Labor Front

. By WILLIAM KASHTAN |

Every negative has its positive. The negative side of the mari-
“times crisis, by focussing on the one-sided relationship between
the U.S, and Canadian trade union movement, hasat the same time be-
come a positive factor in stimulating the movement for a fully
sovereign and autonomous Canadian trade movement.

There are very few trade unionists now who would argue

ment should have the right to decide on all matters
of policy affecting its interests.

Far from being just the demand of the Com-
munists, which at one time it was, it has now
become the position of the majority of organized
workers, as will no doubt be seen bythe number of
resolutions which the forthcoming Canadian Labor

Congress convention may well have before it.
oft * * *

This constitutes a big advance for the workersand the AFL-CIO
has been compelled to make a concession to that growing sentiment
for Canadian trade union control which coincides with the grow-
ing sentiment for Canadian control over the Canadian economy
and Canadian affairs generally. That concession is very limited,
however, and it is being nullified by many of the international unions
who refuse to recognize the need for national trade union autonomy
for their membership in Canada.

As long as this situation exists, as long as union members are
unable to exercise their democratic right to determine policy in
Canada, hold their own national conferences and elect their own of-
ficers, the CLC will never be able to act as a full sovereign and
autonomous centre, nor perform the role it should in Canadian
affair. * x *

It is this contradiction which needs to be resolved.

Instead of helping to resolve it, however, a number of the
international unions have undertaken a brainwashing campaign
directed to convincing the Canadian membership that national trade
union autonomy is positively harmful (in fact a demand of emplcy-
ers, not of workers); that there can be no true solidarity except by
being members of international unions; that increased U.S, control
over the Canadian economy makes international unions necessary.

* * *

All these arguments have been trotted out before. But, what some
of the international union headquarters are also cunningly doing, is
pretending that the demand for national trade union autinomy
is actually a demand for separation and the formation of Canadian
unions,

By posing the question as Canadian versus international unionism,
they hope to disrupt the growing unity of Canadian trade union move-
ment and thus kill the movement for national trade union autonomy
within the international unions.

In this they are being helped by some of their staffs in Canada

who wish to maintain the status quo and avoid a struggle for autonomy.
* . *

The movement for national trade union autonomy and for sov-
ereignty however cannot be killed, It has its roots in the objective
situation and if it rises today it does so because it corresponds
exactly with the growing demand for Canadian control, for in-
dependent economic and national development, for extending trade
with all countries, for an independent foreign policy, free of U.S.
control, Z

Although the movement for national trade union autonomy cannot
be killed, it could be sidetracked. And this seems to be the orien-
tation of some of the leaders of the CLC, who are deathly afraid
of the issue and would like to wish it out of existence.

* * *

The CLC convention would fall short of its responsibilities,
however, were it to refuse to come to grips with this question.

Dare we become masters inour own house? This is the nub of the
question before the convention and the Canadian trade union move-
ment generally.

against the idea that the Canadian trade union move- -

Many join ‘M-squad’
-=many more needed

‘There’s an old inspiring English song which goes —
““Give me ten men, ten stout-hearted men, and I'll give
you ten thousand more.”

Well this week our M-Squad (for the uninitiated,
“Maintenance Squad’’) has grown to that stout-hearted
ten, with Arthur Stratton of North-Van adding his $2.00
per month, D. East, Vanccuver his $5.00 per, and an old
veteran from Golden with $3.00 and a short note saying
“Just another member for the “PT M-Squad.”’ So, we're
on the way to that ‘“‘ten thousand more” for the PT.

* * * .

“Thar’s gold in them thar bottles,” that is the empty
ones. Last week veteran PT builder Jchn A. Thompson of
Parksville turned in a donation of $41.50 for the sale of
166-dozen beer “empties.”

