A LOOK AT RECENT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL PARLEY

Widening cracks in Confederation

panered over for a few months

By NELSON CLARKE
he widening cracks in Con-
federation have been papered
over for a few months.

A deal has been made between
Prime Minister Pearson and
Premier Lesage of Quebec, which
has won the benevolent neutral-
ity of Premier Robarts of On-
tario, and raised up an angry
storm from the western provin-
cial governments.

In making this deal, Prime
Minister Pearson has gone back
on his pre-election promise that
provincial revenues from income
and corporation taxes and suc-
cession duties would be equaliz-
ed on a per capita basis with
those of the richest province—
Ontario. Hence, the protests from
the West.

Premier Lesage on the other
hand has retreated, at least for
the time being, from his oft-
repeated demands for a much
larger share of federal revenues,
so as to enable Quebec to be
the master in its own house.

This is what happened at the
federal-provincial conference in
Ottawa last week, and the point
to be emphasized most strongly
is that nothing has been solved.
The conference will be re-con-
vened early in the new year, and
few will question the comment
of Premier Duff Roblin of Mani-
toba when he said that the tax
deal worked out at the confer-
ence just ended will be a “red
hot issue’’ at the next one,

There are two ways of looking
at the problem which underlies
federal-provincial relationships.

From the standpoint of Can-
ada as a whole, there is the need
to organize financial resources
so as to strengthen the economy
and meet the pressing need for
far-reaching reforms with re-
spect to health, welfare, pen-
sions, and education. At the
same time, there is the need to
recognize that Canada is a big
country with many regional dif-
ferences, >

The federal government has
the most money at its disposal,

and can most efficiently carry
through over-all measures of
economic planning and reform.

But it would not be in the best
interests of democracy and local
well-being if everything was so
centralized in Ottawa that pro-
vincial and municipal govern-
ments, which are closer to the
people, were to be deprived of
all effective power. There has to
be a proper balance struck.»

But cutting across these ques-
tions is the fact that Canada is
a two-nation state, that French
Canada is demanding, with com-
plete justification, the right to
full equality with English Can-
ada.

There can be no meaningful
recognition of this equality be-
tween the two nations of our
country unless each of them has
that control over tax revenues
which will permit it to develop
its own: economic life as its
people see fit.

This does not at all rule out
a broad measure of voluntary,
mutually advantageous coopera-
tion between the two nations
with respect to economic and so-
cial affairs, But before there can
be cooperation there must be
the recognition of national
equality.

* * *

This points up the urgent need
for a new Canadian constitution,
for the negotiating on a com-
pletely equal footing of a new
confederal pact, safeguarding the
equality of rights and interests
of both French and English Cana-
da and containing explicit guar-
antees of the right of national
self-determination for French
Canada.

Without such a new constitu-
tion, our trouble’ will only
deepen. As long as Quebec is
regarded as a ‘‘province like
other provinces,’’ the just de-
mands of French Canada for
mastery in its own house will
lead only to parallel and unjus-
tified demands from provincial

governments in English-speaking .

Canada which will frustrate the

possibilities of urgently needed
reforms and steps towards eco-
nomic planning which can best
be carried through by the fed-
eral government.

The fundamental difference be-
tween Quebec as the territory
of the French-Canadian nation,
on the one hand, and the nine

provinces of English Canada, has .
yet to be officially recognized.

While the main blame for this
blind spot rests upon the leaders
of the dominant English-Cana-
dian nation, it must be said that
politicians like Premier Lesage

W HITHER THE N.D.P.?

Con’t from pg. 5
forward with another set of poli-
cies and tactics. What should they
include? Many feel that at least
four requirements are neces-
sary:

(1) A clear recognition of the
fact that monopolies—mainly U.S.
—own and control our resources,
industries and economy and that
such ownership and control is
against the interests of the peo-
ple.

(2) A clear anti-monopoly pro-
gram based on the needs of the
people of B,C. including the re-
patriation of our resources and
industries, the development of
new basic and secondary indust-
ries to provide jobs and expand
the economy—including a large
measure of public ownership and
control—for peace and against
the stationing of U.S. nuclear
weapons in our province.

(3) A willingness to put up a
courageous fight around such a
program, a willingness to ‘‘take
on’’ the corporations and the
political parties who represent
them—to lead a crusade of the
people for reforms.

(4) But one thing more is re-
quired—a policy of unity that will

bring together all sections of the
people victimized by monopolies,
all groups willing to join in the
fight. Such unity beeds to be based
squarely on labor as the dec-
isive force in our province, but
at the same time recognizing
the imperative need of alliances’
with the farmers and middle
class.

Such unity would mean opening
the doors of the NDP to all
unions and groups willing to sup-
port it, not just to unions affil-
iated with the Canadian Labor

Congress.
‘nis, m turn, raises another

question. Should the NDP be re-
constituted into what many orig-
inally thought it should be—a fed-
erated labor—farmer party open.
to all who are willing to endorse
its program of reforms? Should
not socialists be free to form
their own organizations to put
forward their point of view, yet
join in such a federated party?
Should not the Communist Party
be included in such unity?
Wouldn't its energy and fighting
qualities contribute a great deal?
We have a precedent for such
unity in the Canadian Labor Party

of the 1920’s which was set up
by the Trades and Labor Cong-
ress and which included the Com-
munist Party among it affiliates.

