SAG ATOR EI Soames aR Nee

OTTAWA PUTS DAMPER
ON ECONOMIC GROWTH

(OMMENTATORS in the capi-
talist press on the Speech
from the Throne described
it as colorless and dull. The real
question, however, is not whe-
ther the Speech was dull but
whether what it contained meas-

ures up to the real needs of

Canada and her people. By this
yardstick it was a dismal failure.

There was nothing in the
Throne Speech to suggest the
need for policies of increased
and independent economic
growth.

During the election campaign
and immediately following it,
Prime Minister Rearson warned
about the danger of inflation
and an ovcrheating of the econ-
omy and spcke of the need for
restraint. This was followed up
by the statement of Finance
Minister Mitchel Sharp that the
year 1966 would see a slow-
down in economic growth and
that the~ federal government
would curtail expenditures on
construction.

The latest Economic Council
report took the wind out of the
sails of the prime minister. The
fact is that Ottawa’s econ-
omic policy is directed toward
restricting economic growth at
a time when, expansion is needed. .

At least one million new jobs~
are needed by: 1970. Automa-
tion and: the technological revo- .
lution. accentuate this problem.
Apart front the larger implica-
tions, today’s and tomorrow’s
technological advances require
decisive action now to train and
retrain workers in new skills
and a vastly extended educa-
tional, vocational and technical
training program to equip Can-
adians, young and old, to cope
with the changes in production.

The government falls short in
this. Workers who are train-
ing or retraining should receive
at least 90 percent of their pre-
vious earnings while education
should be free and students in
universities and vocational and
technical schools should receive
adequate stipends during their
period of learning.

The Throne Speech left out
completely the important re-
commendations of the Freed-
man Commission pertaining to
technological change, which
would make it mandatory for
management to consult labor
prior to the installation of new
equipment in industry. Involved
here is the question whether
society and the working people
or monopoly shall be the bene-
ficiaries of technological change
and reap the, fruits of automa-
tion. By failing to propose ac-
tion on these recommendations,
the government is taking the
side of management against so-
ciety as a whole.

* x *
While the Throne Speech
spoke of the need for maintain-
ing a Canadian identity, it limit-
ed itself in this regard to the

adoption of a national anthem.

This of course is useful. But

the touchstone of Canadian iden-
tity does not lie in whether
Canada has a distinctive flag or
anthem but whether it is truly
independent.

In this respect we are now at
the crossroads. By its policies of
integration until now the Lib-
eral- government opened the
door to growing United States
control of the Canadian econ-
omy. Today, by its advocacy
and practise of a policy of con-
tinentalism, it is working to re-
direct the Canadian economy
from an East-West to a North-
South orientation. The recent
Canadian-U.S. auto agreement
was a step in this direction.
Control over Canadian water
and resources would be another
step. The end result of such a
policy will be complete and
eventual absorption of Canada
by the United States. Indeed it
is being suggested in  sonte
quarters that it is already too
late to stop this process.

What is true is that monopoly
and its governments have open-
ed the door to U.S. control and
will continue to do so unless
checked by a powerful people’s
movement in both French and
English Canada. |

The Speech from the Throne
ignored this problem. The pro-

.pased .. Canadian Development. --
Corporation. only . nibbles at it.
if it had

“Even< so, however,
teeth in -it;, the CDC could con-
tribute toward strengthening
Canada’s economic development
and curbing the . unlimited
powers of monopoly, Canadian
and U.S. alike. As could a na-
tional energy and power policy
and a policy ensuring complete
control of our waters.

: a
If the: Throne Speech failed

to come to grips with the real
question of survival of a sover-

.eign and independent - Canada,

so too did it evade the issue of
the survival of a united Canada.

This can be seen in the lack
of proposals regarding the crisis
in relations between English
and French Canada. The Speech
saw a solution in “broadening
the bilingual character of the
public services” but when it
came to the question of a Can-
adian Constitution limited itself
to a declaration that “it remains
the objective of my ministers to
provide that the constitution of
Canada may be amended in
Canada.”

Placing the question this way
evades the real problem: the
need to adopt a Canadian con-
stitution that clearly spells out
the voluntary equal partnership
of our two nations in a United
Canada. Such a fundamental ap-
proach was completely ignored,
for what the Speech seemed to
say was that the British North
America Act with all its in-
equalities remains the constitu-
tion of Canada.

