaign
4 ae promised jobs, jobs, jobs. It is expected that
WU JObs will be lost in the shakes and shingles episode.

Nd countless thousands of others will be lost if the

Mited States moves against lumber or imports from

ver parts of Canada. Another promise of the Prime
oes which has gone by the boards is his promise
" ull Partnership for the provinces in any free trade

80tiations.
revustead of that full partnership, Mulroney offers a
€w every three months during the negotiations. Still,
fre is no guarantee that the interests of the provinces
© Zoing to be protected since one of the main aims of
€ trade negotiations is to eliminate those barriers that
ie Ovinces have put up to ‘‘protect’’ the interests of
Province to another and also from outside.
a Is obvious now that the federal government will
pee the interest of the provinces in these negotia-
ie The United States wants to impose changes on the

Vinces in the same way it imposed changes in the
| reign Investment Review Agency and the National

nergy policy.

hirdly, the Liberals would appear on the surface to
Pee caucting a sharp, critical campaign against Mul-
ee But that’s only superficial. What they are concen-
ting on is not the essence of free trade but how the

“me Minister is bargaining on free trade.

a his points out the need for Canadians to keep a sharp
ay On the Liberals should they see them as an alter-

lve to the Mulroney Tories. The Liberals are not
ied themselves to be much of an alternative, other

N those who might be called left-minded Liberal MPs,

© are taking a more consistently critical position of the

licies of the Mulroney government.

In all of these situations what is of interest is the

Sitions of those who up until now have been quiet or

© have not come out fully against free trade. The
a Union has come out against free trade because
| att the Reagan administration, culture is an area for

ack. There should be no doubt about this.
oe Prime Minister has said that they're opposed to
ing everything on the table, but the United States has
ae it very clear that everything will be on the table,
1 | the there is no indication any respect will be shown for
/ Cultural development of Canada.

The Steel Union, which until now has been rather
cuiet, although the Canadian Labor Congress has devel-
‘i d rather strong resolutions against free trade, has

W come out in opposition to it. They were hit by
ons to the exporting of steel and piping for gas and

- Now the national body of Steel, as well as Mr.
out rah fepresenting District Six in Ontario, has come
against free trade and has called for a so-called

Bc approach rather than a free trade agreement

Ween Canada and the United States.

il te. a‘ sense one sees around free trade a political
alignment between a policy which leads to greater and

Broad coalition needed to defeat free trade

INTERVIEW WITH CPC
LEADER WILLIAM KASHTAN

greater economic integration with the United States and
a policy towards strengthening the independence of
Canada with respect to economic, foreign and military
questions.

The Prime Minister has said free trade will be a major
issue in the coming federal elections. But he’s not so sure
anymore that everything is going to be of benefit to
Canada —a promise he made at the beginning of negotia-
tions. Still he tries to placate public opinion by saying he
wants the kind of agreement that was embodied in the
auto pact and that he is going to fight for a similar pact ina
whole number of other industries.

He mentions hydro in Quebec, the fisheries, high tech
etc. The interesting thing in all of this is that he does not
speak about lumber, which means that lumber has now
been sold out to the United States at the expense of the
people of British Columbia.

We are on a very dangerous course now. It is clear
what is needed is a sharper, stronger opposition to the
policy of the Mulroney government. We have called and
will continue to call for an all-Canada coalition to fight
this onslaught. The good beginnings against free trade
that have been made are not sufficient now to meet the
nature of the situation. What is needed is an all-Canada
Coalition that is open to everybody opposed to free trade
between Canada and the United States and is prepared to
fight for a democratic alternative.

And we think that now may be the time to look into the
question of government. It is clear that the course pur-
sued by the Mulroney government is dangerous to the
interests of Canada; it is dangerous to the job prospects
of Canadians; it is dangerous in terms of every aspect of
Canadian life.

It must be attacked in the sharpest possible way. It
may be early now to raise the question of government,
but we should now begin to give thought to the fact that
it is time for a different government. The only prom-
ises the Mulroney government has upheld have been
those to the corporations, the banks and the White
House — not those made to working people.

It is time for change. Sooner or later the Canadian
people are going to demand that Mulroney and his gov-

‘‘The action by the Reagan administration in
imposing a 35 per cent tariff on red cedar shakes
and shingles from B.C. and its threat to impose
countervailing duties of 27 per cent against Cana-
dian softwood imports will cost Canadian workers
thousands of jobs,’ reads a resolution of the
Communist Party adopted at its Central Com-
mittee meeting May 23-25.

