The choice ahead .

. The battles over Canada’s Mackenzie Delta gas and oil reserves — and the
interlinked battles over Native Peoples’ land claims and the northern pony —
_ are shaping up

Already, Bee the release of the initial report on Justice Thomas Berger’s
Inquiry into the Mackenzie Valley pipeline route, a creeping conspiracy is becom-
ing evident.

Record-breaking profit on pipelines and non-renewable resources, at the behest
of the USA, or planned development for the benefit of Canadians — these are the
choices before us, whatever the window-dressing.

On this sheet we reiterate the position of the Communist Party, made in its brief
to the Berger Inquiry in May 1976, in which the proposition was put forward that
“the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline should not be built at this time.’’ Three of the four
final points relate to Native land claims, agreements with the Native Peoples on
northern development and preferential treatment for Native Peoples. The Com-
munist Party Brief considerably enlarged on a printed folder issue June 27, 1975,
entitled: Mackenzie Pipeline, Development or Sell-out?

It is gratifying to see — and it’s an indication of the careful consideration given
to the subject by the Communist Party — that the Berger’s two-year study led in
many instances toward the approach the positions taken by the CPC.

But these reasoned propositions are being challenged by the multi-national
corporations, Canadian corporations and dyed-in-the-wool continentalists who
have for decades sold everything movable to the USA for a fast dollar.

John Gallagher, chairman of Dome Petroleum and John L. Stoik, president of
Gulf Oil Canada, have made dire predictions if the Mackenzie is delayed. For one
thing there would be no “‘incentive’’ for exploration. We’ll come back to that.

Only two days after the Berger Report was released, Prime Minister Trudeau,
without consulting parliament, without waiting for the findings of the National
Energy Board (whose authority is given by parliament), said in London that we
must decide in a rush. ‘‘. . . if we do not make up our minds, the United States will
make Be RE ees Sen seeceee wee the E) Fae rote and we wil not have a
pipeline through Cana

He said that “‘. _ it is important that Canada and the United States and the
continent be as close to self-sufficiency as possible.”

It is clear that the pressure from the USA for more Canadian resources,
utilizing Canadian faciliteis is having its effect on the federal Liberals. They are
trying to sell a bill of goods to the Canadian people on behalf of the U.S.
corporations which control Canadian resources.

As far as incentive goes, one of the strongest argume! public ownership of

nts for

their own resources in their own way for the benefit of the whole population, the
‘incentive’? need not be one of where to invest to make the most dollars most
quickly. The future of the country counts with the people as it does not count with
corporate investors. Public ownership is inevitable for the protection of our
non-renewable resources in particular.
‘ There are many reasons, as the Communist exposition sets forth, for not
allowing ourselves to be hustled into deals based fundamentally on enormous
corporate profits. The Berger report makes a lot of sense in this respect.
Meanwhile there is every reason to pursue the Communist Party’s well-con-
sidered proposals for a fully-integrated all-Canadian energy policy based on
public ownership under democratic control. Such a program is in the interests of a
_ balanced economic development, justice for the Native Peoples, job opportunities,
rising standards and Canadian independence.

implement the Berger
Inquiry recommendations

Following the publication of the Berger Inquiry Recommendations, the Central
Executive of the Communist Party of Canada, over the signature of its general
] secretary, William Kashtan, issued the following press statement on May 10:

The recommendations of the Berger Inquiry that there be no pipeline across the
Northern Yukon and that the proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipeline be postponed
for 10 years will be welcomed by democratic and patriotic Canadians. It is a
reflection of widespread popular sentiment.

It now remains for the Trudeau Government to implement these recom-
mendations.

But there is no assurance that it will.

The National Eenrgy Board which has shown itself to be a front for the
multi-national oil corporations, is still to be heard from regarding a pipe line, as
are the U.S. corporations. And so is the U.S. government which has not given up
on its aim of achieving a continental policy directed to ‘share our energy and
natural resources for our mutual benefit’’.

Papers like the Globe and Mail which pretend to speak for the national interest,
are already hedging, as they usually do when it comes to defending the real
interests of Canada.

All of them will exert pressure on the Government to either ignore the Berger
recommendations, or else make them meaningless.

The situation calls for an all peoples coalition to make sure the Berger Inquiry
recommendations are implemented.

Such an all coalition ought to include in its aim: support for the land
claims of the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples including their right to regional
self-government.

It ought to include as well the demand for an all inclusive energy policy based on
public ownership of all energy resources, so that these can be developed to serve
eS ee ee

It ought to include the demand for planned development of the North, a plan in
which the Native Peoples must be the determining factor, as part of an over-all
plan of independent economic development of all parts of Canada to ensure work
for a growing labor force.

The Canadian people have it within their means now, if they act unitedly, to put
an end to the U.S. takeover of our energy and natural resources.

Compel the Trudeau Government to implement the Berger Inquiry Recom-
| mendations. 4

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MAY 27, 1977—Page 6

ec catiee oo eseriien cathe: dhonncsacic couivat'an than: Bo: Cunatios $0 develop

This brief to the Berger Inquiry from
the Communist Party of Canada (May
1976) not only forecast some of the conclu-
sions Berger was compelled to reach, but
today more than ever offers a blueprint for
the protection of Canada’s resources in
the interests of all Canadians, as well as
protection of the rights of the Native
Peoples of the north.

