CANADA'S ROLE CRITICIZED Laboratory for CB war research CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL - WARFARE, SOME IMPLICA- TIONS FOR SOCIETY, by Da- vid Shephard, M.D. Published by the JIM LAWSON MEMO- RIAL FUND, P,O. Box 21, Vic- = B.C. Copies: 25 cents This eight-page pamphlet is must reading for people who want a short, concise descrip- tion of chemical and biological warfare (CBW) and would like to understand in clear terms what role Canada plays in the research, manufacture and sup- ply of these weapons. Dr. Shephard is a lecturer at Dalhousie University in Halifax and a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility. He dedi- cates this pamphlet to “Children of the Shadows of war, in the hope that they may some day live in the Sunshine of Peace”. Dr. Shephard bases his . study upon his belief that scientists and doctors, indeed all thinking people, must speak out if we recognize evil. And speak he does. The pam- phlet begins with the eye-open- er that as far back as the 18th Century, during the conquest of Canada, General Sir Jeffrey Am- herst approved the idea of send- ing smallpox-infested’ blankets as a means of wiping out the Indians. And, according to Dr. Shephard, Canada has not flag- ged in keeping up to this day. He deals in detail with CB weapons, describing the various kinds and their effects. (e.g.; compared to a 20 megaton ther- monuclear bomb dropped upon an area which would affect 75— 100 square miles, its equivalent in a biological weapon dropped would affect 34,000 square miles). He describes the work to perfect as weapons some of the 160 infectious diseases known to man; points out the fact that CB weapons, both as applied against humans and against environment are being experimented with widely in Vietnam. : The political role of Canada comes under the gun: “The implications of Canada’s international policy also give rise to concern. The legal basis for Canadian’ policy is the Gene- va Protocol of 1925, which pro- hibits the use of CB weapons, at any rate on a ‘no first use’ basis. Canada, having ratified this agreement, is expected to, ‘exert every effort’ to urge non-ratify- ing countries, such as the U.S.A. to do so. Canada’s supposedly non-aggressive posture has per- mitted her to support similar resolutions adopted by the U.N., including one in 1968 which led to the preparation of a Report, for the benefit of the world’s _ peoples, on the dangers of CBW. “Yet there is another face be- hind the mask worn at the U.N. Canada is intimately involved in The Technical Cooperation. Program (TTCP), a program which, with the cooperation of U.S.A., the U.K: and Australia, seeks to improve the ‘combined efficiency of these four coun- tries and (minimize) duplica- tion of effort,’ in the various CBW programs. Canada also of- fers the members of TTCP an ‘open-air laboratory’, so that they can ‘rely on Canada to pro- vide . . . scientific and technical know-how to help them do the sampling and measuring’ of bac- terial materials. Such an_inti- mate association: with U.S.A., a nation which has no compunc- tion about using chemical wea- pons in Vietnam, and which steadfastly refuses to ratify the Geneva Protocol, is hardly con- sistent with q purely defensive policy. When it is learned that Canadian exports to the U.S.A. of strategically-potential mater- ials, such as defoliants, have risen sharply since the escala- tion of the Vietnam war, this defensive policy loses both its reality and its sincerity. Canada does not stock-pile chemical or biological weapons but she is ‘prepared to replenish U.S. stocks of defoliants, depleted by . their increasing use in Vietnam. “The basic. charges to be nade against Canadian CBW policy, which the Canadian taxpayer is compelled to support without having access to the significant facts, are those of hypocrisy and duplicity. How otherwise can we reconcile participation in secret military research pro- grams such as TTCP with our government’s claim that Canada seeks to abolish the dangers of CBW, dangers which Canada, one of the major powers invol- ved in CBW research, aggra- vates through the very secrecy of her program? In the words of the Pugwash group: “ ‘Nations which. build their national security on secrecy of scientific development, sacrifice the interests of peace and of the progress of science for tempor- ary advantages... .’” This pamphlet should be wide- ly circulated. It is certainly one of. the best Canadian studies made to date not only because