ES Ts |

a

We're getting guns, not butter

ARMS BUDGET BOOMING

By ALF DEWHURST

Disarmament appears to be a
dirty word as far as Defense
Minister Richardson is con-
cerned. He has committed the
Government, after some alleged
arm-twisting, to an arms pro-
Sram for Canada that runs con-
trary to the spirit of detente
Which Prime Minister Trudeau
has more than once publicly
Claimed as his government's for-
ign policy. :

Under Mr. Richardson’s al-
leged prodding the federal gov-
ernment has undertaken an ex-
tended armament program that
by 1978 will cost Canadian tax-
Payers an additional $1 billion
annually. The $3.1 billion spent
annually five years from now
Will be a 50% hike over the
Present $2.1 billion.

The main thrust of the pro-
&tam is to equip the Canadian
armed forces with highly so-
Phisticated military hardware.

_ That is, to follow the modern

dustrial trend. towards -sophis-
ticated, and wherever possible,
automated electronic equipment.
Is ‘is what Mr. Richardson
meant when he stated at a re-
Cent press conference that with
,& new armaments program
National defense is entering a
new era.”

The new arms program’s stat
ed objectives include a fleet of
modern long-range patrol air-
craft, a Blowpipe surface-to-
missile system for use in Eu-
rope, new sophisticated equip-
ment for the military communi-
cations system and the Mari-
time Command’s Sea King heli-
copters, replacement of obso-
lete destroyers with modern
vessels, modernization of the
army transport system with
eight new transport helicopters
and a ‘new fleet of trucks,

building up ammunition stock-.

piles and armament spare parts
inventories.

Sugar-Coated Arms

In addition to scrapping out-
moded equipment, the new pro-
gram calls for scrapping also of

‘the obsolete Pine Tree radar

system and a 50% cutback in
the federal contribution to the
Civil Emergency Measures Fin-
ancial Assistance Program from
$3 million to $1.5 million. The
funds saved in such cutbacks
will be diverted to purchasing
new sophisticated weaponry.
At his press conference Mr.

‘ Richardson tried to sugar-coat

the 50% increase in military
spending by claiming that the
new arms program will be a

- contribution towards solving the

unemployment crisis. The gov-
ernment hopes that the new
military hardware will have
60% Canadian content. This is
particularly so,,he claims, in
respect to electronic equipment.

More Jobs From Peace
Whether this happens remains

-to be seen. The firms bidding

for aircraft replacements are
Hawker Siddley in Britain, Boe-
ing and: Lockheed in the USA.
The Blowpipe missile is pro-
duced by Short Bros: and Har-
land in Belfast. As far as the
electronics eqquipment and
transport vehicles are concerned,
Canadian-based U.S. firms can
fill the order if they get them.

But whether the manufacture
of armaments for killing and
destruction is done in Canada
is beside the point. The same
funds spent for peaceful pur-
poses would provide the same
number of jobs, if not more. The
same funds expended to pro-
vide the aged, the poor, the sick
and handicapped with decent
living standards and to extend
the range and quality of social
and educational services would
pay much bigger social divi-
dends for Canadians. And, in
the long-run, give a much great-
er boost to the country’s econ-
omy. -

Useful production for peace
means more jobs in manufacture
and services and a lessening. of
the ‘inflationary pressures as
compared to an economy tied to
the arms race. _

Tied to NATO

Even a cursory study of the
new armament program _indi-

\

cates a deeper military involve-
ment for Canada in NATO and
NORAD. In fact, as the Can-
adian Tribune pointed out edi-
torially on October 17, Mf.
Richardson admitted that it had
been elaborated “for the pur-
pose of keeping up Canada’s
commitment to. NATO and
NORAD.”

Now, it is common knowledge
that the kingpin of both NATO
and NORAD is the USA. There-
fore, there can be little doubt
that the federal government has
bowed to U.S. pressure for a

more sophisticated Canadian.

presence in these two aggres-

‘ sive imperialist military pacts.

Ever since its inception NATO
has operated a policy based on
the twin concepts of deterrence
and detente developed in pro-
portions appropriate to chang-
ing circumstance. (See Foreign
Policy for Canadians, 1970).
The purpose of this policy -has
been to alter the balance of
forces in the world in favor of
the imperialist countries. In this
concept detente is seen only as
a means to obtain breathing
space. And deterrence is seen as
a means to roll back the peo-
ples’ movement for social

‘change, and is direeted in the

main against the socialist coun-
tries, particularly the Soviet
Union. —

Retreat From Detente

To view detente in the forego-
ing context is a dangerous game.
Detente has to do with achiev-
ing a relaxation of tensions be-
tween states regardless of poli-
tical and social systems. It has

no meaning in present day poli-
tics on an international scale
outside of this context. Detente
represents an improvement in
relations between states, pro-
viding an opportunity for. reci-
procal striving to improve these
relations. And, above all, deten-
te must be extended to military
areas in the form of mutual and
reciprocal disarmament. This is
the kind .of detente a foreign
policy for Canadians should be
geared to.

