BEHIND THE HEADLINES
138 East Cordova Street, Vancouver 4, BC Phone 6S3-9355
10 CENTS A COPY $5 A YEAR $6 FOREIGN
GEORGE NORTH, Editor HAL GRIFFIN, Assocista Editor
Authorised as second class mail by Post Office Department, Ottawa, and for payment of postage in cash. Published every Friday except the last Friday of the month. Deadline: Wednesday prior to publication.
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 7
Talks on Herring
of the labor rate. The Union would separate the Pension Plan contributions and Welfare Fund contributions upon receiving them.
The Association's reply was that "we have looked over your original letter and this would probably be written in with perhaps minor amendments. We'll refer it back."
Association Makes No Labor Rate Offer
On the labor rate, the Association has refused to budge from its earlier position of "no increase." It said the $1.28 for a pension plan would have to be deducted from the $17.40 rate.
As stated by Association spokesman Malcolm Robertson, the Association's stand is that "it would be very wrong to leave you with the impression of an increase being forthcoming and we reserve the right to review our offer on the table of $17.40. The purpose in placing an offer to continue the price was in the hope of a continuous operation in order to get the highest values of the fish. This is all there is in it and there is no use trying to think that a strike will alter it. Maybe we will have to lose a season. This is something your members and the companies will have to see later."
The Union committee, referring to operators' claim of a $5 per per ton decrease in market values, stated: "We don't consider the decline has prevented the companies from paying an increase this year. The companies have a margin of $32.92 for other costs and profits after paying $17.40 to fishermen, and with the increase we are asking you would still have about $30.
"We don't see a settlement based on the old rate. There should be an increase covering the cost of the pension plan plus an amount to cover the increase in the cost of living. The companies are not claiming inability to pay and are not disclosing profit levels. A margin of $30 is more than adequate and we are not in a position to say that without an increase in the payment to fishermen there will not be some dislocation of the industry."
Robertson's reply on profits was that "we operate to make a profit and if we can't make a profit there is no sense in operating. The companies don't tell me what profit they are making."
No Progress on Weighing of Herring
No progress was made on weighing of herring. The. Association has refused to instal a system of weighing the bits and pieces of herring which bypass the belt scales.
"We don't think the amount involved will add anything to anyone's pay cheque" was one statement made by Robertson. He also claimed that "offsetting this loss of material, we find the use of pumps is putting water into these fish and we are not buying water. The weights the men are getting are quite good."
The Union stressed the numerous complaints received during the season as well as at membership meetings.
"Obviously the fishermen are dissatisfied," it pointed out. "When a crews brings a load of fish in they expect to be paid on the basis of the whole load. The companies have installed long and complex conveyor systems. The fishermen are not to blame for any costs involved in making provision for weighing of material which does not cross the belt scales. There is no point suggesting further discussion between boat delegates and plant managers. This must be settled in negotiations."
Robertson's reply was to the effect that "we are not dismissing anything or ignoring it," but he did not propose any action to correct the problem.
Extended Health Benefits Under MSA
Although operators had earlier agreed to provide extended health benefits under the MSA plan, they claimed they would become effective in the month "in which agreement was reached." The Union said it took this to mean October, since agreement on the extended health plan was reached on October 8. Robertson said the operators construed this to mean when agreement was reached on all items.
"We cannot accept those terms. In our opinion, the extended health plan should be made effective on October 15 at the latest. Our members have agreed to retur» to fishing on October 29. This is based on retroactive adjustment on any change resulting from negotiations. The extended MSA benefits cannot be made retroactive unless steps are taken now."
Before the talks ended, the Association said it would contact MSA and would "consider coverage" beginning the middle of October (a point since agreed to), adding that "if on November 5 or 12 you decide to go on strike, we would only undertake to provide the coverage up to the period you go on strike."
In discussion of the two week holiday for 19S7, the Association expressed a strong preference for the last half of October. No final decisions have been made on the dates by the Union.