The emergence of the NDPSoc-.

ialist Caucus as acrystallization
of left wing and socialist think-
ing, will be welcomed by pro-
gressive forces within and with-
out the party. But will not its
contribution be seriously limited
if it confines itself to ultimate
objectives like socialism?

Is not the need of the moment
the development of a genuine
anti-monopoly program and the
building of all-inclusive unity
around it? Is this not the way
to victory for the NDP and the
people of B.C.?

By working for such a pro-
gram and policy, while continu-
ing its public educational work for
socialism, the NDP Socialist
Caucus could make a mighty
contribution. With such policies
to rally the left and the center
within the party, the progressive
forces who this year constituted
a third of the delegates, may next
year constitute the majority. That
would be a signal victory for
labor and the people,

are also failing to make clear
that Quebec is not just one of
10 provinces.

Nevertheless, the realities of
the present political situation
even now are forcing changes in
the relationships between Quebec
and the rest of Canada.

For example, the Quebec gov-
ernment demands its own pen-
sion plan in order to bring under
public control the large sums of
money which will be invested in
a pension. fund. It looks now as
if Quebec is winning the right to
take itself out of the proposed
federal pension plan,

But these piecemeal solutions
are no way to get at the real
problems which strike right at
the heart of the present state
structure of Canada.

The real. answer lies in the
election of a special constitu-
tional assembly made up of an
equal nuniber of representatives
from French and_ English-
speaking Canada which will have
the job of drafting a new con-
stitution for our country. This
is what the prime minister and
the premiers should be working
on now, and there is no time to
be lost.

> Sk Se

Assuming that it will take
from one to two years of public
debate to hammer out a new
constitution, some temporary
measures should be worked out
within the present federal-pro-

' vincial framework to better meet

the needs of the people.

This writer would think that a
basis of agreement can be found
in the original proposals of the
Quebec government which called
for turning back to the provin-
ces 25 percent of income and
corporation taxes, and 100 per-
cent of succession duties, to-
gether with an equalization grant
which would bring the revenues
of all provinces from these
sources up to the level of On-
tario—in proportion to their
population.

But this arrangement would be
useful only under two conditions,
both of which have long been
in the centre of the demands of
the Communist Party.

The first is that federal taxes
should not be increased to pay
for the extra half billion dollars
which the Quebec formula would
cost the federal treasury.
Instead, the wasteful defense
budget should be cut.

The second, that at least in
English Canada the provinces
should use the extra money to
help meet the costs of educa-
tion, to mové towards a greater
equality of educational opportu-
nity in all parts of Canada, and
towards reducing the heavy
burden now resting on the shoul-
ders of the municipal taxpayers.

The Communists are no longer
alone in their fight for these
conditions. The Toronto Star in
its coverage of the conference
last week reported:

“The Quebec delegation has
been pushing the proposition
that Ottawa can find new money
by reducing defense expendi-
tures. They gained a supporter
yesterday when Premier Duff
Roblin of Manitoba urged Pear-
son to scrutinize defense spend-
ing and consider whether it would
not be better devoted to such
fields as education that come
under provincial management.”

But Lesage and Roblin will
lead no crusades for these good
ideas. The need is for all demo-
cratic Canadians, and especially
the labor movement, to come
forward now with the strongest
demands for cuts in defense
spending, for federal aid to edu-
cation and along with that for a
new made-in-Canada consti-
tution.

This would guarantee the
equality of our two nations, thus
making it possible for French-
and English-speaking Canadians
to work together for the inde-
pendent development of Canada,
and for the well-being and se-
curity of its people.

REE distribution of food

coupons to low income fa-
milies is proposed by the Uni-
ted Electrical Workers union
in the last issue of their Re-
search Bulletin.

The article‘*‘Why Not aFood
Stamp Plan for the Unemploy-
ed?’’ points out that over the
past decade the federal gov-
ernment, in its attempt to
bolster farmers’ incomes, has ©
held embarrassingly large
surplus stocks of butter,
cheese, milk powder, pork,
beef lamb, berries, apples,
potatoes, eggs and wheat,

At the same time the famil-
ies of the increasing numbers
of unemployed have had to ad-
just their living standards
drastically downward.

These two facts point to the
desirability of working out
some program to assist low
income families to increase
their food consumption and
improve their diets,

A food stamp plan, which has
been tried out ineight depres-
sed areas in the Unites States

Why not distribute
surplus food stocks?

for a couple of years now, has
had some good results. Es-
sentially the program entails
free distribution of food coup-
ons to low income families.
The value distributed is de-
pendent on family income, size
and composition.

The U.S. experience with
this food stamp program has
been good for the people con-
cerned, good for the farmers,
and good for small neighbor-
hood stores. Total consump-
tion of food products in the
tested areas went up by eight
percent.

During the first year of ope-
ration, some 140,000 persons
participated in the U.S. food
stamp program. The average
use of coupons per person per
month was $21, of which $13
worth were purchased and $8
were free. Thus the cost to
the government was about $96
per person per year. It was
estimated that total adminis-
trative costs were less than

$3 per person per year. }

December 13, 1963—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 6