The voice of B.C.'s organized fishing industry workers
Local 1 opposes Pearse f Meeting
Editor, The Fisherman,
The Vancouver Fishermen's local of the UFAWU held a special meeting to consider the impact of the Pearse Report Nov. 22.
At that meeting the members came to the conclusion that if they accept some of the recommendaitons they have to accept them all. After a heated and well considered debate they rejected the report in totality.
They conceded that as an abstract exercise in economics the report is interesting and educational, but unfortunately it bears little relationship to or gives any real help for the present difficulties of the B.C. fishing industry.
Among his many erroneous recommendations the one on salmon licensing stands out as particularly objectionable.
In an interview (Nov. 21, 1981) Dr. Pearse stated, "In introducing a new system we have to avoid virtually expropriating privileges that the crown has granted."
Yet in his report of Sept. 82, he contradicts himself.
What he does in fact is to recommend expropriation of the salmon license equity fishermen have in their vessels.
Let me explain; The Davis Plan which has been in operation for 11 years licensed the vessel instead of the person. Because of restricted entry into salmon fishing, replacement vessels had to acquire a license from an older boat which was then to go out of the salmon industry. Unfortunately the plan was so devised that wheeling and dealing in salmon licenses became the order of the day, inflating the value of the license.
A fisherman building a new boat found that capital costs not only included the construciton but the inflated value of a license for the right to fish.
At the inception of the 'Plan' the minister of fisheries Jack Davis appointed the 'Westcoast Salmon Fleet Development
Middle East is debated at Fed
Committee' to advise him on the size and composition of the fleet required to harvest the resource. They were to examine how to proceed in reducing the capacity of the salmon fleet.
Letters
• The Fisherman welcomes letters to the editor, asking only that they carry the signature and address of the writer. Opinions expressed are those of the writers; they do not necessarily reflect and may in fact be opposed to the views of The Fisherman and the UFA WU. The Fisherman reserves the right to edit letters to meet space requirements.
The committee had the opportunity to come to grips with the problem but they blew it. Dr. Pearse was on that committee
and in my view bears some of the responsibility for our present dilemma. The size of the salmon fleet has increased substantially from before the Davis Plan.
Today, Pearse recognizes that the Davis salmon licensing plan is not working. Needless to say, the UFAWU objected and opposed the 'Plan' before it was operational, but for the time being now realize we are stuck with it.
Dr. Pearse now recommends that the salmon license be on the person instead of the boat. Transferability is to be on the basis of bidding (is this to bring in another era of wheeling and dealing and outrageous inflation of salmon license values?).
What happens to the salmon vessel license? Obviously it becomes worthless. In effect Pearse recommends that the state now expropriate the costly privilege of owning a salmon fishing license which many fishermen have paid for in good faith and with high expectations.
Yours sincerely, ARCHIE KAARIO Local 1
Vancouver
Indian rights urged
B.C. Federation of Labor convention delegates undertook an agonizing appraisal of the Middle East crisis Nov. 15 and concluded with a strong demand for the creation of a national homeland for the Palestinian people.
In the wake of the Beirut massacres, delegates were ready to reassess a longstanding labor policy supportive of Israel and the Camp David accords.
But a policy statement presented to the convention by the federation's human rights committee sharply condemned Israel's "genocidal attacks" and implicitly rejected the Camp David formula for negotiated "Palestinian autonomy" under Israeli rule.
Although the federation stopped short of recognizing the PLO as the legitimate voice of the Palestinian people, the report provoked a number of delegates to condemn the human rights committee for giving support to "terrorists."
But IWA delegate Bill Massie praised the report as "a major step forward."
"We're finally beginning to understand the Palestinian people," he said. "It is correct to say the Chatila attack was genocidal." _
Now scattered to many countries by Israeli occupation of their homes in three wars since 1948, "the Palestinians have a right to fight back," he noted.
UFAWU president Jack Nichol, who visited Lebanon last year as a member of a trade union delegation, told delegates that "we can talk about aggression in Afghanistan, U.S. involvement in El Salvador and Vietnam, but none of that can excuse Israel's actions in Lebanon.
"Israel's invasion of Lebanon wasn't war," he continued. "To suggest that the PLO could match Israel tank for tank, gun for gun is ridiculous. It was a case of using a sledgehammer to smash a peanut. They had no damn right to go into Lebanon, no right to go into Beirut.
The B.C. Federation of Labor's 1982 assessment of the struggle for human rights was defective, UFAWU organizer Ken Bedard said Nov. 14, "because it does not speak of native people."