The Communist Party of Canada has
given careful consideration to the ques-
tions your Commission is called upon to
deal with on the basis of its terms of
reference. As we understand it, it is one

of determining the effects of a Mackenzie ~

Gas Pipeline on the Native peoples, the
environment and the ecology.

Underneath these questions is a more

fundamental one, that of the future of the
North. This includes the question of
energy supplies for Canada in the
foreseeable future, questions of owner-
ship and control of these resources, and
role the Native peoples should and must
play in decisions affecting their rights,
their livelihood and their way of life. It is
with this in mind that the Communist
Party of Canada advances its views on

the pipeline.
Canada’s Last Frontier

1. The North, as has been said more
than once, is Canada’s last frontier. We
need to make sure it does not become
Canada’s lost frontier by virtue of being
taken over, lock, stock and barrel by the
U.S. multi-national corporations, in the
same way they have taken over other
parts of the Canadian econorny, with the
complicity of federal and provincial gov-
ernments. If a similar ‘‘sell-out’’ takes
place today, if U.S. imperialism through
these multi-national corporations is al-
lowed to control the energy and natural
resources of the North, it will in fact
control the whole of the Canadian
economy.

The North, as we know, is rich in oil
and gas. It also has tremendous re-
sources if iron ore, copper and other pre-
cious minerals. These constitute impor
tant reserves for the further and future

development of Canada. To deplete —

them now, apart from a major question of
the rights of the Native peoples, prob-
lems of ecology and the environment,
means to deplete them in the interests of

the U.S. multi-national corporations, in ‘
‘the interests of industry in the USA;

and not in the interests of
Canada. Canada has other sources of
energy at this time which can and should

be used for its development and further ©

industrialization. The present reserves
of gas and oil can be left in the ground for
future use at a time and pace that coin-
cides with the best interests of Canada,
her people and the peoples of the North.

Canadian Control

2. Itis this which determines our basic
approach to the construction of a Mac-
kenzie Gas Pipeline at this time.

Construction of such a pipeline should
be held up until there is assurance of
Canadian control and ownership of the
pipeline and energy resources, and their
use for Canadian development. Con-
struction of the pipeline at this time
would not serve the Canadian interest. It
would serve the U.S. interest primarily.

This is so because its main purpose ~

would be to guarantee the wholesale ex-
port of Canadian resources to the USA.
In this sense the construction of the
pipeline by the Canadian people at great
cost to themselves, would be a form of
subsidization of the USA. Alberta would
become a corridor, like the Panama Can-

‘Communist Party submission to

Northern developm

ae

North and leave ugly scars in its p. act

“ness of the land claims of the N:

al, for the shipment of natural gas and 0!
to the USA, and all this guaranteed bY |
Canada.
The pretence that Canada could ‘“‘shi! 1
the tap’ later on if it wishes to, is #
much nonsense. We have the experien@
of the Columbia River steal, and othé
sell-outs, to show this will not be the 1
course of development. Once ownershi }
lies in the hands of U.S. multi- nationd |
6

corporations, once the energy is U
mainly to satisfy the U.S. market and
becomes indispensable to the U.S. if
will mark the end of a Canadian resot
and a Canadian asset. =

Northern Development Z

3. What is involved here is not ofl
the construction of a pipeline. The
of the problem is the development of the
North and its resources, by whom, ™
whom, and under what conditions.

!
(
The myth is being spread that buildil ,
¢
{
{

a pipeline constitutes northern develo?
ment. This is not so. A pipeline
constitute a part of northern devel
ment but it is not basic to no
development.

The claim is being made that a Me P
kenzie Gas Pipeline would have a simi?
impact on Canada as the building of the
trans-Canada railway system maa
years ago. This is manifestly false.
railways helped to unite Canada froma
Atlantic to the Pacific. It was part of off
concept of a ‘‘national policy’’ advan!
by the then Prime Minister of C

* John A. MacDonald, the aim of whi hich

was to build one market in Canada, helt
stimulate industrial development @
protect it.. :

This is not the concept of the Mac:
zie Gas Pipeline. Its primary purp
to serve the USA, not Canada. I
move Alaskan gas to the USA and '
Canadian gas to the USA, and at #P4
which will deplete this resource and P
vent its use for Canadian developme
Its aim is not the ‘‘national interest’
maximum profits for the multi-natiO
corporations and their subsidiaries
Canada.

The pipeline will not bring wealth

No solid economic base is being ro"
osed which will have permanent value,
the North and its people. The Nort!
looked upon as a hinterland, a suppliet
raw materials such as gas, oil and mif
als, a kind of colony and not an
which ought to be developed in a ¥
which will serve the North and its p
and at the same time serve the int
of Canada and her people.

Where then is the comparison betW¥
a national policy which served to
Canada and a policy presently pro
which is geared primarily to serv
USA, not Canadian development? 1
is no comparison and those who ty
make it so are guilty of hoodwinkil
Canadian people.

Native Land Claims

4. Northern development cannol
separated from recognition of the.

peoples. The Native peoples have

it clear in their representations to
Committee and in statements to the P®
and mass media generally, that the
not opposed to the development 0

- North. They want to establish theif

cldims first. They want to havea say?
development of the North. They wa! ant
be the beneficiaries of such develo?
ments, not its victims. They want to