CARADA Patterson campaign shifts to hig By RICHARD ORLANDINI SUDBURY — Buoyed by what organizers called ‘‘a tre- mendous positive reception to our leafiets’’, volunteer workers of the campaign to elect Dave Pat- terson fanned throughout Ontario in the past few weeks. Patterson, who led the struggle. of Local 6500 USWA at Inco’ in a long eight and one-half month strike, is running as candidate for the directorship of District 6, Un- ited Steelworkers of America. As the campaign approaches the vote on May 28, it is ever- more obvious that Patterson and the people working with him are shaking up the company, Stew Cooke, and what they call ‘‘the Steelworkers’ Establishment.”’ In his efforts to win the District 6 directorship, which represents all Steelworker locals in Ontario, Patterson has issued a compre- hensive nine-point program for rank-and-file control of District 6. The program calls for ‘the implementation of the Canadian constitution for Canadian steel- workers; coordinated bargaining; a training program for stewards and grievance committee mem- We can win it, workers Say bers; the establishment of a full- time organizing committee and annual district policy con- ferences.” “‘The implementation of this program,’ Patterson has re- peatedly told the press and work- ers at plant gates, ‘will go a long way in the democratizing of the Steelworkers. Democracy is what. this election is all about.”’ For incumbant Cooke, who is remembered in Sudbury as the man who recommended a four- cent an hour increase and no strike before the epic strike against Inco in 1979, the biggest issue in the campaign is ‘‘the most votes.” “We proved Cooke wrong in ' 1979 and we won that strike,”’ the 500 volunteers for Patterson in Sudbury said, ‘‘and we’re going to prove in this election that Cooke can be replaced. The tide is On our side.” And the tide does appear to be on Patterson’s side. Cooke has consistently refused to debate Patterson on the issues in the ‘campaign, stating, ‘‘that it isn’t our parent USWA style.”’ And while Cooke seems to be content with press interviews and newspaper ads, Patterson and his workers have taken their cam- paign to hundreds of plant gates where steelworkers appear to be prepared to discuss the issues. Cooke’s two main tactics ‘throughout his campaign have been redbaiting and declaring that Patterson’s call for a Canadian constitution for steelworkers will bankrupt the Canadian strike fund. That neither of his tactics are working is best illustrated in Pickle Lake in Northwestern On- tario where a USWA local has been on strike. In an appeal to **Meet Stew Cooke’’, Cooke in- vited 200 workers to informally meet with him to, discuss the is- sues. Only one worker attended the meeting, and he was a volun- teer for Patterson. The volunteers for Patterson’s election have also been concen- trating on southern and south- western Ontario where large numbers of workers are immig- rants and many are earning little more than the minimum wage in small steel fabricating shops. _ DAVE PATTERSON In Toronto a special program has been developed by the Patter- son Campaign to bring about ‘‘bet- ter coordination in bargaining be- tween the workers in the small shops’’, and to ensure that women and new immigrants are ‘paign, and we_.are going to see hgear — Campaign committees have — been established among many of. the immigrant groups and leaflets have been produced and distfi- buted in their native languages. better represented in the Steel- workers’ union. 5 ‘“‘We are winning this cam. Dave Patterson as the next Dis: | trict 6 director,”’ the Patterson of | ganizers insist. ‘‘But to win, the last few days are crucial. We need every Patterson supporter pal- | ticipating in plant gate distribu- — tions, and on election day it’s vital that all our supporters work a5 — hard as possible to get the vote out. \ ‘‘We’ve out-organized Cooke: We've put out and discussed 4 program that steelworkers in Dis- trict 6 can understand and agreé with. And we’re proving that a! incumbant like Cooke can bé beaten.” ‘*We have said and we repeat: that the election of Dave Pattet- son will put a fresh breath of democracy into District 6.”’ a Ont. Tory budget bleeds cons By MIKE PHILLIPS TORON TO — Ontario workers and consumers were hit squarely between the eyes, May 19, with an iron- fisted Tory budget which will eventually strip them of more than one billion dollars. Ontario Treasuer Frank Miller rammed it to the peopie while corporations got away scot-free without one cent increase in corporate income tax or capital taxes. The immediate impact of the big-business budget will be the lifting of some $603-million from individual tax- payers’ pockets —— $300 cut in the income of every taxpayer in the province. By the time the next budget is brought down, it is expected the measures in this one will have reamed the public for some $1.2-billion in taxes. Miller left no stone unturned when it came to putting the boots to workers and consumers, unleashing an unprecedented flurry of tax increases which the big business Tories wouldn't have dared bring out without their ill-gotten majority in Queen’s Park. - e For the first time since Ontario began collecting income tax, the rate of taxation as a percentage of the total federal income tax will be raised this July 1, from 44 to 46%, and up again to 48% in 1982. e As of Midnight, May 19, gasoline went up another six cents per litre and a pack of 20 cigarettes increased by a nickle. A 24-bottle case of beer is going to cost an extra 45 cents and 25 oz bottle of spirits will