Over The Edge Page 4 _

Strike! Strike! Strike!

From the Technicians
at the CBC to the
Doctors all across BC
the word of the day
seems to be: strike, but
life goes on, doesn't it?
If you enjoy listening to
CBC Radio or watching
CBC Television, the
strike by the
Technicians there could
be a minor annoyance,
and the threat of the
broadcasters strike
action may be worrying.
If you, like me, are not
willing to cross picket
lines to go to a movie
the projectionists' strike
may also be a mild
annoyance, but by far

the most important
strike, or job action is
the the Reduced Action
Days taken by the doc-
tors all over the
province of British
Columbia.

If you or a member of
your family is sick or
injured, the Reduced
Action Days directly
effect you. Up to five
hour waits in
Emergency Rooms, no
chance of seeing your
doctor or going to a clin-
ic are all symptoms of
this medical job action,
not to mention all of the
elective surgery that
has been put on hold for

as long as the Reduced
Activity Days are in
effect. The doctors are
protesting their lack of
funding, and in the
process their patients
are being made to suf-
fer, in the hopes that the
public will put pressure
on the provincial gov-
ernment, and their situ-
ation will change.
There is nothing
wrong with taking job
action as long as it is
effective, but when
there seems to be no
change, as in the case
of the projectionists,
and the public does not
support the strike, and

is willing to cross picket
lines, perhaps other
stratagies should be
enacted.

The projectionists
have been on strike for
the past several
months. For the first
month or so many peo-
ple did not attend
movies because they
did not want to cross
picket lines, but as the
strike has drags on,
people's wills are start-
ing to be overcome by
their boredom and the
winter doldrums, and
are going back to the
movies. After the public
has decided to disre-

gard the picket lines,
and the business is stiil
running, how much
sense does this type of
job action make?

In the case of the
CBC technicians the
story is a little different.
There are other radio
and television stations,
and unless you work for
one of the stations you
would have no reason
to cross the picket lines.
Sure listeners are tiring
of listening to the same
radio program for the
third or fourth time, and
sure occasionally the
news broadcasters on
the CBC Television

March 23, 1999

News sound like they
are inside an echoing
cave, but the quality of
the news is still high. If
the broadcasters decide
to join their co-workers
in job action things
might change a little
and the quality would
drop, like it did at BCTV
when the broadcasters
were on strike.

Eventually things will
be back to normal, and
then in a couple of days
someone else will go on
strike.

Nicole Larson

And Right Back at You...

Dear Sirs:

| have just read the
critical letter written by
James Moore (Political
Science) directed at
PIRG in the latest issue
of Over The Edge. | am
hard-pressed to under-
stand why someone
who professes to have a
background as a “policy
advisor in Ottawa” can
subscribe to the MAI
unless he is possessed
of a large portfolio of
stocks or aspires to a
career aS a corporate
flunky. | can only hope
that his coming years at
UNBC will bring Mr.
Moore to be more criti-
cal of a very dangerous
proposal (the MAI) and
to be more charitable
toward the work of dedi-
cated students in PIRG.

Our PIRG was estab-
lished to provide a base
on campus for — stu-
dents, faculty and com-
munity groups to orga-
nize around issues of
interest. If the leanings
of this group appear to
be to the left it may be
because the media and
the political parties in
our country (including
Mr. Moore’s’ Reform
Party) have swung far to
the corporate right.
Anyone or any group

which represents the
rights and welfare of
anyone not of the mon-
eyed classes is branded
by them as a radical
socialist. If you care to
so brand me, | will
accept the appellation
as a badge of honour.
There are worse things
one can be called.

It is not the duty of
PIRG to advertise the
corporate viewpoint on
the MAI or any issue.
These views are amply
fostered by the Fraser
Institute, the C.D. Howe
Institute, the Business
Council on National
Issues and others, and
distributed through the
information and enter-
tainment media. These
media, in turn, largely
owned by the corpora-
tions which want us to
swallow their view of our
world. f

Turning to the MAI in
particular, it does not,
as the writer alleges,
“define the rights and
obligations of investors.”
It defines new rights for
corporations to be free
of the oversight of gov-
ernments. It is designed
to assure that no signa-
tory government will
have the right to put the
welfare of its citizens
above the rights of for-

eign capitalists. As
such, it is a serious
attack on democracy. |
recall that our govern-
ments exist to serve the
citizens who give legiti-
macy to these govern-
ments. Any government
which ties itself to a
treaty which abrogates
the right of future gov-
etnments to serve its
citizens is guilty, in my
estimation, of treason.
Such was the govern-
ment of Brian Mulroney
which harnessed us to
the FTA and NAFTA.
The MAI would extend
the rights of corpora-
tions beyond what was
given to them by
Mulroney in the FTA and
NAFTA. It would apply
these restrictions to the
governments of all the
members of the OECD
with a view toward later
pressing them on all
governments —__world-
wide.

Under NAFTA we -do
not have the right to pro-
tect the health of our cit-
izens if it infringes on
the potential profits of
foreigners. (See the
Ethyl case). We are
being challenged in our
attempts to protect our
water supplies from for-
eign corporations. We
cannot afford to main-

tain our educational,
health and other stan-
dards since corpora-
tions are now virtually
exempt from reasonable
taxes on profits in

Canada. Corporations
insist on subsidies and
tax exemptions, lower
wages and relaxed envi-
ronmental standards as
a price for their staying
in Canada. We are
whipsawed __ between
Mexico and the United
States to force us to
lower our standards and
bend to the will of for-
eigners. Since the cor-
porations have evaded
their financial responsi-
bility in maintaining our
society and its infra-
structure, the burden
falls on the shoulders of
the lower classes (Yes,
we have classes in
Canada) and_= small
businesses.

The writer uses the old
sports analogy of the
‘level playing field’ to
justify the MAI. The
argument is that if we
give advantages to for-
eign corporations
(“investors,” in the usual
parlance) then other
governments will have
to give equal advan-
tages to ours. “Ours”?
Do WE own any corpo-
rations? Am | to cry over

slights to ‘Canadian’
corporations in their
dealings abroad? |
believe that these that
these corporations
which wish to invest
profits earned within
Canada in some foreign
country should do so at
their own risk. lf they
wish safety, let them
invest here and we will
not have to try to entice
foreign corporations to
bring their money to
Canada.

Mr. Moore insists on
‘transparency’ and
claims that it is
enhanced in the MAI.
Wrong. If a foreign cor-
poration charges
Canada with a breach
of the terms of the
Agreement, it would go
before a tribunal in
secret and the ruling
would not be subject to
appeal. And if you think
that transparency is the
hallmark of the MAI, |
suggest that you exam-
ine the secrecy with
which the negotiations
have been carried out.

We do not need the
MAI or its like to
enhance our competi-
tiveness in the world
markets. We have done
very well in bilateral
agreements, such as
the AutoPact, which

does not cede our
democratic rights as cit-
izens. And if you think
that the sacrifice of our
rights is a fair price to
pay for enhanced
exports, look at the cur-
rent disputes with the
U.S.A. over beef, pork,
softwood lumber and
grain, all of which were
supposed to be elimi-
nated under the NAFTA.
We should not even be
considering entering
into the MAI or any sim-
ilar agreement. Instead,
we should give notice
immediately and extri-
cate ourselves from
NAFTA and work to
regain contro! of our
economy.

In the finally analysis,
the economy exists to
serve citizens, not the
other way around.
Corporations are grant-
ed charters by govern-
ments which have the
power to revoke those
charters if they do not
serve the public inter-
est. As a people, it is
time to show that WE
run this country, not the
capitalists.

James Lougherty
(Radial Socialist)