By TIM BUCK

HE Financial Post starts its
leading editorial in the is-
sue of January 6 with the
following mild warning: “Recent
trends in the Canadian economy
suggest that 1968 will be a year
of difficult re-adjustment for

business .. .”

The economy is not operating
at the level that the Economic
Council considers necessary to
avoid growing unemployment.
New capital investment (a deci-
sive factor) is falling off and
threatens to be even less in
1968 than in 1967. The number
of workers employed by the con-
struction industry will certainly
be less than in 1967 unless there
is a radical change from present
plans for new _ construction.

But, the direct relationship
between the mild warning quo-
ted above and others planted
strategically through the pages
of this ‘issue, show that the
main reason why the F.P. sounds
its warning note is a deeper
one. The warning refers to the
“readjustment” forced upon Ca-
nada by the restrictions that Pre-
sident Johnson announced on
New Years Day. F.P. realizes
that, because the Liberals and
the Conservatives have permit-
ted control of key sectors of the
economy to be transferred to the
United States, Canadians may
become helpless victims of far-
reaching consequences of Lyn-
don B. Johnson’s crisis. This
ominous possibility is indicated
clearly in the front page edito-
rial in this issue, under its regu-
lar by-line “Nation’s Business.”
The editorial is entitled ‘““Warn-
ing Signals are Flying.” It starts
with the following sentence.
“Canadians in business and gov-
ernment will take recent U.S.
credit and foreign exchange de-
velopments as fair warning to

alf dewhurst

keep in good financial shape.”
In other words, F.P. is telling
the business interests not to be
fooled by the “assurances” given
to the Canadian people by the

Minister of Finance Mitchell
Sharp. The warnings in this one
issue of F.P. suggest strongly
that what Mitchell Sharp said
to the Canadian people was
radically different, almost the
opposite in fact, to what he said
or will say to the Prime Minis-
ter and members of the Cabinet.
To them his words will "be to
the effect that “I hope we shall
be able to wriggle through with-
out catastrophe.”

The restrictions announced by
Johnson on New Year’s day are
accompanied by instructions to

member banks of the Federal

Reserve System to increase their
reserves to 17 percent of credit
extended. This automatically re-
duces the over-all amount of
loans that they can grant to
their customers by more than
$3 billion. These: measures: are
but the first steps of a desperate,
because belated, effort to save
the United States dollar. Upon
that depends the enormous ad-
vantage which accrues to U.S.
imperialism through its role as
the banker of the capitalist
world,

Mitchell Sharp wants the Can-
adian people to believe that the
restrictions are simply technical
measures “to correct an im-
balance” in the U.S. balance of
payments. He says that they are
not directed against Canada so,
therefore, we need have no: fear
about their effect. What he did
not tell his special press confer-
ence (called on the same .day
that Johnson made his announce-
ment) is that the U.S. res-
trictions are like the one seventh
part of an iceberg which shows.
The dangerous part is beneath

_meet

the surface.

The bankers and governments
of the capitalist world are peer-
ing into the future with trepida-
tion, not because of the U.S.
restrictions but because of the
situation which has forced John-
son to act. They fear that he
may have procrastinated too
long; and that now, by trying
to pass so much of the cost of
the U.S. gamble on to other
countries, his action could spark
a world monetary crisis. The
following will indicate the
acuteness of the problem and
the reason why it is absolutely
dishonest to pretend that Can-
ada can escape some of the
consequences of its outcome.

On December 20 the gold sup-

‘ply held by the United: States

government totalled $12,400
thousand millions, (say twelve
and half billions) of gold. That’s
a lot of gold. But, United States
currency is supposed to “as good
as gold.” U.S. law requires that
gold be held and earmarked as
currency reserve equal to a quar-
ter of the face value of all the
U.S. paper currency in circula-
tion. Well, on December 20
there was $42.4 billion worth of
paper money in circulation, re-
quiring a reserve of $10.6 bil-
lions in gold. This’ left the capi-
talist world’s banker with $1.8
billion worth with which to
international obligations.
It should be noted that the U.S.
government has gathered to-
gether by various means more
than $2 billion worth of “con-
vertible currencies.” This makes
the balance look bigger on
paper but it is not gold. If the
U.S. dollar should go, those
“convertible” currencies would
likely go with it.