Bedard told 1,000 delegates to the federation's annual convention that the plight of Indian people remains the same: "substandard housing, poverty, you name it."
For that reason, the report of the federation's human rights commission should have singled out the Indians' fight for justice, he said.
"They experience untold indignities on a daily basis," Bedard said. "The Indian people still seek a just settlement of land claims.
"There are those in the Indian leadership who believe that in the final analysis, Indian people will finally end up alone," Bedard said, without allies in their fight for justice. "They are wrong.
"I have faith the trade union movement also believes the opposite, I believe the trade union movement will take up this fight and take action to ensure governments do the decent thing.
"Workers and Indians have been exploited by the same people, the bankers and the capitalists. It is easy to see the bond we have. If we are divided, it will just make us weaker.
Geoff Meggs photo
• Ken Bedard urges support for Indian rights.
"Indian people seek to be compensated for resources that have been taken from us," he concluded, "so we can live in dignity in this land."
Army of unemployed
I met a dear old friend today, An accidental meeting; At once I sensed a change in him A coolness in his greeting. 1 said "I'm on my way to work." He answered "Nice for you, It must be very gratifying To be one of the chosen few." His voice was filled with bitterness. He looked at me with hate, I felt I was his enemy jk. As he started to relate his story It just came pouring out, He'd been unemployed a year. He'd lost his house, his car, his friends And now his greatest fear Was he'd lose his wife and family By his failure to provide. He said he didn't want to live Without dignity and pride. "You know I've worked hard all my lif To build a future for my kids And after all my toil and sweat I'm headed for the skids." I realized right as I stood then My God, this could be me! I have no job security, I have no guarantee That I won't be standing in his shoes A month, a year from now; And as he turned and walked away I made a solemn vow. That I'll fight to keep the lifestyle I have earned by my own sweat; And if I recruit the unemployed, We'll have the mightiest army yet.'
June Wilson, Penticton Unemployment Action Centre
flie mark
Editor, The Fisherman,
ON Nov. 12,13 and 14 I attended a conference at the University of Victoria called to discuss the Pearse Report and its ramifications for fishermen.
It was jointly sponsored by the University of Victoria and the Western Fishermen's Federation, a newly formed group which has had a very low profile in the industry.
I want to state from the beginning that the idea of industry workers getting together, especially fishermen and shoreworkers, to talk about the future of the industry is an excellent one, but this conference failed to successfully do this for several important reasons.
First off, there was a large number of people who do not make their living in the industry who attended the conference, both from the academic field and business field and they should not be voting or directing our futures.
A good example of what can happen as a result of the participation of these people occurred in one workshop I attended. A vote was taken and the fishermen, except for two or three, voted against a motion concerning consultation programs, but the motion passed because others, not fishermen, supported it.
For years we have been subject to the whims of outside academics and politicians trying to run the industry according to their models and for the most part the plans have been dismal failures, which workers in the indus try have paid for. More of that we don't need.
The problems are serious and we need to work towards solving them, but not at the expense of those of us who depend on this industry to feed, house and cloth ourselves and our families.
There was certainly also a tendency to accept the Pearse Report at this conference, but tinker with some of the recommendations, thus making it acceptable for everyone. That just won't happen, especially if you believe as I do and a growing number of industry people do that the thrust of the report is all wrong for fishermen.
The privatization of the industry is not in the best interests of those who now work in it. What we will end up with is a season like they have in Oregon where it is only 11 days long because the ocean ranchers want 'their' fish to come back unhampered to the ranch.
There is no doubt we have to sit down and discuss ways of improving the industry, not ways of coping with Pearse. To open the door to the implementation of the Pearse Report is asking for our collective demise.
Consultation also became a big issue at the conference. A sense developed that we could set up a council of 'independent' people and give them policy making power over the industry. The council would have direct links with the minister.
There are no 'independent' people in this industry. Those who have made a commitment to fishing are people with opinions, alliances and interests in the industry. Rather than attempt to ignore peoples commitments, they must be acknowledged and representation based on that principle.
In conclusion, I want to say that we must discuss this industry and where it is going, but we must ensure this is done properly and without undue outside influence.
In coming weeks locals of the union are holding meetings along the coast, I urge people in the industry to come out and discuss not only the Pearse report, but ways for us to make this industry work to serve our interests and the interests of the Canadian people.
Yours sincerely, RICK WISHINSKI Vancouver Evening Star
THE FISHERMAN — NOVEMBER 26, 1982/5