Canada’s problems

MADE IN THE U.S.

(Outstanding Canadian labor journalist Ben Swankey informed
U.S. workers about “Canada’s problem: made in USA” in the Oct. 23
issue of World Magazine, week-end supplement of the New York
Daily World. We here reprint a section of that article.)

The continental energy plan
demanded by the U.S. would
make all Canadian oil, natural
gas, coal and hydro power avail-
able to U.S. industries without
restrictions and regardless of
Canadian needs.

An economic union or North
American common market would
only result in further wiping out
Canadian industries and the com-
plete loss of our independence,
both economic and political.

U.S. corporations already oc-
cupy a dominant position in Can-
ada, controlling 50.9% of min-
ing, 84% of rubber products,
64.8% of machinery, 73.2% of
transport equipment, 58.1% of
electrical products, 76.4% of oil
and coal products, and 56.6% of
chemicals.

A widespread demand is grow-
ing in Canada for steps to coun-
teract the U.S. surcharge and
any further encroachment on
Canadian independence, and for
a fundamental re-assessment of
Canada’s relations with the Unit-
ed States. So far, however, the
government has moved with ti-
midity. Its dilemma is that it is
caught between pressure from
the people and divisions within
its own ranks. Decisive sections
of Canadian monopolies are
closely integrated with U.S. mo-
nopolies. They are not only will-
ing to exchange Canadian inde-
pendence for greater profits for
themselves; they are actively
promoting it. Furthermore,
among Canadian manufacturers
there are those who are quite
willing to barter away our nat-
ural resources as long as they
can be assured a share of the
U.S; market..

On the other hand, however,
there are influential sections of
Canadian big business that want
to retain control of important
sections of the Canadian econo-
my for themselves, not only for
the profits directly involved, but

also to give them a stronger bar-
gaining position when dealing
with U.S. demands. It is signifi-
can that while U.S. corporations
have been allowed to secure con-
trol of many sectors of the Can-
adian economy, two sectors
from which they have been bar-
red are the mass media and the
banks.

All of these factors, including
the powerful pressure of a grow-
ing movement for Canadian in-
dependence, are felt within the
federal government: of Prime
Minister Trudeau, and within the
other major capitalist parties.

While calling the surcharge a
“rough blow to the country”
that will cause “the loss of many
thousands of jobs,” Prime Min-
ister Trudeau has done little
about it so far. His government
introduced an $80 million “Em-
ployment Support Bill” to com-
pensate industries adversely af-
fected by the surcharge. But
ironically enough, much of' this
will go to U.S. manufacturing
corporations in Canada. Two-
thirds of Canadian factories are
U.S.-owned, including 90% of
those with 5,000 or more work-
ers.

Andre Raynauld, chairman of
the Economic Council of Can-
ada, a government advisory body
on economic objectives, placed
the choice before the govern-
ment and the country in these
words:

“We can decide for ourselves
whether we want to arrange
some kind of customs union with
the United States and get the
full benefit of the integration
that exists already; or we can
try to become more independent
of the U.S. economy by relying
less on exports for growth and
by developing stronger ties with
other countries.”

The Financial Post, an influen-
tial spokesman for Canadian-
owned corporations, in an edit-

orial headed “We Have Not Yet
Begun to Fight’ took a more
positive position for Canadian
independence:

“The whole thrust of current
U.S. policy is to pull manufac-
turing with the jobs that accom-
pany it back into the U.S. heart-
land—and auto production be
damned.”

The Science Council of Can-
ada in a special report to the
federal government spoke in the
same vein.

“We are saying,” it declared,
“that we have to make up our

-minds whether this country is

going to be a manufacturing and
industrial country or a producer
of raw. materials,” and then went
on to propose that action be
taken to strengthen Canadian

“manufacturing...

Peter C. Newman, one of Can-
ada’s best known political com-
mentators, in a special article
recently warned that the remo-
val of U.S.-Canadian tariffs and
the establishment of an econo-
mic union with the U.S., plus

further economic integration,
would eventually bring about a
situation where “pressures

would come for the removal of ©

all boundaries and the establish-
ment of common citizenships. It
would be the end of the Cana-

‘ dian dream.”

Professor F. H. Knelman,
chairman of the humanities and
science department of Sir George
Williams University in Montreal,
was equally outspoken:

“The projected U.S. needs of
oil, natural gas, uranium, water,
hydro-electric power, etc., are
such that Americans will want
to have free access to all these
resources, no matter where they
are on this continent, or in con-
tinental waters. This means only
one thing—complete ownership
and exploitation of Canada by
the U.S.”

* * ®

(Ben Swankey concluded by
describing the fight against U.S.
imperialist domination in the
Canadian labor movement and
NDP and the role of. the Com-
munist Party of Canada.)

Two world labor bodies confer

On 27, 28 and 29 October,
1971, a meeting took place be-

tween a delegation of the World

Confederation of Labor led by
its general secretary, Jean
Bruck, and a delegation of
the World Federation of Trade
Unions, led by its general sec-
retary, Pierre Gensous.

