FEATURES

and the
EPA

By RICHARD LANE

**As the state arose out of the need to
hold class antagonisms in check, it is ...
the state of the most powerful, eco-
nomically dominant class, which by virtue
thereof becomes also the dominant class
politically, and thus acquires pew means
of holding down and exploiting the op-
pressed class ...’’

— Fredrick Engels, The Origin. of
the Family, Private Property
and the State.

When Anne Burford, the former chief
of U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and more than 20 of her
chief aides were dismissed, early in 1983,
they were accused by the Democrats and
some Republicans of conspiring to de-
stroy the Agency. The ‘‘scandal’’, was
termed ‘‘Wastegate’’ and ‘‘Sewergate’’
by these congressional critics. They
hoped that they could discredit the
Reagan Administration in the eyes of the
voting public by equating the EPA fall to
Nixon’s Watergate. The scandal came to
a head when Burford was found in con-
tempt of Congress by the House of Rep-
resentatives. She is the first top-level
U.S. official thus charged.

Burford and her staff, between 1981
and March 1983, were accused of mis-
management, criminal wrong doing,
conflict of interest, sweet-heart deals
with business, political manipulation,
not protecting the environment, cutting
environmental research programs, not
spending allotted monies, relaxing pollu-
tion regulations and enforcement,

Reagan

A major part of Canada’s acid rain problem is made-in-USA. An insight into the
evasions of U.S. governments, particularly during the Reagan regime, is an invaluable
aid to understanding the problems Canada faces in its efforts to stop fatal acid rain
components at their source. In this chronology, Richard Lane probes the record of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the corporate polluters, and Reagan’s en-
vironmental program, and their intolerable effects on Canada. First of a series.

destroying evidence, covering up for pol-
luting industries, perjury, and contempt
of congress.

Deliberate Reagan Policy
Even though all these charges are true
they-are not the crux of the scandal. The
scandal is the inevitable outcome of a
deliberate policy established by the
Reagan administration and carried out
slavishly by the EPA. Reagan spelled out
the policy in the 1980 election campaign.
Environmental regulation would be re-
duced. In Reagan’s words the EPA
would get ‘‘off the back of industry.’’
Reagan’s EPA administrators, according
to their directives, were to co-operate
with industry not regulate it. No wonder

Burford and company went astray.

This strategy for the EPA was only a
part of the grand scheme of ‘‘bringing
about a fundamental redirection in the
role of the federal government.”’ This of
course was Reagan’s famous “‘war on big
government’. The tactic involved the
‘‘deregulation of America’’ because ac-
cording to Reagan, ‘‘Big Government’”’
had been over-regulating American life.
In this he was echoing his right-wing big

business mentors. Bureaucratic red tape
had been strangling U.S. businesses and
consumers, they preached. The de-
pression, according to this scam, was
caused by ‘‘Big Government’’ and not
until deregulation took place would there
be an economic recovery. Only then
could America have the chance of being
great again.

Behind this smoke screen the Reagan
administration was able to start dis-
mantling the U.S. health, safety, welfare
and aid-to-poor programs. This included
cutting into old age security, medicare,
medicaid, food stamps, and nutritional
assistance for children. The Reaganites
in the EPA also were castrating
environmental protection, as we will see,
and the Department of the Interior
‘started bargain basement selling and
leasing of vast tracts of public lands to big
business mining and forestry companies.

‘Deregulation’ — More Profit

Reagan’s budget was to be balanced
by savings made from those cutbacks. At
the same time deregulation, including the
relaxing of pollution requirements and
enforcement, would ensure that the
stagnant industries could increase their

a

profits. Another ploy was the two-sided
process of taking necessary social be-
nefits away from the workers and the
poor while lessening high income and
corporation taxes. Still another aspect of
Reagan’s tactics was the torching of the
cold war with arrogant brinkmanship and
missile rattling. The ultimate strategy,
the conquering of the socialist world also
brought huge monetary benefits to U.S.
big business in the form. of armament
manufacturing at cost plus a guaranteed
(high) profit. The cost to the world could
be nuclear destruction.

Similar ‘‘deregulation’’ and attacks on
historically fought for and won social
welfare and environmental programs is
under way all over the capitalist world.
Thatcher’s Britain is the most obvious
copier, but other states like Canada (with
Davis’ Ontario and Bennett’s B.C.) are
doing their best to represent their true
Class bosses. Led by Reaganite U.S., the
capitalist world is saddling the cost of
worldwide capitalist depression and the
cost-of the aggressive cold war against
socialism on the backs of their working
class.

