! - national policies which place the interests of the people ' first and curb the power of the U.S.-Canadian monopoly - interests; a course that bases itself on trade with all coun- ' tries on a mutually satisfactory basis. Such a course rejects » man imperialism is striving to re-establish its domination, or > a eustoms union with the USA through which Canadian » independence would be completely undermined. : : ¥6°have moved in the latter direction when he put forward LABOR FRONT| independence and identity for Canada, but his position cer- By WILLIAM KASHTAN It is rather odd that in all the heated de- debate on the implications to Canada of the possible entry of Britain into the Euro- pean Common Market, the voice of organ- ized labor, as expressed through the Can- adian Labor Congress, has been rather # muted. It may be that this silence arises out of sharp differences of opinion as to what these implications are and the position the CLC should take on this issue. It is no secret that within the CLC there are those who see the solution in Canada’s entry into a non-existent North Atlantic trading community or else in associate mem- bership in the ECM as proposed by T. C. Douglas, national leader of the ‘New Democratic Farty. There are others who see the solution in a further integration of the economies of Canada and the USA. : * % ® One of these is Harry Waisgiass, associate research director of the United Steel Workers of America. I haven’t seen the full text of his remarks at the edu- cational conference sponsored by the Ontario Federation of Labor but the press reports him as proposing integration of the Canadian and U.S. economies so as to open the US. market to Canadian goods. What kind of goods? Freer trade cannot hurt Canada’s resource industries, he said. Readjust- ments in manufacturing may appear frightening but are inevitable, and “those who benefit will have to compensate | those who suffer.” What Waisglass says here isn’t particularly novel .or original. Boiled down to its essence the proposal is that Canada continue to be, but even more so, a “hewer of wood and drawer of water” for the USA. If Waisglass was too polite to put it that way, others have not been so delicate. One well known professor declared recently that “it is not Fight for peace ‘crucial Buck tells anniv. banquet Over 500 people gathered at the Ukrainian Hall in Vancouver last Saturday to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Communist Party of Canada. It was one of several banquets held in B.C., all of which"“re- ported capacity crowds. Tim Buck, national chair- | great movement of which we man of the party, told thejare a part.’”’ He said we are Vancouver celebration that in}not at the end of a period but marking the 40th anniversary }on the “threshold of a new we do not look backward but] period.” “forward to victory for the Tom McEwen, Pacific Tri- too bad to be a hewer of wood and drawer of water if this | is our destiny. It could even be profitable’’(!) This, apparently, is how some spokesmen for organized | labor see Canada’s future in light of the formation of the ECM. It goes together with the view, again to quote Wais- glass, that “(Canada could profit by having industry special- ize in fewer manufactured products that could find markets abroad.” Concentrate on selling our natural resources and curtail secondary industry. Such a proposal in effect is an open ac- commodation to the USA and is not far from the proposal of a customs union which some business interests have begun to raise. No wonder the U.S.-News and. World Report. could declare in its recent issue that “many businessmen in Canada: predict privately that there will be full economic union with the USA within 10 years,” and then goes on to say, “they “see no alternative: to merger with the-USA- as the world organ- izes into huge trading blocks.” : Waisglass hasn’t openly called for economic union which inevitably would be followed by complete loss of political tainly veers