The new armament program
of the federal government, an-
nounced at a time when the
Soviet Union has proposed a
10% cut in military budgets, of
the European Security Confer-
ence and arms reduction talks
between the Soviet Union and

the United States, is inaccept-

able. It marks a,retreat on the
part of the government from
the struggle for genuine de-
tente. And it smacks of a re-
turn to the outmoded, reaction-
ary imperialist policy of deter-
rence on the part of the
Canadian government. The gov-
ernment must be compelled to
abandon this retreat from de-
tente.

The heart of an independent
foreign policy for Canada is
withdrawal from NATO and
NORAD — these cripling mili-
tary alignments. This would en-

able Canada to play a modest

but active role for peace and
security in the world, and to
release the substantial funds
required to participate in the
arms race for socially useful
purposes.

Oil crisis shows absence of energy policy

: Gasoline rationing, shortages
fe winter heating and higher
Uel bills for Canadian consum-
€ts are all being talked about
Y government and oil company
Spokesmen this week.

Jolted by the Arab states’ an-
NOuncement to reduce oil ship-
Ments to the Western world, the
Question of Canada’s oil supplies
oe one of high concern.
: © Middle East war only point-
ti Up again the unsteady posi-

On of Canadian supply and the
&ck of an all-Canada ‘energy
ey which was, even’ before

hy Arab oil cutback, a major
Westion facing Ottawa.

While the Canadian govern-
ent denied such cutbacks
ould directly affect Canadian
“pplies, any cutbacks to the
Mited States could result in
ioher prices for that commod-
Y and, as a result, drive up the
Sa of imported oil. Imperial
fo already predicts a jump of
s ur cents a gallon for gasoline
Nd fuel oil in this event. They

S y
“49 Promise, as usual, to pass

t es
he price increase on to the con-
Sumer,

inechind the scenes, and com-
8 Out more into the open, is
Peeecsive campaign by the big
ypu U.S.) private oil mono-
mo €S against any government
in ie to begin to curb private
oil Ustry and foreign control of
Sa gas resources. These
Panies are reacting to Fede-

tal Energy Minister Macdonald’s

e
*Pected announcement that

D

Caanda may set up a Crown-
owned corporation to handle
crude imports from Venezuela
and eventually take over all ex-
port sales of Canadian oil.

The private industry’s group,
the Canadian Petroleum Asso-
ciation, calls the Crown-idea a
“convenient smokescreen” and
cries that such a move will
“take away the last vestiges of
free enterprise in the Canadian
oil industry . . .’ What they do
agree with, however, are moves
such as the Alberta govern-
ment’s plan to develop the Atha-
baska Tar Sands. Here, private
enterprise is very healthy. Un-
der the plan, an $880-million oil
extraction nlant is to be built by
Syncrude Canada Ltd., which is
a consortium of four major U.S.
oil giants. The people of Alberta
will put up 80% of the money
and get back 20% of the equity.
Syncrude will put of 20% of the
money and receive 80% of the
equity.

What comes through crystal
clear in all the complex and de-
tailed discussion about oil policy
is that Canada does not have
one. Countless federal and pro-
vincial governments over the
decades have adopted policies
geared to selling out the major
part of Canadian * energy re-
sources and supply lifelines to
foreign concerns. Increased
world-wide pressures for oil and
gas coupled with U.S. imperial-

-ism’s growing difficulties abroad

in controlling oil sources, is
placing Canadian reserves and

‘integration

potential in a more important
light. |

Every effort is being made
now and’ will continue by the

United .States to, expand and-

nail down its access to oil and
gas supplies (not to speak of
other natural energy resources
such as hydro-electric power,

etc.) and Canada’s position is-

extremely vulnerable. Lacking
an all-Canadian energy policy,
this country stands to become
even more rapidly controlled by
foreign companies in the years
ahead. Once control of energy
leaves Canada,’so do jobs, living
standards, economic develop-
ment and Canadian indepen-
‘dence — this fact is clearly de-
monstrated by our history since
World. War II, as Canada-U.S.
became Ottawa’s
goal. ,

Returning control to Cana-
dians, through publicly-owned
and controlled corporations and
agencies is esséntial to safe-
guard this country’s future, bas-
ed on Canadian needs and plans.
This must hecome policy with
appropriate laws enacted and
agencies set up. Canada should
export what are clearly-estab-
lished surpluses within export
agreements coming specific time
periods. ;

It is essential that Canadian
energy not become _indispens-
able to the U.S. market and that
distribution be Canadian cont-
rolled. Such policies must be
looked at within the larger

To develop the Alberta Tar Sands, the people of Canada will put

up 80%, of the money and receive 20° of the equity. U.S.-owned

Syncrude Ltd. will put up 20°) of the money and rake in 80%, of the

profits. This is the kind of sell-out that results from lack of an all-
Canada energy policy designed to meet the needs of our country.

framework that the long-term these resources — thereby pro-
viding and expanding industries
and with them jobs and the eco-

interests of Canada are not best
served by selling raw. materials,
but by selling the products of nomic. well-being of, Canadians.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1973—PAGE 9