Generally speaking, the negotiating committee has made practically no progress. There is no firm commitment on the pension plan; no offer on the labor rate, except to continue last year's rate and deduct pensions from the old rate; no progress on weighing.
The Association is arguing almost entirely on markets. Yet it has not pleaded inability to pay. It has not disclosed profits nor has it convinced the negotiating committee that with a margin of $32.92 it is unable to pay an increase and still make substantial profits.
In past years the only way herring fishermen could win increases was to go on strike. This year the fishermen are willing to return to fishing in October while negotiations proceed. How long they will continue if the Association flatly refuses to advance any further offer is impossible to predict. The next couple of weeks will be decisive. Unless progress is made, the danger of another strike definitely exists.
4 THE FISHERMAN — OCTOBER 21, 1966
LIBERAL PARTY VS PARTY NOW
By BEN SWANKEY
CAN the Liberal Party still lay claim to being a Canadian party after what happened at its annual meeting in Ottawa last week?
Shouldn't it now be called the American Party in Canada?
These questions may appear shocking and disturbing to some but they are not unfair.
Look at the deci s i o n s of this policy conference of the government party and decide for yourself.
By an overwhelming majority, the conference rejected the mild "economic nationalism" of former finance minister Walter Gordon and his supporters. The resolution sponsored by his group called for positive steps to reverse the "increasing trend to foreign ownership and control of Canadian industry."
With equal emphasis, the delegates rejected all proposals aimed at placing even limited curbs and restrictions on the US takeover of Canadian industries and resources.
Then, again by a large majority, the conference adopted a resolution backed by western Liberals, finance minister Sharp and Prime Minister Pearson advocating "that the government of Canada institute negotiations leading to the formation of a North American free trade area, including the Caribbean."
SOME   OF   THE ONTARIO
delegates at the conference representing industrial areas protested the resolution, pointing out that free trade would be disastrous for Canadian manufacturing industries. Their objections were ignored.
"I don's believe the argument that Canada will be swallowed up by the US," said Ray Per-rault, BC Liberal leader and one of the chief backers of the free trade resolution.
WILL   FREE  TRADE BE-
tween Canada and the US bring lower prices and higher living standards as claimed by its supporters?
To answer that question we don't have to go very far. The auto industry is an instructive example.
Last year the Canadian and US governments abolished all tariffs and duties on motor vehicles crossing the border.
This should have resulted in Canadian car prices coming down to US levels with savings of $500 to $1,500 on many models for Canadian car buyers.
But no such thing happened. The reason was that the auto manufacturers, President Johnson and Prime Minister Pearson included a provision in the agreement that free trade would apply only to car manufacturers and not to the public. General Motors, Ford and Chrysler can take cars across the border without paying any duty, but you and I can't.
"Why don't we give our workers a break and stay here another two weeks?"
The auto industry, which is US owned, kept up its prices in Canada, making double the profits here it makes in the US. This "free trade" deal resulted in the auto manufacturers pocketing a cool $50 million a year — which used to be collected by the Canadian government in duties. (And now the government is short of money and has announced that taxes and postal rates will go up.)
WITHIN  THE  PAST FEW
months we have had two further results from this free trade deal involving the auto industry.
Thousands of Canadian auto workers have been laid off as Canadian plants have been automated or closed down.
The price of cars to Canadians continues to go up, not down.
The gap in car prices as between Canada and the US remains as great as ever.
Experience has given the lie to claims made by the Liberal government that the free trade auto deal would bring more jobs and lower priced cars.
There is absolutely no evi-denc to suggest that the free trade proposal adopted by the national Liberal conference would have any better results for Canadians than the auto free trade deal.
On the contrary, the evidence indicates that a more likely result would be the closing down of Canadian owned industries as they are bought out or squeezed out by big US corporations, a spread of unemployment in these industries, and higher prices dictated by price fixing corporations that have eliminated their Canadian competitors.
