on the The political pot is boiling ELECTION FRONT By WILLIAM KASHTAN, leader Communist Party In the 1968 federal election campaign the dominant sections of corporate wealth threw their weight and finances behind Mr. Trudeau. It wasn’t his charisma which charmed them but his “one Canada one nation” theme combined with the assertion of a more independent’ stance by Canada in international affairs. Whether corporate wealth considers the danger of separat- ism to have lessened on the eve of another election is beside the point. What is evident is that the “one Canada one nation” theme is not the cementing fac- tor it was and that it is now being replaced, at least in some reactionary quarters, by the so- called English backlash, by rac- ism, both directed to undermin- ing Trudeau’s electoral support in English - speaking Canada. From being the hero who kept the country united, Mr. Trudeau is now being depicted as the head of the “Montreal Mafia” aiming to hand the country over to the French Canadian people. The Tory papers which had nothing but good. to say about Mr. Trudeau in 1968 and for a _short period after, have sharp- _ ened their knives against him, whilst corporate wealth appears to be shifting its support from Mr. Trudeau to Mr. Stanfield. This seems to be indicated by the way in which the financial ana “business intérests which elected Mr. Davis as _ prime minister of Ontario, are now throwing their weight behind Mr. Stanfield. This was made evident at the recent $100 a plate banquet for Mr. Stanfield, to which 2,000 business and fin- ancial people turned up. At this banquet Mr. Stanfield outlined the kind of program he would implement if elected prime minister. “First of all” he said, ‘we will follow through on our expressed priority of finding jobs for people who need them and want them .. . This is our first priority ... Jobs can be created where they must be created — in the private sector by restoring confidence . . . Con- fidence can be restored by poli- cies that appeal to the initiative of Canadian businessmen . We offer incentives . . .” That is a commitment Mr. Stanfield fol- lowed up by another commit- ment: “We will trim the fat off Confrontation in MONTREAL—The public and para-public employees, who number some 200,000 in Que- bec, are in confrontation with an intransigent government. What is of immediate interest is that some 80,000 of these employees are Quebec school teachers who are themselves embroiled in a minor internecine quarrel which may have far reaching implications. With the advent of the now apparent economic difficulties which assailed the province, the government in league with monopoly has determined to al- ter the conditions of the teach- ers in order to trim the educa- tion budget as much as pos- sible. Conceived in the rigid minds of the ministry of education, the assault adopted a two-pronged attack. On the one hand it was to reduce the. salaries and on the other hand the scheme was to increase and lengthen. the daily work load. The reduction in salaries was accomplished by the govern- ment’s arrogant and wholesale declassification of thousands of teachers. It is instructive to note that those most skied, those with graduate or post graduate degrees were mainly affected. The majority of rural teachers with simple certificates were on. the contrary rewarded with a token rise in salary. This served the government in good . stead for it divided the teachers; not to mention the damage it did for education in Quebec. The lengthening of the school day was first extended by 15 minutes and is now proceeding to 35 minutes. This may not seem acute but it must be re- called that teachers spend con- siderable time after school in class preparation and correction so that the total time spent in school is considerably longer than what is apparent. Another ruse affected by the ministry has increased the pupil-teacher ratio towards lim- its which confirm a lamentable worsening of proper education. Some of the rigtiteous dis- ACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, MARCH 1Z; claimers made by the board where they cite a legal ratio of 27 to 1 is really an appeal to the credulous. These calculations are made by counting every teacher specialist as a. class teacher and at times includes principals or vice principals to reduce the average class size. The government has managed to accomplish all this through orders in council and regula- tions which of course obviates negotiating with the teacher’s unions. What really serves to mirror the government’s contempt for the teachers is the fact that they have not signed a contract for a long time. In the words of one bitter school teacher, “We are the only syndicate iKnow of who every time we negotiate on suggested terms find that we have been penalized by losing rights we once had!” Latterly the Province has in- troduced plans to crack down on sick leave for teachers, liter- ally forcing them to work dur- ing illness or forfeit the first two days of obsence. ‘This incredible attack must not only be seen as injurious to thousands of teachers but as a regl_and manifest strategy to undermine the ediication of hundreds of thousands of chil- dren. Youngsters cannot thrive in classes that are clogged or with teachers discouraged from improving their specialties and thus losing their professional elan. For thousands of Montreal children the only solution to the dreadful facilities, the indiffer- ent teachers and choked inner city is to literally drop out. In the light of all this maneuv- ering by the Province, the two teachers’ unions — CEQ/PAPT joined forces in an exhibition of militant unity and _ declared themselves part of the Common Front, which consists of the three trade union centrals (QFL/CNTU/CEQ) of Quebec who consequently declared that they wished the government to negotiate with all the public and para-public employees at one bargaining table. This of 1972—PAGE 8 government spending.” These commitments to cor- porate wealth are fairly clear. What is good for them is good for the country and a give-away program to corporate wealth is equivalent to an act of high patriotism. And “trimming the fat off government spending” is essentially a threat to skin the hide off the working