The two delegations  ex-
changed views on a whole range
of questions of current concern
to workers and trade unions
throughout the world, (trade
union rights and _ freedoms,
harmful consequences on_ the
workers of the present moneta-
ry crisis, the expansion of mul-
tinational corporations and
its consequences in_ different
spheres, immigrant workers, the
situation of engineers and tech-

nicians).
They noted with satisfaction
that the three international

trade union centres have ex-
pressed the desire for the estab-
lishment of broad trade union
accord on all problems and will
try to bring about such a state
of affairs as soon as possible for
‘a greater coordination of all
forces in the labor world.

Agreement was reached on

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1971 —PAGE6

the necesity of organizing and

consolidating the unity of action
of the international trade union
movement to contribute to root-
ing out the last areas of colonial-
ism and racism still persisting
in the world, particularly in the
Portuguese colonies. They ex-
pressed their satisfaction with
the resolution adopted by the
25th session of the UN General
Assembly regarding the invita-
tion to trade union organiza-
tions to hold an international
trade union conference against
apartheid in 1972. They stressed
their agreement to actively par-
ticipate in the preparation and

holding of such a conference

and their readiness to support

every initiative in this domain.

The trade unions should con-
tinue and intensify their activi-
ties to eradicate all theatres of
war, particularly in Indochina
and in the Middle East, which
are serious threats to world
peace.

Both delegations agreed to
continue exchanging points of
view so as to seek the most
adequate means for a solution
to the questions of concern to
the workers and their trade
union organizations throughout
the world.

Strike backs nationalization

CARACAS—The Oil Workers’
Union of the state of Zulia has
called a total stoppage in. pro-
test against the dismissal of
3,000 workers and against the
manoeuvres of the U.S. oil com-
panies.

Following the implementation
of a law passed by the Venezue-

lan government which stipulates .

a State takeover of installations
of foreign oil companies with-
out any compensation as well as

the nationalization of natural
gas, the U.S. companies have
radically reduced production and
have started dismantling plant
equipment and to lay off work-
ers.

According to a recently issued
statement by the minister of
mining, the government has de-
cided to enforce by whatever
means necessary respect of Ven-
ezuelan laws by the U.S. mono-
polies.

Go 6

More than 10,000 students protest at U.S. Consulate

Planning the economy I

By M. MAXIMOV

The next session of the USSR
Supreme Soviet (Parliament)
will open on Noy. 24 to discuss
the’ Five-Year Plan for 1971-
1975 and the state budget for
1972. The plan is broken down
by years, ministries, depart-
ments and the different repub-
licts of the USSR. The standing
cqgmmissions of the two cham-
bers of the Soviet Parliament
are holding preliminary discus-
sions of separate sections of
the plan and the budget.

It is said that planning, like
architecture, presupposes scien-
tific substantiation, but like
architecture it is also an art.
This -is particularly so when we
are dealing with a single plan
for a huge and dynamic coun-
try and when the idea behind
it is to create a kind of giant
model of the country’s economy

for the next five years. Such a ,

single plan should embrace all
sides of the development of the

economy, engineering, culture,
etc., and anticipate exception-
ally deep-going and complex
processes taking place not only
in‘ material production but also
in the social and public life of
society.

There evidently exists a de-
finite logic to the fact that a
number of Western leaders who
formerly did not believe in so-
cialist planning, today regard
the Soviet Five-Year Plan as a
scientific document of great
force, as a “unique and complex
piece of art which will be stu-
died, by the economists of the
whole world with great in-
terest.”

No one doubts any more that
great possibilities are latent in
Soviet socialist planning. No
one now calls it a “Utopia” or
“propaganda,” because the five-
year plans have proved the ad-
vantages of planning over the
spontaneous capitalist develop-
ment.

Attempts are being made to-
day to prove that it is allegedly:
possible to develop the economy
according to a single plan on

_derable rise in the P@

: i
the basis of private OP

ownership as well. 5 ert X
The British economist ™ joe)
writes that planning }@ ih"
silently accepted, (thous govt he
envious silence abou rie
planning), in all big cou i.
It should be added he? igs
champions of “market ae p |
ism” tried to “correct” 9 stat? :
deny the experience ; weve "
socialist planning. HO" oss
their “models” failed mig
whereas centralized plat gait’ Wl
the socialist countries ing ef’ “Ry
ing in strength and Dé oe
riched by fresh experi af ‘
When the Supreme cs pa dy
proves the new Five-¥e of ja 2
it will acquire the Force iol Ne
and become for many |. wo)
of people a guide in th? b
and creative efforts. the
When the draft 0
and. next year’s
at the Om t
mittee special attentiOty ie
paid to the fulfilme? Z pone
main task—to ensure ic Ho
ing standards. ne * y ‘
Already this yeat vot
of farm-machine opel? 4 mail
increased as well aS ° ail
ber of categories 0 nu |
workers, and the mit of it ,
pensions paid to fac colle” sh il
office workers an@ oY it,
farmers was raise¢-,
students’ stipends wi vil |
siderably and their ” Heb
ditions will improv’, py Mig
d \

f

}
I
tr

wages will be receiVe ye

tors, teachers an@ its if ti
pre-school establis eve
Increases will follow © oni?

ods ©

The output of g°
high demand will (1
doubled and exceed jin Un”
envisaged by the stall dy,

be 4

>

Congress last spring: * inl? di
tail prices will be : .
and prices of some ; i

even be lowered. tah
How will the living < dll
of the Soviet people ie f |
these five years 2 Path
may be foun a |
growth of real income” Mh
will increase by é