* * *

The future of Canada is re-
lated to the prospects of main-
taining world peace. Yet .no-

where in the Throne Speach was
there a recognition of the fact
that President Johnson’s poli-
cies of aggression and escala-
tion in Vietnam spell disaster.

The Speech simply stated that
“the government will do every-
thing it can to assist in finding
a basis for negotiating a peace-
ful settlement of the Vietnam
conflict.’ The government
knows, however, that there is
such a basis in the 1954 Geneva
Agreement which it was pledg-
ed to uphold. It also knows that
the United States refuses to
abide by that agreement. It
knows too that the Johnson
Administration is determined to
escalate the war and spread it
to all of Southeast Asia.

What the Throne Speech
should have said — and what
Parliament and the Canadian
people should now compel the
government to say — is that
Canada dissociates itself from
the criminal and insane policy
of the U.S. government and
calls on it to accept and abide
by the Geneva Agreement.

This would be an important
step toward establishing a genu-
ine Canadian identity and an

independent and democratic
foreign policy.

* * *
The- fact that these basic

‘questions were not dealt .with
_in the Throne Speech emphasiz- .
es how important it is for labor

and democratic opinion to be
reflected inside and _ outside
Parliament.

This is all the more impor-
tant because on a number of
urgent social and economic is-
sues — like medicare — mon-
opoly interests are moving heav-
en and earth to.prevent their
implementation. The attack on
medicare is being developed un-
der cover of an argument on
“priorities”: which should come
first, medicare or education?
Around this cry of “priorities”
an effort is being made by these
interests, supported by some
provincial governments, to kill
the idea of national medicare
altogether or emasculate it so
that it will be limited in scope.

It can be expected that even
the limited measures of the
Pearson government on poverty
— which treats it as a “pocket
of poverty” rather than one of
substance which requires sharp
increases in income for Can-
adians, increased pensions, de-
cent housing, health care and
education, all based on national
standards as well as democra-
tic tax reform — will also come
under attack.

* * *

The battle lines are forming.
Monopoly is determined that its
policies shall prevail. Democra-
tic opinion must see to it that
the desires of the Canadian peo-
ple, which found their expres-
sion in the election campaign,
now find their reflection in Par-
liament. Parliament must be
compelled to act in the interests
of the people, not monopoly.

x

says

WILLIAM
KASHTAN

national leader
of the
Communist Party

by side |

J. $. Wallace

You went your way as I went my way
With: never a tie or tether

You reached your goal

As I reached my goal
But our goals were not together. |

HE retirement of Senator Wishart L. Robertson tempts
me to tell again an incident from the time when we
were rising stars in the Liberal Party. And, like Oscar

Wilde, I can resist anything but temptation.

I was a brighter star than Wishart, in fact word came
to me that G. Fred Pearson was going to back me as the
Liberal candidate in the coming elections. As he owned |
Liberal newspapers, that made it a walkover. :

After that he invited a dozen of the most plausible |
Liberal speakers to his office to brief us (we didn’t use the
word brief then) on the Gasperau Power Development
which he and Senator Choquette were promoting. His talk
convinced me it was a sneak steal of a public resource
and my questions showed what I thought. Wishart asked
no questions and went on to the Senate: doubtless to many
other financial awards. When we met once a few years
ago in Ottawa he didn’t look very happy over the choice
he had made. I am and always have been happy over mine. |

There was never again any talk of making me the
Liberal candidate.

When cartoons show bribes being offered they sim- |
plify: a Tammany Hall type planks a bag of boodle down ~
on your desk. It is much more subtle than that as you have ©
seen by my experience. The gentlemanly Mr. Pearson got
word to me indirectly that I was his choice. I was sup-
posed to keep that in mind when I listened to his power
proposal.

What happened to me is not important. But this 4
glimpse behind the scenes is important because it helps
you to understand better how the men of James-Bay mani-
pulate politicians so they can loot our natural resources,
unload their taxes on us, postpone and whittle down social
legislation—making us pay part of the cost where in so-
cialist countries it comes 100 percent out of profits.

“February 4, 1966—PACIFIC TRIBUNE
6 i a