The latest figures published
of United States obligations
abroad for which the holders

have a legal right to demand
payment in gold, are for Septem-
ber 30. At that time claims
against the U.S., payable in
gold, held by foreign banks,
governments, corporations and
individuals totalled more than
$31 billion. As long as there
seemed no -prospect whatsoever
that any large number of credi-
tors would demand gold, U.S.
imperialism has gambled on that,
and literally bought up a large
chunk of world capitalism with
U.S. “promises to pay.”

Now there is a threat of the
reckoning. The illusion that
U.S. imperialism is stronger than
the inherent laws of capitalism
is dissolving. If the holders of
one tenth of the claims held
abroad were to decide that De-
Gaulle is right, and follow their
decision with demands for pay-

2B

Projects like this gas pipeline being currently laid in the ussh Unit

— we

ment in gold, the U.S. govern:
ment, today, would not be able | du
to pay. Te
The U.S. government has 4 fro
number of cards to play yet. The Mr
first one could be to repeal the | tts
law which requires gold back | 19
ing for the dollar. This would | ‘to
automatically strip many of the Pe;
foreign creditors of the right to | Say
demand payment in gold. It ;
would strip down the value of or
their holdings, and capitalist
confidence in the United States: jp
also. i
This is not a prophesy of al 50.
economic crisis. It is a stat@ | yy.
ment of facts which are going :
to explode the illusion - that
state-monopoly capitalism iS | Pur
able to control the laws. of-mo- | *ut
tion of capitalism. Their- effect
in Canada will contradict Mt o
Sharp. :

from Central Asia to Central Russia are unknown in world practic# |4_.°§

The line, which will start operation in late 1967, will feed larg? ii
‘supplies of gas to Moscow and region, Leningrad, Cherepovets, an@,
Volga industrial towns, and, thus, essentially re-pattern the fu th

on

balance of the Central-European USSR. To

Countrywide bargaining

ae

ARLIAMENT has given first
reading to a government

bill designed to permit the

Canada Labor Relations Board
to certify unions in local or re-
gional areas as _ bargaining
agents for employees of Cana-
da-wide systems such as trans-
portation, radio and television,
and telecommunications.

The trade union movement
‘has given the bill a mixed re-
ception. The Confederation of
Canadian Trade Unions greets
the bill as one giving Canadian
workers for the first time the
freedom of belonging to a union
of their own choice.

The Canadian Labor Congress
opposes the bill claiming that
the bill’s intent to breakdown
the principle of national bar-
gaining units amounts to a pol-
icy of separation. This view is
held also by the Railway Bro-
therhoods who are campaigning
for the defeat of the bill.

There are a number of well-
meaning individuals who see
the bill as being an assist in ad-
vancing the concept of a sover-
eign Canadian trade union move-
ment, on the ground that it will
serve to break the “monopoly”
of the U.S. internationals over
the e@L@leucivite st

Some \ofHérs' inline towardis*and “thé “EBC “td “rectify “their”
ACA AL

Bonini. SLMS FI GAS——5d0r7: OF VAAL
JANUARY 19, 1968-—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 4

3499 cROUNS Log the®

support of the bill because the
press reports that the employ-
ers are opposed ‘to it. They do
so because of their belief that
what the bosses oppose the
workers should support, and
vice-versa. Generally an excel-
lent maxim to observe.

With all due respect to the
various opinions being ex-
pressed on the government’s
bill to overhaul the CLRB, most
of them succeed only in bury-
ing the real issue involved; i.e.,
the strength of the bargaining
unit as an agency to improve
the living and. working condi-
tions of the workers it covers.

