| as UNFORTUNATE that or-
: See ctions which recently
| Royal mitted _ briefs to the
eee on Bilin:
tawa = Biculturalism in Ot-
the ben Montreal did not have
the ¢ efit of the thinking of
taj “OMmission itself, as con-
M its preliminary report.

The re
fore th

Angs a

Port, released just be-
4 Current round of hear-
the or too late for study by
aDpean zations scheduled to
federati Placed the crisis of con-
sharp 1 in such a way that
| issues ebate on the underlying

Can hardly be avoided.

. Bits

the - M preparing their briefs

Unsati eanizations had only the

eg oy guidelines in the

han dea terms of reference,
to the commissioners

by
€ newly-elected Li
80vernment Sees ie iberal

ee terms put the problem
and bic Y one of bilingualism
Surprigh eetalism and it is not

eo, therefore, that many
English ees: especially from
Exclus} anada, focussed almost
_‘lvely on this aspect.

“S@ briefs made proposals
in anprovement of the feags
English Wider use of French in
Ments + Canada, for improve-
so, 4 Cultural exchange, and
COmmens 2Y. Proposals were

certain able ir. themselves and
“they nad Well-intentioned; but
of 4 Ued to go to the heart

of oe mpatter—the recognition
the
n

eee as a nation,

anne shment through a
betwee Itution of full equality
* N the two nations.
Pattern’™ the exceptions to this
0 mina the brief of the
Ottawenst Party submitted in
Walsh yO, March’ 3 by Sam
Self,” Uucien Jacques and my-

A 4
brig eric Proposition of this
Commis S a request to the royal
Convocarrn to >%commend “the
Sembly 10n of a constituent as-
basig” tO be elected on the
fr “qual representation

0
om
da, French and English ¢ na-

Ty
repres Such an assemb'y, the
tione €atatives of th two na-
Constig ould Negotiate a new
: Age On - completely
On Oting, wit. the principle
zs Nimity as between the

of the party,

and ‘provincial’ rights

looks at ‘national’

and criti-

cizes the Robarts government's
endorsation of the Fulton-Favreau
formula for repatriation of the
British North America Act.

delegations from French and
English Canada.”

The Communist Party’s brief
goes on to indicate the possible
outlines of a constitution for a
new Canadian Confederation.

The powers of the “confeder-
al government would include
responsibility for those all-
Canadian affairs which concern
both Canadas in their relation-
ship with foreign states, such
as diplomatic representatives
and treaties, citizenship and
passports, defense and armed
forces, external trade and its
regulation.”

The brief goes on further to
suggest that “the new constitu-
tion should allow for the as-
signment on the basis of mutual
agreement between the repre-
sentatives of the two nations
of other responsibilities to the
confederal government. In a
modern state such as Canada
there are many matters having
to dowith the development of
the economy, with social and
health services and so on, which
can be advantageously financed
and adminis’ ‘red centrally. But
the point in relation to Canada

is that for this to be done there
must be in each case a mutually
satisfactory, voluntary agree-
ment negotiated between the
two nations.”

It is in the placing of this
question that a distinction can
be seen between the position
of the Communist Party and a
number of Quebec organizations,
such as the St. Jean Baptiste
Society, which advocate two
“associate states.”

These societies visualize a
minimal role for the central
government of Canada under a
new constitution. The Commu-
nist Party, on the other hand,
believes the central government
could play a key role in respect
to many economic and social
questions, providing that mutual
agreement can be arrived at be-
tween the representatives of
French and English Canada in
assigning such a role to the
central government.

The Communist Party’s brief
makes the point that “matters
which it is proposed to assign
to the confederal parliament,
including questions of foreign
policy, defense — ultimately of

Andre Laurendau (left) and A. Davidson Dunton (right)
are the co-chairmen of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism
and Biculturalism which heard briefs in Ottawa and Montreal
from various organizations and political parties. Additional
hearings by the commission began in Toronto on Mar. 29.

Our two-nation partnership

‘and a new constitution
By NELSON CLARKE

How would French Canada's
national rights be guaranteed in a
new Canadian constitution? This
question, as presented in a brief
of the Communist Party to the
B and B royal commission, is an-
swered in this article by the exe-
cutive secretary of the Commun-

ist Party. On the following page,
Bruce Magnuson, Ontario leader

peace or war — are matters of
the most vital concern to’ all
Canadians.

“The whole principle of a
confederal pact would be viola-
ted if a situation were allowed
to continue in’ which questions
of such importance could be

decided in the confederal parlia- .

ment by a majority based upon
the English-speaking majority
in the population and thus im-
posed upon the French minority.

“We see, as the most satis-
factory solution to this pro-
blem, the establishment of a bi-
cameral (two house) confederal
parliament, one house based up-
on rep.esentation by population
as in the present House of
Commons, the other house, also
elective (unlike the present
Senate), but composed of an
equal number of representatives
from each of the two nations.
Each house would have equal
authority and all legislation
would require the endorsement
of both.”

This proposal provoked a
question from commissioner
Frank Scott as to how the house
equally representative of the
two nations would be chosen.
“Would it represent equally all
French Canadians and all Eng-
lish Canadians?”

This writer replied that it
would be composed of equal
representatives from two na-
tions, which would be distinct
territorial units — generally the
present province of Quebec and
the nine provinces of English
Canada.

This would mean that English
Canadians from Quebec would
quite properly sit as part of the
representation from the nation
of French Canada, and French
Canadians (from say Saskatche-
wan) would sit as part of the
representation from English
Canada.

The point is that nations pos-
sess not only a common lan-
guage and a community of cul-
ture, but must also possess a
common territory. To lose sight
of this is to fall into hopeless
confusion and to mix up the
rights of every ethnic minority
with the rights of a nation, in-

cluding the right of a nation
to self determination.

This, of course, is not so say
that ethnic minorities do not
have rights. They most certain-
ly do. And these rights must be
recognized in any properly func-
tioning, democratic society.

; In approching this problem in
its outline of a new constitu-
tion the Communist Party’s brief
declares:

“The new constitution should
have embedded in it a new bill
of rights which should include
firm guarantees of the rights of
freedom of speech, assembly, or-
ganization and the practice of
religious belief. The bill of
rights should outlaw all forms
of discrimination on the basis
of national or ethnic origin and
should protect the right of every
national group to maintain the
cultural tradition and language
of its forefathers, including the
right to establish organizations
and institutions on a voluntary
basis for this purpose.

“The right of members of the
English Canadian community in
French Canada, and of the
French Canadian community in
English Canada, freely to con-
duct their affairs in their own
languages should be clearly es-
ee in the new constitu-
ion.

“These communities should be
placed in a position of consti-
tutional equality — that is to
say French speaking communi-
ties in English Canada should
have the privilege of asserting
the same rights as are enjoyed
by the English speaking com-
munities in French Canada.

“Special provision should be
made for the Indian and Eskimo
people. In addition to outlaw-
ing all forms of discrimination
against these peoples, these pro-
visions should include explicit
recognition of their identity,
should reaffirm their rights as
embodied in the original treat-
ies and proclaim their right of
self government in all areas
where they comprise a majority
of the local population.”

Questions like these need to
be developed in the further pub-
lic hearings of the commision.

SEE ‘SPOTLIGHT’ NEXT PAGE

April 9, 1965—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 5