No friends, Comrade Thempson didn’t drink that
lot himself. His ambitions lie elsewhere. For-him that
166-dozen (by no means his first achievement in this
regard) represented a lot of leg work, a lot of peak-load
packing, and a lot of determination to keep HIS PT roll-
ing. In Comrade Thompson’s M-Squad effort there is
cne very simple tip—make your “empties” work for the
Pi. SaaS:
In cur next M-Squad corner we will give the total
donations for February. Meantime let's keep adding to
the recruiting list, with each recruit deciding his (or her)
own monthly donation. And don't forget, as John A.
Thompson has demonstrated, ‘““That’s gold in them thar
... empties.”

‘CANADA WILL NOT BE MASTER’

'Master-slave relationship set
up by Columbia pact’ says writ

treaty and the protocol—is
fined in the treaty: it me
‘fuse of water
“municipal, stock-water, if
tion, mining or industrial P
poses but does not include
for the generation of hydro;
ectric power.’’ A

Most Canadians would agree to
the proposition that the Columbia
River Treaty of 1961 and the
recently signed protocol to the
treaty shoulc contain nothing that
would jeopardize Canada’s plans
for the development of the
Columbia,

The plan for development that
holds the greatest promise for
Canada’s future on the Columbia
will not be found in the treaty
and protocol, These documents,
provide for three dams in Can-
ada; the Duncan Lake Dam, which
is not important to Canada’s
initial Columbia development; the
High Arrow Dam, which is a
liability to Canada, and Mica
Creek Dam on the Columbia Ri-
ver. Mica is a basic part of
Canadian plans, but the treaty and
protocol do not allow Canada to
realize its full potential.

The plan that holds the greatest
promise for Canada is the plan
for diverting the Kootenay Ri-
ver into the headwaters of the

Columbia River. This plan would

realize the full potential of the
Mica Creek Dam,

Above all, this plan provides
the basic necessity for future
development — flexibility. The
Canadian plan provides for maxi-
mum power development in this
country, for water diversions in
several directions, and, mostim-
portant, to the east, tothe Prair-

-ies,

Canada has a clear and un-
questionable right to make the
Kootenay-Columbia diversion, to
realize this wonderful plan in>
full measure, This is Canada’s
right; without ifs, buts, whens,
hows or whereases of any kind.

Yet the Canadian Government,
in its official background infor-
mation released with the proto-
col to the Columbia River Treaty,
makes this statement:

‘Article XIII of the Treaty
gives Canada the right to divert
the waters of the Kootenay Ri-
ver to the Columbia River for
power purposes within specified
times in the future.”’

This statement, which has been
faithfully reported tothe
the Canadian people by the press,
radio and television, is a lie,
Article XIII of the treaty does
not give Canada the right to
divert the waters of the Koot-
enay River to the Columbia Ri-
ver for power purposes — within:
or without specified times in the
future, That right is ours,

_ If the Canadian Government had
been truthful about this, it would
have made this statement:

“Article XIII of the Treaty
takes away from Canada all its
existing rights of diversion and
then gives back to Canada a few
limited and specific privileges.”

For this, in fact, is what Ar-
ticle XIII, does. There are six
clauses in this article. The last
five of the six clauses are noth-
ing but restrictions—all manner
of ifs, buts, when, hows and
whereases — which are attached
to Canada’s unquestionable right
to divert the Kootenay River to
the Columbia River. In fact, it
seems highly unlikely that it
would be possible for Canada
to make the diversion under the
restrictions in these five clausés.

The Government of -Canada
realizes this, apparently, For the
Government, in its background
information released with the
protocol, points to the first clause
of Article XIIJ—not to the last
five clauses — to reassure the
Canadian people of their rights

ARTICLE HITS
COLUMBIA PACT.

Last week’s Throne Speech in
dicates the Liberal government
intends to push through the Co-
lumbia Treaty and the protocol
at any cost. There is little time
left to mount a powerful cam-
paign to stop this betrayal.