it sets out the problem and the facts, but because if offers posi- tive alternatives. —T.M. V.I. Lenin | A Canadian view of By ALAIN PATRIE * Viadimir Ilyich Lenin was born in Russia at Simbirsk, a century ago, on April 9, 1870. How does one pay homage, in capsule form, to one of the greatest minds of our epoch? If we are to discuss his boy- hood, it seems nothing rare can be related. A fun-loving child, 4 reportedly bright and mischiev- ous. A story, possibly apocry- phal, recounted how the young lad was fascinated or impressed by this plaintive verse: The rich man worries all night long Beside his money bags; The poor man sings a jolly song Although he’s dressed in rags. But a pedagogue could detect the marvelous: essence of a genius. That inner spirit reveal- ed itself time and time again through his remarkable talent of devoting himself singlemindedly to duty. This ability to diligen- tly persevere, to. discipline his energy so as to master the universal truths and achieve the ultimate goals, was the fibrous mold in which his genius lay. As a youth and studegt, even while pursuing his studie$ and career, he began the initial confronta- tions that preceded a long chain of years and struggle. How can one examine his life work in a short paragraph? To extract a microcosm from his world ideology? To extract ran- dom kernels, in his own words, might suggest the scope of his powerful thoughts even though we may risk an affront. Read: ‘On the causes of reality: “Laws are essential relations.” - On Marxism in general: ‘‘The most essential thing in Marxism is the concrete analysis of con- crete conditions.” On the working class state: “Only he is a Marxist who re- cognizes the dictatorship of the proletariat.” On goals: “We are marching far beyond the end of any péas- ant movement, we are march- ing to the very end of the divi- sion of society into classes.” On politics: “Politics is a con- centrated expression of the eco- nomy.” a On revolution: ‘Revolution comes when the bourgeoisie is no longer able (to rule), the pro- letariat no longer willing (to endure).” On bourgeois freedom: “All your talk about freedom and de- mocracy is sheer claptrap, par- rot phrases, fashionable twaddle - PACIFIC TRIBUNE—DECEMBER 19, 1969—Poge 10, or hypocricy.” On socialist errors compared to capitalist errors: “The mis- takes we make are like making ‘two plus two equal five,’ where —as the mistake they make are like making, ‘two plus two equal a tallow candle’.” ‘ As a revolutionary and as an ideologist he reigned supreme. But the zenith was reached when he became the first statesman and state architect of socialism. It was he who initiated, welded and fashioned the federation of nations that became the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. As he marched with his beloved “iron battalions,” one could dis- cern his path, range upon range, until he had reached the_ulti- mate summit and could look across the panorama of time and the humanity of the future was revealed to him. His vision over- came the handicaps of most men and gave him the gift of what we call prophecy. The turbulent years exacted their toll. Again in his own words, “The nature of a finite being is to move towards its end.” He died at Gorki, near Mos- cow, January '21, 1924. Lenin was the most human of humans. If a human is to be- come truly human, a part of humanity, then his morality, his self-interest—for that is moral- ity—must merge into the self- interest of humanity. Then, in the words of Karl Marx, “Over his ashes hot tears will be shed by noble people.” Federal-provincial old merry-go-roun By WILLIAM BEECHING Another Fedéral-Provincial Conference is now’ history. The fourth conference on Constitu- tion review failed to produce agreement on a single important issue. The real interests of the working people of Canada were neither represented nor dealt with. It was a cruel game played by Canada’s leading politicians at the expense of the working peo- _ple, in which the securing of the - profits of the big monopolies, and the diverting of the taxes paid by the people to benefit the capitalists, was the jackpot. Fundamental to the conflict be- tween federal and _ provincial governments, ever since 1867, are the struggles of the big monopolies and the capitalist class for preferred positions. None of the main problems of working people were touched— the problems of jobs and poverty, the crises in farming, housing, education, recreation and medi- cal services, the breakdown