For Canada and our people build
the true north strong and free!

The key question now confronting
the Canadian government and the peo-
ple of this country is NOT whether a
Mackenzie Vailey pipeline project for
natural gas and oil should be under-
taken at this time or not. The question
is under whose auspices, under whose
ownership and control, and for what
purpose such a development should be
undertaken, and how it is to be fin-
anced.

Ever since the discovery of large oil
and gas deposits on the northern slope
of Alaska, the whole issue of a compre-
hensive energy policy for Canada has
taken on new and more urgent dimen-
sions. The United States, desperate
for a way to bring these resources to
the U.S. market, has devised the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) and
the moving of this oil via giant tankers
down the West Coast with disastrous
environmental consequences for Can-
ada, as admitted by the Canadian gov-
ernment.

But since the U.S. has no similar
alternative option for the movement
of its natural gas from Alaska to the
U.S. market, it is now using the threat
to go ahead with TAPS as a means to
wrest concessions from Canada with
respect to natural gas and other re-
sources developments — owned, cont-
rolled and financed, in the main, by
private U.S. monopolies, and with a
minimum of Canadian participation.

Mr. Lewis Injects a False Issue

It is on this background that one
must view the statement by David
Lewis, federal leader of the New Demo-
cratic Party, last week in Edmonton, to
the effect that Canada should not build
a pipeline through the Mackenzie
Valley.

By thus dismissing any idea of
northern development as a “wasteful

political gesture” which would “un-
doubtedly destroy the lifestyles of na-
tive peoples and seriously harm the
Arctic ecology,” Mr. Lewis has inject-
ed a false issue, which Mr. Trudeau
and his party will undoubtedly be
quick to take advantage of in the cur-
rent election campaign. Any and all

debate centred on such a patently |

false issue would detract from and
obscure the real issues involved.

The NDP leader has been quoted as
stating that he was sure such a project
“can’t be undertaken without foreign
investment.” But, here, again, the
question is not foreign investment per
se, but what kind of foreign invest-
ment.

Is it to be direct foreign investment
for private ownership and control, or
portfolio investment and _ repayable
loans under Canadian public ownership
and control, and backed by state
credit agreements?

Both the Governments
and the Oil Companies

‘Last July, during a visit to. Sans
Sault in the North West Territories,
Energy, Mines and Resources Minister
Donald MacDonald stated: “What we
are looking for now is some way to get
the transmission line built at somebody
else’s expense. Of course, we are going
to be selling substantial quantities of
Canadian gas into the American mar-
ket. This is, in essence, how we are
paying for a greater reserve for Cana-
dians. To not an inconsiderable de-
gree, the high standard of living we
enjoy has arisen from the development
for export sale of primary resources,
including energy resources. To. a
degree, the development of resources
for export has made it possible to de-
velop them for use by Canadians. The

“PACIFIC TRIBUNE——FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 22: 1972-PAGE 6

long-run potential reserve in the
Mackenzie Delta region for Canadians
will be developed-at the expense of the
Americans,” :

The above quotation is taken from
the Toronto Globe and Mail of last
July 27. The reporter, Terrance Wills,
went on to make the following com-
ment: “So the Canadian government
has made up its mind in favor of the
gas pipeline and, of course, so has the
U.S. government and the big oil and
gas companies.”

Setback for Canada
and Not a Boon

The Minister, in the statement quot-
ed above, places the issue on its head.
Developing Canadian resources by
U.S. capital for export to the United
States—particularly when ‘this is done
under private U.S. monopoly control —
increases United States economic con-
trol over Canada’s economy and hamp-
ers the deyelopment of Canadian in-
dustry based upon those resources.
This may be good for Cariadian mono-
polies, but what is good for the Cana-
dian monopolies is not to be equated
with what is good for the Canadian
people. The whole postwar period,
since the Abbott Plan of 1947, proves
that Canadians are no longer the eco-
nomic masters in their own house.

Fuel-hungry U.S. companies are re-
ported ready to pay up to $1.25 now,
and more later, for a thousand cubic
feet of gas delivered at Chicago from
the Arctic islands. Presently they pay
only 20 cents for such gas from Al-
berta. Development of more exports
will have the result of increasing the
price for domestic use in Canada. Far
from developing a potential reserve for
use in Canada at U.S. expense, the op-
posite is the case. Industrial develop-

ment in Canada becomes 1 ort
while inflationary pressures na |
living costs and create more an
mass unemployment.

Public Ownership
and Industrialization i

The only answer to this :
ownership and control with hot,
raw material development © ih
building up of Canadian industt)) iyi
exports are restricted to the a
surpluses. Here, again, the ““jqyt)
government does not have he
tory of resources and operate? ag
dark as to surpluses and
new supplies. :

Speaking to provincial mines Tye
ers in Edmonton last week, Remi
Minister Donald Macdonald ™ tof!
the need to compile an inv
“assist in the development % ——
energy policies.” af

Besides admitting that such |
ventory does not now exist ae
forced to admit that neithe!, pol)
ment of resources nor allie
can be formulated in isolation i

“The problems of the Be de

dustry in Ontario, the fate tias yi

coal mining in Nova Sco ,

future of lignite coal devel0F pil

Saskatchewan and that oe pri

minous coal in Alberta a
Columbia are of nation@ i
that transcends provincl@ tio!
aries and calls for joint 2°

¥

planning.” Hh
For the past five years igh ¢
Canadian coal has been © oq’

Japan under heavy transpor y
sidies by the Canadian Be ol
Because of a reduction 19

future coal deliveries. _, 5
ie Jyas%v, fits