* * *

(in following weeks we will look into the
destruction and weakening of the EPA,
the selling of one-third of the USA (the
publicly-owned lands) to big business re-
source companies, and how acid rain has
become one of America’s and the world’s
most urgent environmental problems.)

Richard Lane is the pseudonym of a
working scientist.

TORONTO — “The hopes of the native peoples
Tegarding entrenchment of their right to self-government
in the Canadian Constitution have been cruely dashed to
the ground,” the Communist Party of Canada (CPC)
charged in a statement Mar. 12. The party lays the blame
squarely at the door of the Tory (and one Socred) provin-

governments.

Leaders of Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples from many
parts of Canada met with the prime minister and federal
officials, and provincial premiers and their aides in
Ottawa, Mar. 8-9 at one of a series of constitutional con-
ferences on Native rights.

The discussions are to continue until 1987, but this
round “has led nowhere,” the CPC noted.

“The responsibility for this rests with the provincial
governments of Saskatchewan, Alberta, B.C., Nova Sco-
tia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. All of them
are Tory governments with the exception ‘of the Social
Credit government of British Columbia. These govern-
ments have rejected the federal government’s proposal to
entrench the Native Peoples’ democratic rights to self-
government in the constitution as well as an amendment in
support of equality of men and women,” the Communist
Statement continues.

“Their pretext for this rejection,” it points out, “is that
they do not have enough information on aboriginal rights
and their entrenchment in the constitution.

“The truth is that these governments are acting as
spokesmen for the multi-national corporations who want
to lay their hands on the rich natural resources found in the
lands belonging to the Native peoples,” the statement
charges, and continues:

Tories strangle native rights

‘What we see unfolding is a cat and mouse game similar
to that played out by provincial leaders, including some
federal spokesmen, with respect to the national rights of
the French Canadian people. In this case their delaying
tactics are based on achieving two objectives: one, to stall
any agreement with the Native peoples regarding constitu-
tional reform until 1987 when these discussions are to end;
and two, that a Mulroney Tory government, they hope to
see elected this year or next, will support them and the
multi-national corporations in denying the basic rights of
the Native peoples.”

At the beginning of the two day meeting in Ottawa,
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced a proposal to
constitutionally guarantee Native people the right to self-
government by Dec. 31, 1984. The New Democratic Party
government of Manitoba agreed as did the Davis and
Hatfield Tory governments of Ontario and New Bruns-
wick, but the rest saw to it that the proposal died of
suffocation. (Quebec’s Parti Quebecois government
refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the constitution and
therefore will not support amendments.) Amendments to
the constitution require the agreement of seven of the 10
provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the Canadian
population.

Trudeau was praised by native leaders for his defeated
initiative on entrenchment of the right to self-government
in the constitution and on his readiness to hear an amend-
ment to strengthen the rights of Native women. The latter
was apparently snagged on the matter of its wording and
may be acted upon separately within the next three weeks.

Trudeau’s suggestions regarding establishment of the
social and economic institutions on which self-government

’ states the CPC. “It is the responsibility, indeed a duty, of all

would be based, varied for the 300,000 (registered) status
Indians, the 20,000 Inuit, and for the Metis and Non-status
Indians. The latter two groups, previously working within
one association, are in the process of setting up separate
organizations.

With the failure of the conference, Native leaders
expressed bitterness and frustration. David Aheakew, a
Saskatchewan Cree who is chief of the Assembly of First
Nations, said his people had been giving all their lives and
“getting nothing back.” John Amagoalik, co-chairman of
the Inuit Committee on National Issues, pointing to the
premiers, said that “‘The people of Canada will now who
has failed.” Jim Sinclair, a Saskatchewan Metis leader,
warned that, “Soon my people will have to take matters
into their own hands, on the street.”

The Communist Party’s statement, which expresses the
point of view of its central executive, a leading committee,
says that although this round is over, “this does not mean
the struggle is over.”’ In the intervals between conferences
“massive popular pressure must be exerted on those pro-
vincial governments which have sabotaged the talks and
oppose entrenchment.

“This task cannot be left to the native peoples alone,”

democratic Canadians to help win recongnition of the
rights of the Native peoples as distinct peoples. They must ©
have the right to decide on all matters related to their
distinctive development. their land claims and their right to
self-government must energetically be supported. These
must be entrenched in the Canadian constitution.”

The CPC proposed the formation of province-wide
coalitions in support of entrenchment of aboriginal rights.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MARCH 21, 1984 e 5