imterests. And President John

ef Texas, California, Arizona,

fom Mexico by the U.S. in

.epitomized in President James

“Zhoreau (from. “On Walking,”

-ageressively expansionist U.S.

the Pacific.

By HAL GRIFFIN

INETY YEARS after the defeat of the Vancouver

‘’ Island movement for annexation of British Columbia
to the United States its economic aim has been revived.

But the new “annexationists’
Victoria merchants. They are

’ are no longer a handful of
the spokesmen for the giant

monopolies that dominate the province’s economic and

political life. |

Searcely a meeting is held)
between Canadian and U.S.
government leaders without re-
eeurse to the weary platitudes |
—our peaceful border, our
eommon heritage, our mutual

Kennedy’s recent visit was no
exception.

Such platitudes are not
™aerely a distortion of history.
They mask and facilitate the
elicy of integration —- the}
pelicy of betraying this coun-
tzy’s sovereignty, its economic
resources and political future,
to the U.S.

The map, and particularly
the map of B.C., proves the
dact that although, as Ken-
medy said at_ Ottawa, “‘geog-
¥aphy has made us neighbors,”
it has not always made us
friends. The boundaries that
Separate us too often were im- |

er neighbor on the weaker.
-What are now the U.S. states !

Wevada, Utah, Colorado and
New Mexico were stripped

the Mexican War of 1946.
-But the U.S. did not have
to go to war to seize what are
how the states of Oregon and
Washington. Threats of war,

K. Polk’s “54-40 or Fight” slo-
gan, were sufficient. :
Kennedy’s quoting of Henry-

written when the Oregon
boundary dispute was reach-
img its climax) in his address
to the Canadian parliament,
“And now I must walk toward
‘Oregon .. .”, was more ap-
propriate than he realized. For
he was echoing the U.S. policy
@f Manifest Destiny which rob-
bed Canada of huge territories.

One of these territories was
the Alaska Panhandle. The
U.S. did not have to go to
wwar to seize it. Again, threats
ef war by President Theodore
Roosevelt were enough.

Both these victories of an

Policy directed against Canada
have left their mark on B.C,
the first by dividing the Co-

lumbia River basin, the sec-f

ond by denying B.C. access to
iis own northern seacoast and
shutting off the Yukon from

* * *

WASHAT the U.S. failed to
W accomplish in the years

when the destiny of Canada’s

Pacific province hung in the

| balance, it is seeking now to

accomplish by other means.

The U.S. has not changed’

its ultimate objective of ab-
sorbing Canada. What has
ehanged in the 90 years since
B.C. entered Confederation is
that the men who control its
political and economic life are
prepared to sell the people’s
heritage to the U.S. for a share
of the spoils.

British Columbia’s” beginn-
ings were in the conflict be-
tween British. and Spanish,
U.S. and Russian . aspirations
in the Pacific. Out of that con-
flict and the rivalry between
the Hudson’s. Bay and North
West companies its coasts were
mapped, its. rivers explored.

But fur trade and settlement
were incompatible. That is why

i the Hudson’s Bay .Company

, | lost Oregon for Canada, when
-posed by the will of the strong: |

it could no longer stand against
the surging tide of settlement
sweeping west. And except for
criticism of the Company’s rule
which compelled: the British
government to -abrogate its
Vancouver Island grant. in
1849, it might also have lost
British Columbia.

Had the men who opposed
Governor Sir James. Douglas’
autocratic colonial rule been
of different calibre, they might
well have succumbed to U.S.
blandishments and pressures to
realize their goal of respon-
sible government for B.C.

They might have contended,
as the annexationist merchants
of Victoria did in 1868-70, that
the natural ties of B.C. were

with San Francisco and its
potential markets in Califor-
nia.

They might ‘have agreed
with Dr. J. S. Helmeken, elect-
ed from Victoria on an anti-
Confederation platform, that
“it cannot be regarded as im-
possible that ultimately not
only this colony but the whole

Dominion of.Canada may well |!

be absorbed by the United

States.”

But among the men who led
the struggle for responsible
government and entry into
Confederation were some who
had a different vision. With
Amor De Cosmos, the outstand-
ing leader of that struggle,
they saw British Columbia’s
future, not as an appendage
of the U.S. but as part of
Canada, and Canada itself “‘be-
coming a sovereign and inde-
pendent state.”

% * * :

HE KEY to Confederation
was building of the trans-
continental railroad and _ for
eight. -years. after British Co-
lumbia’s. entry in 1871 the fed-
eral government’s failure to
fulfill its promise, culminating
in the secession resolution pas-
sed by the B.C. legislature in

1878, left the issue in doubt.

