EVO COMPAR

ell

: PROFITS

ee i

FLASHBACKS FROM

THE COMMUNIST PRESS

50 years ago...

25 years ago...

FRIENDSHIP PACT
OR BRINK OF WAR?

Three documents of signi-
ficance were published last week
which have opened the way to
new high-level discussions
aimed at diminishing the danger
of atomic war, and which involve
Canada’s role in the debate.

e On Jan. 23, Soviet Premier
Bulganin wrote to President
Eisenhower proposing a 20-year
Treaty of Friendship between
the two most powerful coun-
tries.

e On Jan. 28, Eisenhower re-
plied, rejecting the Soviet offer,
but making counter-proposals
and suggesting the discussions
between the two leaders con-
tinue.

e On Jan. 28, Canada’s Ex-
ternal Affairs Minister, Pearson
wrote an article saying “to main-
tain good relations with the U.S.
without sacrificing Our economic
or political national interests.
may well be the greatest pre-
occupation of Ottawa in the
years ahead.”

Tribune,
February 6, 1956

'

PRINCES’ VISIT
TO WOO MARKETS

The Prince of Wales, the Em-
pire’s Commercial Traveller-
in-Chief, accompanied by his
young brother George, set off
recently on his 18,000-mile tour
of South America.

The tour will no doubt pro-
vide them with plenty of

amusement, but its purpose is a ©

highly-serious one. Behind all

the gush and glitter lies the plain —

fact that the Prince of Wales is
the emissary of British imperial-
ism which is bent on one more
serious attempt to fight its Yan-
kee rivals for the markets of
South America.

British capitalists have over
$5-billion invested in the coun-
tries to which they are sending
the princes, but in each one they

are being ousted by the United ~

States. Britain’s share of imports

has dropped from 25 to 16% in

12 years. America’s share has

risen from 24 to 38% over the
same period. -

The Worker,

February 7, 1931

Profiteer of the week:

British Columbia Telephone Co., realized an
after-tax profit for 1980 of $61,915,000. Now
that’s a lot of coins in a lot of slots, up from
$51,849,000 a year earlier. And while these
figures were being run up B.C. Tel workers at
Nanaimo were sitting in to protest layoffs by
the corporation. :

Figures used are from the company's financial statements.

Editor — SEAN GRIFFIN
Associate Editor — FRED WILSON
Business on Circulation Manager — PAT O'CONNOR

Published weekly’at Suite 101 — 1416 Commercial Drive,
Vancouver, B.C. V5L 3X9. Phone 251-1186

Subscription Rate: Canada $10 one yr.; $6.00 for six months;
All other countries, $12 one year.

Second class mail registration number 1560

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FEB. 13, 1981—Page 4

EDITORIAL
COMMENT

38 years of Tory blight

Tory Ontario. A lot of people in their
40s can’t remember any other kind of
government.

Thirty-eight years ago, in 1943, Col-
onel George Drew, top hat and all, came
to power for Toryism, and the working
people have had the dirty end of the stick
ever since.

But there has never been a more
“promising” party than the Tories.
Drew’s famous 22 promises went with
him to the grave, unfulfilled. And the
Tories haven’t changed.

. Davis, the creature of the monopoly
corporations, the arch enemy of labor,
has performed in traditional Tory pre-
election style, with lavish promises. Well,
perhaps not all that lavish, considering
what his government has handed out to
corporations. But certainly lavish com-

pared to the grudging dregs left for so-'

cial programs, after the cruel and wan-
ton cutbacks.

The Davis government's most recent
achievement for his reactionary clique,
was the legalistic crushing of a much-
justified strike by the non-medical hospi-
tal workers in Ontario. They, without
contract since Sept. 1980, have been
fighting a year-by-year losing battle
against inflation (via forced arbitration),
and are now dragooned back to work.
That’s Toryism incarnate.

This dynasty of arrogant elitism be-
gan, as we said, 38 years ago with the
merciless Col. Drew. A slogan which
suggests itself — 38 and out! — might
ring a bell with trade unionists who have
seen seniority and jobs go down the

drain at an alarming rate, while Davis
claims’they’ve never had it so good.

If the ghost of George Drew hovers

behind the chair of Bill Davis, as it’s ru-
mored, it is probably right now regaling
the outgoing premier with the colonel’s
denunciation of the Family Allowances
Act, then being launched in Ottawa —

under the pressures federal govern-

ments sometimes feel.

Quoth Tory Colonel Drew on Aug. 9, — :

1944: “I assure you that the Government
of Ontario intends to do everything

within its power to make-sure that this
iniquitous bill does not go into effect . ..”

Davis wouldn’t say that, but behind the
scenes he’d cut the heart out of social
programs just as vital to the working
people of the province. .

Looking back can be instructive. On

the eve of Drew’s second try at the polls,

the Canadian Tribune of June 2, 1945
carried the headline: Vote Drew Out!
Jobs Main Issue. We couldn’t say better
for thoroughly modern Bill Davis.

~ There was another interesting feature
of that 1945 election. Of the then 90
legislature seats, the Drew Tories took

66, Liberals 11, and the CCF (Co-

operative Commonwealth Federation)
forerunner of the New Democrats, who

had smugly, and rather cavalierly, re-_
jected electoral cooperation with the

Communists to defeat the ‘Tories,
crashed from 34 seats to six! (The Com-
munists re-elected their two members at
that time.)

The coincidence is that the NDP now

holds almost exactly the same number of —
seats as before the 1945 election — 33.

Patriation a false issue

A public opinion poll currently being
conducted puts these questions: Are you
in favor of patriation? You’re then asked
to indicate your feelings — “strongly in
favor; in favor; opposed; strongly
opposed .. .”

The “patriation” argument swaying
back and forth in the Commons and ac-

ross the land, and who-said-what-to-_

whom in talks between British and
Canadian parliamentarians, obscures
and confuses the key questions.

Let’s look at what Canada needs — not
what it doesn’t. To begin with, Canada
doesn’t need the British North America
Act, patriated or not.

_ We do need a made-in-Canada Con-
stitution embodying a Bill of Rights.
Once this task is achieved, the question
of patriating a British Act, both in law
and in fact, will become a non-issue.

The principles underlying a genuine
Canadian constitution and to which the
debate should be focussed include:

e Recognition of the national aspira-
tions and the right to self-determination

of the French Canadian nation in -

Quebec. The constitution must be based
on the equal, voluntary partnership of
the English-speaking and French Cana-
dian peoples in a bi-national, sovereign,
independent Canada;

e The new constitution must establish

basic structural reforms based on the
need for all-sided economic develop-
ment in all parts of Canada, combined
with nationalization of all natural re-
sources, above all, energy resources;

e It must embody a Bill of Rights pro-

viding guarantees of human and demo- —

cratic rights for all Canadians;

e The constitution must include full —
recognition of the national identity of —

Canada’s Native peoples and their right

to self-determination, the enjoyment of

regional self-government, full rights to
their language and culture, including
rights to their land and resources.

To ensure equality of the two nations a
new. constitution should establish
Canada as a confederal republic with a
government consisting of two chambers:

one such as the House of Commons to- —

day, but based on representation by
population; the other to replace the Se-
nate, to be composed of an equal number
of representatives from each of the na-
tions as well as guaranteed represen-
tation from the Native peoples.

The
government should be withdrawn and
steps taken to adopt a genuine Canadian
constitution drafted by Canadians. Seen

in this light, the “patriation” debate be-_
~ comes the smokescreen it really it.

present resolution of the —

|