of life in the cities, pollution, etc. Trudeau’s Just Society is as re- mote as ever, and Canadian “dis- unity” graver. In fact Canada’s premiers are sitting on a vol- cano. The provincial premiers strug- gled to limit federal spending on social reforms. Proposals on eco- nomic disparities were deferred. The premiers turned down shar- ed-cost programs. They opposed writing the question of regional disparity into a new Constitu- tion. Not a single step was taken to solve the urgent crises affec- ting every facet of life. The federal government raised the question of a guaranteed an- nual income. Asked if he was in favor, Premier Robarts of Onta- rio replied, “I don’t know that I really am. There are some things about it that I don’t like at all.” Premiers W.A.C. Bennet of B.C., Harry Strom of Alberta, joined with Saskatchewan’s Ross Thatcher to denounce the federal -government’s proposals for in- come tax changes. Thatcher talk- ed of a prairie crisis and separa- tism, and Finance Minister Edgar J. Benson just smiled. Representatives of municipali- ties were there calling for a fed- eral-provincial-municipal Consti- tutional conference. Mayor Allan O’Brien of Halifax, president of the Canadian Federation of May- ors and Municipalities, said the needs of the municipalities today are astronomical and urgent. Trudeau refused, - declaring ‘that federal intervention in the ‘cities would be an invasion of provincial rights: Robarts . of Ontario stated that his govern- ment is considering turning over the powers of planning, land: de- - velopment, hospital care, homes for the aged, counselling in social programs, to the cities. Without Vietnam War Victim Crawford in U.S, News. and World Report _ stitution. radical and progressive che in the Constitution, involving democratic changing of the base, this would simply bé “vice to further load the ™ burden on the shoulders ° workers. ; There could, of course, federal-provincial conferen day without the question of bec’s sovereignty emerging one form or another. The 4 ist press depicted a Pret, Jean-Jacques Bertrand stant” alone, threatening feder@” with a demand for decen tion, demanding that the f government must turn over ‘welfare and income supplem payments to the provinces with sufficient tax revenues finance them. ; Because there is involved 47 tional question, the special ©. mands made by Quebec are by the federal government excuse to stall on reforms by the Bertrand government stall on them in Quebec), to the provinces as though were near states, and to Quebec as though it was 4 of maverick provincial g° ment. se There was a deliberate & to create an impression t Premier Bertrand could be 3 from his position, all woul clear sailing, and it would ™ be possible for the Trudeau” ministration to give Cana the things they need. Quite reverse. Neither Premier deau nor Premier Bertrand h# any intention of doing that. And, of course, the proble arises of the right of provin use funds earmarked for %, particular purpose, such a5 7 Robarts government placing $176 millions given the pro’ by Ottawa, earmarked for care, into its general funds stead of reducing medicare P iums. Trudeau declared that could not understand Que” particular attachment to co? ling old age pensions. Ber replied, “We might want t0 the money for something el It was claimed that the 897, the conference was a new =, Obviously win? such a Constitution deman@) | high level of struggle. To s@! ¢ ‘the needs of the majority ° people, it would need to ch the tax base to place the bul of taxation on those who ‘ the money; it would havé 9. guarantee equality of opp! ity, of employment and edi 3 Af guy tion, of medical and recreati™y ‘services, everywhere in Call ‘It would have to guaranteé tional sovereignty to Canada. It would have to 8". antee equality for women, % come regional disparity, ext democracy at the muncipal !€¥, and resolve the problems © ing the cities. It would hav make the plans to deliber4 uproot another million rural ple a crime, and end the s@ Canada’s natural resources foreign ownership. : Trudeau shrugs off the co? enceas a “useful exercise” W 4 prairie farmers talk separati and the rising cost of living up incomes and pensions. of a pragmatic turn of cynically claim that the co? ence gave Prime Minister deau a dandy election platfo The conference exposed failure of capitalism, its la democracy, and the need [0 united struggle by the Canae people to curb the great p? of the monopolies and to » democratic reform.