But once construction cf the
railway started in 1880, there
was scant talk of annexation
or -secession. This.’ was - the

90 Years After Confederat
U.S. Still Aims To Absorb Us

€

esting article.

% In the 90 years since B.C. entered Confederation the
U.S. has not changed its ultimate objective of absorbing
Canada. What has changed is that the men who control
its political and economic life are prepared to sell the
people’s heritage to.the U.S. for a share of the spoils.”

% This is the way’ HAL GRIFFIN sums up the strug-
gles the people of B.C. and Canada are waging today for] ©
their independence from U.S. domination in this inter] ~

economic lifeline to link a

Coal powered the railroads
and the ships and supplied-the
energy for many of the prov-

ince’s new industries. Coal cre-

ated thousaids of jobs and built
the cities of Nanaimo and Cum-
berland.

But, now that the Vancovu-
ver Island coal industry has al-
most gone, where, except for

Kitimat and North Vanccuver,

are the great industries based
on natural gas and hydro-
electric power?

What are the men who now
control B.C. doing with the
heritage preserved by Sir
James Douglas, from one stand-

point, by Amor: De Cosmos, |.

Robert Beaven, John Robson
and the Confederation League
from another? :

Like the annexationists of
colonial days, they. see their
markets — and profits — in
the markets of California and
the U.S. Northwest.

Frank. McMahon, through
Westcoast . Transmission and
with the support of the Social
Credit. government. which he

nation and the way was open |-helped to put in office, engin-

for development of a province |
rich in every resource — and
for new Canadian capiialists
to build fortunes exploiting
these resources.

In those years following
Confederation the basis of B.C.
fortunes was laid, but none
greater than that of Recbert
Dunsmuir, who founded an in-
dustrial empire on coal and
ruthless exploitation of the

men who dug it.

POR StouLDyis
q1EN GE es
am SUUPING

eered export of British Colum-
bia’s natural gas to California
and the U.S. Northwest.

To bolster his contention
that it is ‘“‘moraly wrong” for
Canada to refuse to export
electricity, Gordon —Shrum,
chairman of the B.C. Energy
Board, argues that unless B.C.
hydro resources are developed
now; thermal plants powered
by natural gas will be built in
the U.S. Northwest and. the

market will be lost. @
And now that the B.C. Elet-

tric ‘has’ acquired a dominant ©

interest in the Peace _Rivel™
Power Development. Companys ~
A. E. Dal. Grauer becomes: 22 ™
ardent advocate of exportil
hydro-electrie power. :
“Exporting hydro - powely |
declares Dr. Shtum, quoted ™ |
the Vancouver Province, May ~
30, “could be our biggest 1
dustry, bringing in $50 million”
a-year from renewable assets: _
Fifty million dollars for whom?
The promoters of Peace Rive! —
Power Development? And ae
presumably is “morally cight
* * ak
POLICY. determined bY - f
. the national: interest T@
quires that. natural. gas a8@ |
hydro power be publicly final
ced and supplied at the lowest |

>

cost to the domestic market 2

order to attract industry, create”
jobs and provide: the basis fof 7%
an expanding population 28&%
a greater domestic market: — 7
The anti-national policy nOW —
being. followed by the monoP” |

olies proposes to export the |
economic lifeblood of the prov =
ince to develop U.S. industrie® —
to the detriment of Canadia? —
industries, imposing the DUE ~
den of high cost on domestl€ |
users.

It is not enough for thes
advocates of a “sell B.C.” PO A
icy and their Social Cred! ?
spokesmen

y;

that the federal 7

Tories have agreed to shelve —

the McNaughton plan. for Coe

lumbia River power develo?”
ment for one completely f4%
oring the U.S. Now they wa?
to sell even the downstre®™
benefits and export all te
power they can produce,
They maintain that powe?
renewable and when B: Hs
needs. it asa result of its OW

is

growth — growth that will a
fectively be stunted by ther
policy —it can be reclaime Fi
Bold words, but it will take 7
Canadian. Castro to enfore’
them! ee is
What the U.S. is strivine |
establish is a. north-south P# 4
tern of economic developm@

through which the-materia

sources. of B.C. will be owen

to develay the industrial P ;

of the Northwest. f
That

swer grid bée

a west
om. public slopment of all
Columbia River under 89 =)

Continued on next pase

June 30, .1961—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Pas®

#

|

aS 2 : ent i i
why establishm ea q .

Fe