On Feb. 12, 1964 the Toronto
Globe and Mail published the
fol’owing letter (slightly abridg
ed) on its editorial page by Mrs.
Jane Lynch. It explains the
changes made in the pact and
accuses the government of lying
to the public about them.

diversion and to divert water to
the Prairies, -

“Doubt has also been ex-
pressed as to whether Article
XIII (1) of the Treaty gives Can-
ada the right to make diver-
sions of Columbia system waters
for consumtive purposes such as
irrigation, domestic, and muni-
cipal needs. The Protocol clears
up any misunderstanding on this
point by affirming © Canada’s
rights to make such diversions
under the Treaty. This right
would apply, for example, to any
diversion that might become de-
sirable to the Prairie Provinces
for irrigation.”’ :

This is a lie, in. so far as
the Canadian Government is again
telling its people that they are
getting rights that they already
have, In addition, this paragraph
represents an abominable decep-
tion,

The experts have had no doubts
whether Article XIII (1) of the
treaty gives Canada the right to
make diversions of Columbia

.system waters for consumptive

purposes, This right is clearly
stated in the treaty,

But when the Government tells
Canadians that this right to div-
ert for consumptive purposes
would apply to diversion to the
Prairie Provinces, the Govern-
ment deceives the Canadian peo-
ple, The term consumptive use—
which is the term used in the

adians that they can make
ersions under a clause of
treaty that expressly proh
the hydro power that Canadi
must have in order to mak
diversions.

is established, clearly and
questionably, in this treaty!
right Canada gives to the
ed States to flood Canadian
behind the Libby Dam, This
to flood part of Canada, W
makes Libby Dam feasible {0
Americans, is clearly set ©
in Article XII of the tr
What follows in Article ¥!

umbia diversion, Article ¥!

-no doubt that these docume"

for do

The Government is telling

The one significant right

not the affirmation of Can
right to make the Kootenay-

nothing more than a set of |
strictions that the United St
needs in order to make Ll
Dam possible, :

The intent of these restrict?
is clear: They are desig?
give the United States plenty
time to establish a complex
Libby Dam so great and
reaching that it would rule
the possibility of the Koote?
Columbia diversion.

If the Canadian Parliament™ |
ifies the Columbia River TI”
and protocol, it will forfeit
ada’s right to the Kootenay” 4
umbia diversion plan; in S°
ing, it will throw away the
to Canada’s future develop!
on the Columbia. There ¢4”

so carefully designed to &
lish Libby Dam in the U
States, turnover effective ¢®
of the whole Columbia systé
the United States.

The treaty and protocol
establish amaster-and-slav@
lationship on the Columbia
ada will not be the master:

CAPITAL COMMENT

Big steal of parks
launched by Socred

By ERNIE KNOTT

‘«The big steal is on. Incalcul-
able damage in the next few
years.’’ These caustic comments
by Roderick Haig-Brown, noted
conservationist, natural re-
sources expert, author-cum -
justice-of-the-peace, pretty well
expressed popular reaction to
last week's announcement in the
legislature that the government
is going to allow two of B.C,'s
biggest and best parks—Strath-
cona (Buttle Lake) and Wells
Grey—to be logged,

Yes, the big
steal is on and
in case Haig -
Brown doesn't
realize it, it’s
been going on
for a long time
== LOO, s1onpye
under Socred
™ auspices. To
such an extent
that there is practically no tim-
ber, except park timber, left in
B.C, for smaller Canadian op-.
erators.

za

This latest move serves to il-

to make the Kootenay-Columbia—lustrate the insatiable lust of

February 28,.1964—PACIFIC TRIBUNE

-into, say Buttle Lake, hoW

‘monopoly (mainly U.S. ) ¥
will not rest until it has 5¢!
control, with the help of 2
pliant provincial governme?
every last stick of timber in Be
This latest giveaway came
a couple of weeks after (a5 ©
PT reported) four timber &
had applied for timber lice?”
on about 10 million acres ?
maining timber land in no"
central interior and coast ;

gions,
This is not just an annoul®
ment of intent, but pathel

confirmation of policy whit
already well under way. D
writer saw with -his own ef
big bulldozers working around:
clock under lights in last
ember's zero weather, push
logging access road into
Grey Park, : :

In order to camouflage the p
plunder all kinds of hoku!
being spread about disease
pests in park timber, about
need for multiple use, etc.

But if one small operatol®

we keep our hungry mond!
See PARKS, pg. 8