THE RECORD OF THE LIB-
eral Party in the last 20 years shows it has more and more abandoned the national interest in favor of foreign interests.
Perhaps we shouldn't be so shocked or surprised at the anti-national policies characteristic of the Liberal Party today. They are not exactly new.
The infamous Abbott Plan of 1946, which started off a deliberate policy of integration of US and Canadian economies at this country's expense, was introduced by a Liberal government.
And it was Lester B. Pearson who, as Liberal leader, made a trip to New York in 1963 and then on his return made a complete aboutface and supported the placing of US nuclear weapons on Canadian soil, a proposal not favored by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker at the time.
In the election held that year it was US money poured into Canadian radio, TV and newspapers for propaganda purposes that split and defeated the Conservatives and put in the minority Liberal government.
The Liberal leadership has taken Canada a long way down the road to national suicide.
The once great Canadian party of Sir Wilfrid Laurier has been reduced to little more than an agency of US interests.
The Liberal Party has earned the decline it is currently suffering.
There are men in the Liberal Party, however, who would like to see their party stand and fight for something better. They include men like immigration minister Jean Marchand, health minister Allan MacEachern, Walter Gordon, and Maurice Lamontagne, former minister of state.
But as long as they confine their efforts to discussions and infighting in government offices and hotel rooms they haven't a hope. They will just be used by the government.
Their only chance of restoring the Liberals as a Canadian party is by taking the issue directly to the people of Canada and publicly campaigning for new policies.
OTTAWA REPORT
Tax Profits, Not People
By FRANK HOWARD, MP
THE Hon. Mitchell William Sharp, PC, BA, MP, is one of the few finance ministers to increase taxes and perhaps to raise other taxes when he doesn't need the money to meet the government's budgetary expenses.
His theory is
that he really wants to protect   us from
ig-He
things. So, he take some of it
our own norance. . says that we don't know how to spend our money properly, or that we spend i t recklessly, or that we spend it on the wrong says, 'I'll just from you'.
The reason that he wants this money is to keep us from fanning the fires of inflation. If, he reasons, we keep spending our money we will simply be forcing prices up because the person who has something to sell to us, knowing that we have money to spend, will increase his price. That's the theory.
★ ★ *
IN PUTTING THIS THEORY
into practice last spring, Sharp increased corporation income taxes so that companies wouldn't have so much money to spend on capital expansion. When companies spend money, they, like people, also tend to push up prices.
But Sharp really didn't want this money to meet increased government expenditures. He simply wanted to take it out of circulation for awhile. He's going to give it back when the pressure of inflation ceases.
Later in the year Sharp decided that his policies of the spring weren't really working so he announced that other measures would have to be taken.
One of these was the postponement of medicare, although it is difficult to see how postponement of a governmental expenditure which was scheduled to come into effect next summer could have an effect upon inflationary pressures now.
★ * *
HOWEVER,   ONE   OF THE
other things which he hinted at was an increase in personal income tax—the income tax which you and I pay.
Remember, he really doesn't need this money to meet government expenses; he just doesn't want us to have it to spend. We had a system like this during the Second World War with the compulsory savings plan.
Now if Sharp sees the need to increase personal income taxes just to keep us from spending the money surely he will give it back to us some time in the future when the threat of inflation isn't so strong. I, for one, knowing that Sharp is an honorable man, feel that he will treat people just as generously as he treats companies.
I, for one, also feel that we as people should not be called upon to make sacrifices to correct an economic situation which was brought about by the greed of certain large companies, most of which are owned in the United States.
I, for one, feel that it was too bad that the Liberal Party, meeting recently here in Ottawa, decided to endorse the concept of foreign ownership of Canadian industry.
The Hon. Mitchell William Sharp, PC, BA, MP, is one who also supports the foreign ownership concept and he is so far the strongest contender to replace Pearson as the leader of the Liberal Party.