people, something corporate wealth un- derstands very well. This explains the shifts which appear to be developing in high finance as to which should be their preferred party in the coming federal election. However, some sections of monopoly are not sure whether .the Conservatives can swing it by themselves — that is — form a government, be it a minority or majority government. They are calling for the formation of a right-wing parliamentary bloc which would include the Conser- vative, Social Credit and per- haps Action Canada. This was the gist of an editorial in the Toronto Sun, only a few days ago. It is interesting to note how the Globe and Mail has been Quebec course was an outgrowth of the provincial Bill 46 which stated that only province-wide nego- tiation would be considered. At the outset of negotiations last June, the Common Front wanted to discuss only the prin- ciples involved in wage bargain- ing with the government. They tried to get a clear picture of Quebec financing in the years ahead so they could determine what sum the government could pay its employees. It should be underlined that Quebec civil servants who earn $10,000 a year or more number about 2,500 but those who earn less than 5,000 dollars a year are legion. At present a government typ- ist earns between $3,208 and $4,208 a year. A stenographer between $3,233 and $4,843. There are messengers who take home a weekly wage of $57. “These people have to pay the same price for bread and clothing as anybody else. . .” says Jean-Paul Breuleux, presi- dent of the Quebec Civil Serv- ants’ Union. : The Common Front was not interested in how much the government said it had avail- able, but rather how much the government could actually af- ford. This meant that the unions would have to find out about budgetary factors in Quebec. Given a clearer picture of the government’s finances they would then have presented wage demands which estimates place at about $450 million more over the next three years. Quebec claimed they were ready to pay about $225 million over the same period. The real issue was clarified when Quebec cabinet minister Mr. L’Allier balked at what he termed “meddling” by the union in confidential government af- fairs. Thus the “employer” was exercising his “lordly” rights. In turn the unions accused the government of ‘deliberately trying to sabotage the negotia- tions,’ by splitting the main bargaining unit into 75 groups —all to negotiate separately. playing up Mr. Caouette and Social Credit recently. The man they considered a mountebank, and the party they considered the “funny money” party, has taken on a new image for them. The Social Credit conference in Regina recently, which mus- tered a few over a hundred peo- ple, was given top coverage by the Globe and Mail. Why? There is an obvious effort here to give tacit and perhaps more than tacit support to Social Credit in Quebec, to make it the Conservative off- shoot in that province with the aim of eating intq Liberal Party strength, and to give it or Ac- tion Canada support in other areas where the Conservatives may not make it themselves, Such a strategy, they hope, will pay off. It would be harmful to under- estimate this drive to push poli- tics to the right, the aim of which is to take away the lim- ited gains won by the people, to further strengthen monopoly power and undermine the grow- ing people’s opposition to U.S. domination. This drive to the right is fed This of course runs headlong into the Common Front concept. In the midst of this urgent struggle which encompasses much more than the question of salary, the Protestant Teacher’s union, either dazzled by _ illu- sions of a paternal government or under hallucination, commit- ted a grave error. At a hastily called press con- ference last week, Donald Pea- cock, president of the Montreal Teachers - Association announc- ed that forthwith the PAPT and thus the MTA could no longer support the Common _ Front strategy. In a mealy-mouthed declara- tion of differences, Mr. Peacock pointed out that: 1. They criticized the govern- ment’s negotiation attitude. 2. They understood the mo- tives of the common front for demanding a single table for public sector monetary de- mands. 3. An affirmation of our ur- gent priority (my bold A. P.) need to obtain a reasonable contract quickly. 4. A plea to the common front to abandon any further attempts to set up such a table since it delayed negotiations and diverted energies from con- by growing dissatisfactioh illusionment and _ dis with the Trudeau govel and its policies. The drive to the right i") defeated by united action © labor and democratic move around a program which > an alternative to the politi state monopoly capitalism Communist Party works such unity not to adml capitalism and make work better for monopoly in order to weaken and Cll and create the conditions” putting and end to capitalis™ Support for the campalgly the Communist Party and [0 candidates will be a vital P@ the battle to shift politics ©, left, defeat the forces % . right and elect a large pmb sive bloc to Parliament. Union assets The assets banked in on : of all the unions operar this country are LESS a We assets of any ONE 29% giants: Hudson Bay Mining Smelting, Moore Colt ( Thomson Newspapers ? minco Ltd., Denison Ming Goodyear Tire and Rubbe of Canada, Abitibi Pape! or Dominion Stores Ltd _u.A.w. GUARD tract coritents to nes” | structures. ast The embarrassing 0! this expediency serve but the cause of the ®if ment. It alienates the ie cleus of organized labor nod lies all the strength ® 9) serve the exacerbate as i French rivalry as Wet (7 ter the concrete unity | lish-French labor. he The government on i hand, though seldom may find it beneficial t the English union a? split the Common From 8 It is ironic to note ue days later the Provin(T ad ciation of Catholic f (English-speaking and otis group of 1,500) ech)’ action of the PAPT an® | the Common Front. oat) The role the English al have chosen to play Pf) P gerous one. Although ey f the struggle is an ec? ‘ou! there are basic and se” tical ramifications 5 When Yvon Charbon t a ee t ad sident of the CEQ was %, iit the Canadian Tribun€ | ai ment on the English is actions, he threw UP fl in dismay. “They understand Quebec,”