‘Imposition of tariffs on shakes and shingles will
have an immediate and devastating effect on Cana-
dian workers, with an estimated 4,000 jobs at risk if
the tariffs remain. The threatened action to impose
countervailing duties on Canadian softwood would
have an even greater effect. An industry study has
put job losses at 4,000 across the country, 2,000 of
them in B.C. and has pointed to another 4,000
indirect job losses.

if “if paint what

SOME. CALL. IT ART.
OTHERS CALL IT Lark TRADE.
And the critics ask:"Is Brian ‘2 genius,

or just schizophrenic 2‘)

Demand U.S. cancel tariff — CP

ernment must go and be replaced by a new majority in
Parliament with new policies that will truly advance the
interests of this country.

From a political point of view, what needs to be
worked for is the bringing together of the NDP, left
Liberals, the Communist Party, the trade union move-
ment which has come out strongly against free trade, the
women’s movement, young people who are the victims
of the present economié¢ policies and farmers who are
increasingly concerned about the danger of free trade for
them.

In other words, there is a majority of Canadians who in
one way or another see the dangers of free trade and who
are combatting it in their own way. What now needs to
be done is to bring them all together as a major political
force that could begin challenging the government and
bring about a serious change in the next election.

‘‘The swiftness with which U.S. industry,
backed by the Reagan administration, has moved |
to impose tariffs in the face of growing Canadian

exports, demonstrates that the U.S. will act only in
the interests of U.S. industry in any free trade deal
with Canada.

‘‘Only immediate and unequivocal action by the
Canadian government can avert the crisis in the
forest industry and prevent the loss of thousands of
jobs.

‘‘The government should demand that the U.S.
administration cancel the tariff. It should go further
and cancel free trade negotiations with the USA.
Free trade with the U.S. is not the road to jobs. It is
the road to disaster and not elast, the road to loss of
Canada’s sovereignty and independence.

Nuclear cloud courtesy of Cold War

4 oo June 5, the U.S. conducted

Sings th nuclear weapons’ test
: the unilateral Soviet testing
i Jy fortum was imposed last
| 29. The blast, which took

© under the Nevada desert
ae Was widely condemned
Dra 2d the world as an obstacle to
tae °SS in the Geneva arms

P Scientists Agree
: inde @ surprising development,
: Signeq aent U.S. scientists have
ayy, ot agreement with Soviet
Of ¢tities enabling an exchange
Othe 28 data from within each
is,» COuntry. In Moscow, Ad-
Wind, chairman of the
1 Resources Defence
» an American environ-

oo ftura
— ~SUnci

mental group, said May 29 that
U.S. scientists would be allowed
to come to the USSR to set up
three seismic monitoring stations
on: Soviet territory. In return,
Soviet scientists would be al-
lowed to erect similar posts on
private land in. California to
monitor U.S. nuclear tests in
Nevada.

This agreement, although
completely unofficial on the
American side, effectively takes
care of the major problems that
would be involved in verifying a
test ban agreement between the
U.S. and the USSR.

The Reagan administration,
clearly miffed that private U.S.
citizens acting on their own could

resolve problems it has claimed
are too difficult to deal with at this
time, was quick to disavow the
arrangement.

“‘Of course, any agreement be-
tween these groups has no official
status,’ said U.S. State Depart-
ment spokesman Charles Red-
man. ‘‘It is obvious that issues
with such strong national security
implications as nuclear testing
must be discussed in a govern-
ment-to-government context”’.

Deliberate Fallout

In yet another testing-related
‘development, the U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy finally released a
1950 document describing a nu-
clear experiment which took

place in December, 1949, and re-
sulted in large-scale irradiation of
populated areas of the American
northwest.

According to the newspaper,
The Portland Oregonian, the in-
cident occurred at the Hanford
Nuclear Reservation in Wash-
ington. It discharged some 5,000
curies of iodine-131 into the atmo-
sphere in an experiment “‘related
to devleopment of a monitoring
methodology for intelligence ef-
forts regarding the emerging
Soviet nuclear program’’.

A former official. at Hanford
told the newspaper that the plume
of radioactive gas covered parts
of Oregon and Washington and
was at times 200 miles long and 40

miles wide. Iodine-131 is known
to cause thyroid cancer in hu-
mans.

The exact reason that an un-
suspecting American population
was deliberately exposed to radia-
tion in this way has not been dis-
closed. It is believed, however,
that the experiment was launched
by U.S. intelligence agencies who
were hoping to come up with a
method for locating plutonium
production plants inside the
USSR. By knowing the distance
from Hanford and in what direc-
tion a particular reading was ob-
tained, it was believed that intel-
ligence operatives would be able
to calculate the precise location of
Soviet atomic facilities.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JUNE 18, 1986 e 5