It is obvious that the “energy crisis” so far as Canada is concerned is not a question of lack of supply, but of control and policy. The policy so far has been based on sales of oil from western Canada south to the United States, while im- porting from foreign countries to supply the needs of the Maritimes and eastern Canada. Instead of building a pipeline to eastern Canada all the way through Canadian territory the Liberals and Tories put it partly through United States territory. Now an extension is to be built by the fall of 1975 from Sarnia to Montreal, but the line is still being tapped in the U.S. There js no policy based on Canada’s needs. The “pol- icy” that has prevailed is to sell oil, as well as other natural resources, for a fast buck to the U.S.-based multi-national corporations. Successive federal Conservative and Liberal govern- ments, and provincial governments of those parties and Social Credit, have conducted this “fast buck” policy which served the U.S. monopolies but left large sections of Canada, both east and west, under-developed, a source of resource and raw material to Canadian and foreign corporations. The Communist Party proposes the establishment of a National Petroleum and Energy Corporation under pub- lic ownership embracing all aspects of energy as an urg- ent requirement for laying an industrial base to end regional inequality, for balanced Canadian economic de- velopment, Canadian sovereignty and independance. The Party is demanding price controls over petroleum and uniform prices throughout the country and proposes a government subsidy to ensure this. The government subsidized industry to the tune of half a billion dollars in addition to other measures to ensure their continuing high profits. Consequently it should not be difficult to establish uniform fuel prices, backed by price controls, So as to ensure adequate supply to all parts of Canada at a reasonable price. The export tax and an additional tax on the multi-national oil corporations could make this possible. Wanted: one all-Canadian energy policy It is quite clear that if the Canadian people are to take the energy and natural resources into their own hands and use them to build up our country, it has to be a concerted all-Canadian effort. This demands a definite policy to that end on the part of the federal government and a stop to U.S. corporations using the screen of “pro- vincial rights” to plunder our resources. Is the British North America Act, our present consti- tution written 107 years ago, defining the terms on which the provinces federated, some earlier and some later, an obstacle to concerted action? Then it should be emended or replaced! A century ago the pressing need to unite the various parts of the country, to create the physical possibility for economic development and trade, was the construc- tion of a trans-Canada railway. It was done. Today the establishment of an all-Canadian energy policy, to serve the interests of Canadians, to use as a foundation for building up industries and doing away with regional disparities, is a hundred times more im- portant. Some people claim that it can’t be done because under the BNA Act natural resources are under provincial juris- diction. And Premier Lougheed of Alberta, for one, is quoted as saying that western oil-producing provinces are justified in using that jurisdiction ‘as a club against the federal government because of discrimination suf- fered by those provinces in railway freight rates. There really is continuing shameful discrimination against the people of the western provinces in railway freight rates. The Communist Party has long demanded the nationalization of the CPR and institution of one all-Canadian transport policy that would end that dis- crimination: So have others. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1974 PAGE 6 help pay the Watergate burglars!) The task is to push for an all-Canadian energy policy and at the same time strengthen the battle for an end to disparity in freight rates. Moreover, Mr. Lougheed’s argument is suspect be- cause provincial rights in this sphere have hitherto been used not to industrialize the oil-producing provinces, but to sell or give away the oil and’ other resources to Uni- ted States corporations. Has Alberta oil, for example, served to transform the economy of the foothills province? Was*tke Columbia River deal in B.C. for the benefit of Britis‘ Columbia or the U.S. monopolies? Other examples c :Id be cited. Such facts of life lead us to conclude that vr. Lougheed is thinking neither of Alberta nor of Canada, but rather of the U.S. oil_trusts that have been given this great energy resource by his Conservative and his predecessor Social Credit provincial governments. The Lougheed Government’s decision of January 21, 1974 to grant $100 million to the oil companies for research on the Alberta tar sands supports that conclusion. : The people of the oil-producing provinces, as of the whole country, will support proposals for one all-Cana- dian energy policy. The next meeting of first ministers could agree on such a policy and we could proceed to carry it out. The long overdue replacement of the BNA Act by a Canadian constitution in tune with the needs of the 1970's is imperative. In it, the protection of the national rights of Quebec and of English-speaking Canada and the real rights of the provinces should be combined with federal responsibility for energy and natural resources. In the meantime federal-provincial agreement on the repatriation of our resources and their use to build the economy of all parts of Canada should be reached and implemented. Are there plums in oil? Big ones for the trusts Investigation of the charge that oil tycoons contri- buted “at least” $5,700,000 to Richard Nixon’s election fund, mostly in secret illegal donations, has centred at- tention on how the oil trusts have been doing during the energy crisis. Profits of the nine largest U.S.-based international oil corporations for the first nine months of 1973, and per- centage of increase over the same period in the previous year provide an illuminating picture: COMPANY PROFIT INCREASE Exxon $ 1.6 billion 59% Texaco $838 million 35% Mobil $571 million 38%, Gulf $570 million 60% Standard, Calif. $560 million 49%, Standard, Ind. $389 million 32% Shell $253 million ALY ARCO $178 million 37% Phillips $143 million 30% Yes, there’s money being made in the energy crisis, The big oil trusts are making a killing. That’s the gang that needs “encouragement” in tax exemptions and vari- ous subsidies in order to keep on picking out the plums, according to some media propagandists and legisla- tors’. (So it would seem that our Canadian oil also went to How the politi The December 5th, 1973 issue of the Canadial carried an interview with William Kashta® | the Communist Party, on Conservative claims alternative to the Liberal Governmeni’s poli _ resources. He said, in part: “Indeed if there is a shortage of oi! in cast® and the people have to pay more for it, t Ti ime for indepen Canadian policies The Washington conference of “oil-consul™ tries is over. France refused to go along will { States in what amounts to a gang-up agit producing countries of the Middle East, but On along with the Uncle Sam. The U.S. bosses & gall to badger a meek Canadian delegation “ the U.S. “share” more in Canada’s energy "Ke Even at this late date Canada trails behind Fp chariot to our detriment. Canada still hos sociated herself from the U.S. inspired wat Fg dle East, as it had not from the U.S. war in Vietnam. dot Our independence in foreign as well as’ oll fairs demands a sharp new turn in Canada’s fl Appealing for the broadest unity, embracll and trade unions, workers, farmers, middle to bring pressure on the Government io cna sp cies, the Communist Party holds out the per a broad coalition of democratic forces that! a new majority to Parliament and -set car road to genuine independence and great eck Social development. i It is with this policy in mind that the? Party is nominating a large number of candi@®— coming federal election, : , es: ~ Ay rs