jump at least another quarter. Adding to the rip-off, the govemment is introducing a new method of taxing gas, liquior, beer and tobacco that will see taxes automati- cally increase as the prices go up. Miller’s premise seems to be: what the consumers don’t see won’t hurt the government. e While continuing their boastful rhetoric about the. quality of Ontario's social services, the Tories con- tinued their attack on people's living standards by jack- ing up Ontario Hospital Insurance Premium (OHIP) rates another $36 a year for single subscribers and $72 a year for families. . e The Tories couldn't even leave items like the three-year automobile license fees alone. They raised them from $9 to $15. e All of the sales tax exemptions introduced in Mil- ler’s cynical pre-election mini-budget, including the exemption on newly-purchased furniture will be drop- ° ped as of June.30, 1981. : There wasn’t an ounce of shame in Miller’s voice when he told the legislature, **I have decided to leave corporate income tax and capital tax rates unchanged in view of the importance I attach to maintaining an attrac- tive investment climate.”’ PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MAY 29, '1981—Page 10 Ont. premier Bill Davis, minister Larry Grossman. ! Not only did the corporations get away without pay- ing an extra nickle in taxes, but the budget also left in place the bonanza of tax credits, depletion allowances, and various other tax incentives and ‘‘investment in- centives’’ the Tories have been gleefully pumping into corporate bank accounts. Though hundreds of thousands of Ontarions are out of work, particularly in the crisis-ridden auto industry, Miller’s budget had nothing to offer in the way of spec- ific job creation plans and not a word about the auto crisis or how Queen’s Park intends to deal with it. Homeowners or young families racking their brains about how to raise the astronomical sums needed to buy a home or meet mortgage payments didn’t get a single plan from the Tories about how Ontario would deal with sky rocketting interest rates. Miller admitted that the 106,000 new jobs the budget is supposed to create won’t even alter the current job- less rate in the province. In fact, showing the government's total lack.of con- cern, for the jobless, Miller boasted how the govern- ment’s on-going attack on public service jobs had net- ted a ‘‘saving’’ of some $1.2-billion in wages so far. He proposed that the federal government should adopt the same cutback measures to help it clean up the $14- billion federal deficit. The Tories’ pro-monopoly bias is most evident when you look at the government’s revenue figures for 1981. . While corporate taxes will account for about 11% of the province’s income, individual taxpayers, through in- come taxes and the whole gamut of sales taxes, gas, liquor, and tobacco taxes, and OHIP premiums will supply at least 57%. ; The only people with smiles on their faces when the umers $1B budget came down were business men. The oppositio® parties, spokesmen for labor, farmers, and small bust ness were furious at the Tories for their vicious attack _ on the people. Mel Doig Ontario leader of the Communist Party) - called it a savage attack on workers and consumes while reducing the burden corporations should bear if providing the government’s income. ‘*The majority of the people of Ontario didn’t vot® for this budget’’, Doig pointed out. ‘‘Only 25% of thé. voters on March 19 cast their ballots for the Tories: most. voted against them.”’ Cliff Pilkey, president of the Ontario Federation of Labor called the budget ‘‘an iron fist in an iron glove — a crashing document that hits hard at the ordinary tax” payer while giving the corporate sector a free ride.” He attacked the budget for ignoring unemploymetl and the soaring interest rates and predicted the $600 million reduction in workers’ buying power asia resul! of the budget would further deepen the jobs crisis. Of the Tories refusal to address inflation and interest rates Pilkey said, ‘‘again’’ we’re told that this is a federé responsibility. To all those people who are losing or wil lose their homes, Frank Miller is saying: ‘Send you! change of address cards to Ottawa’’’. | j Ontario NDP leader Michael Cassidy launched hi attack on the Tory budget by blaming the people wh? voted for the conservatives March 19. ‘‘It’s clear tha! _ the people who voted Tory on March 19 got what the) deserved,’’ he said, charging the Tories had kept thei! ‘promise’? by keeping the people at a much lowé priority than the corporations. a Instead of robbing the public to the tune of $600 million, Cassidy said the Tories could have followed : the example set in NDP-governed Saskatchewan wher® ~ revenue from resource. industry taxation this year net’ ted $400-million to the province. - He criticizéd the Tory decision to tie tax increases t0 the rising prices of gas, tobacco and alcohol. ‘‘ This means they won’t have to put any tax increases befor? the people every year’’, he said, and accused the Tori¢ of “‘trying to evade any accountability to the legisl@) ture. Miller made it clear that the budget that he’s pinninf his hopes for the future health of the Ontario econom) on the savage and disastrous U.S. economic program d President Ronald Reagan. ‘‘ Tax cuts and increases i! defence spending should give renewed impetus t¢ growth in demand for Ontario’s exports’’, the treasure! told the legislature. “President Reagan’s program is clearly designed t@ promote economic growth and it will have positiv! _ spill-over benefits for our economy.”