The question which must be
put is whether the employees of
the major rail lines and the
Canadian Broadcasting Corpora-
tion (and others in a similar po-
sition) have a greater bargain-
ing strength organized as a
country-wide unit — or would
they be better off fragmented
into a number of local or re-
gional units? This is the real
choice presented by the govern-
ment bill.

Viewed in this light it is ob-
vious that the country-wide bar-
gaining unit provides the best
Opportunity for the employees,

; > { ee eh 2] oY Es

R, CNR

, Ait Canada.

t

many grievances ag@d fight lay-
offs; to win a shorter work week,
earlier retirement and _ better
pensions and higher wages.

Local or regional bargaining
units do not mean, aS some
well-meaning democrats aver,
the freedom of belonging to a
union of one’s own choice in
any greater degree than what
presently exists in a country-
wide bargaining unit. This right,
and the means to exercise it by
vote, should be guaranteed by
law. But most important is the
determination of workers to ex-
ercise that right when, in their
majority, they desire to do so.
Equally important, is the re-
solve of workers to build the
kind of union they need, and
that they do so, joined in the
strongest possible units.

Neither would the certifica-
tion of unions on a local or re-
gional basis constitute a form
of recognition of Quebec as the
home of the French Canadian
nation as some well-intentioned
internationalists suggest. For
the bill would apply with equal
force to any local or regional
area in Canada. If the bill means
anything at all in this direction,
it represents only one more,in-,

eral Party evasion of this vital

issue, while at the same time
serving to weaken the bargain-
ing power of all Canadian work-
ers coming under federal juris-
diction.

Nor would the certification of
unions in local or regional bar-
gaining units as distinct from
country-wide units, add any-
thing to the just cause of creat-
ing a truly sovereign Canadian
trade union movement. Rather,
its effect would be detrimental.

‘For, the road to an independent

trade union movement will be
smoother when Canadian union-
ists travel it together. The soon-
er the CLC accepts fully the
two-nation character of Canada
and carries through meaningful
structural reform. in keeping
with this fact, the. sooner will
Canadian unionists be united
from coast to coast in one
powerful all-Canadian centre,
thus creating the best possible
conditions for solution of the
many problems of autonomy
connected with establishing a
Canadian trade union move-
ment.

Despite apparent opposition
to the bill under discussion, the
last thing the employers. want
is a strong, united and truly

; _ sovereign . trade..union. move; ,
_ Stance , of, government: and. Lib; <, ment.No. doubt they prefer cen

tralized bargaining in the inter-

ests of smoother operation of bs.
their economic empires, provid’ Kenn
ing such bargaining is conduC a co
ted in a “spirit of cooperation fo,
by an accommodating leadefang i
ship. But, make no mistake, th®) ,_
weaker the bargaining unit thé fy)) b
better the employers like it. the 3
However, it would be foll¥itang
indeed for anyone to think thalthe
all is well in the ranks of th@M, }
unions holding these country’ oa
wide bargaining rights. There log.
much discontent. But the condiRey ’
tions giving rise to this COUM ony,
try-wide discontent will not bé At
changed by breaking up th@he -
country-wide bargaining rightfleog
Rather, change should be soughlat, a
in reactivating the democratifig, °
process in the unions presentittan,
holding these rights. This is palo
ticularly so in respect to balion (
gaining procedure including cofiag, :
tract ratifications, handling oan
grievances, policy making aMherp
administration. This rectificd Ip
tion is the job of the member#i,
including changing the bargailly,
ing agency if such a serious Steioy, d
becomes necessary. heh
In the meantime the job a), |
hand is to stop passage of tha, °
certification amendments. Pr0jq.°
tests should be made at once #0 , te
the government, all oppositiolp,,."

‘parties andimembers! of) parli# ~“S

ment.