QUEBEC TODAY

By SAM WALSH

We were proud when the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Pierre
Elliott Trudeau, singled out the trade union movement in Quebec
as his special target a few weeks ago because of the latter’s “Marx-
ism,” of its recognition of the reality of the class struggle, of the
role of the state as a “mechanism of our exploitation” and as a
weapon of state-monopoly capitalism; because of its discovery that
the working class needs consistent political action independent of
the bourgeois parties; because of its declarations in favor of self-
determination for the French-Canadian nation; because of its open
statements for socialism. z

Yes, we were proud, for when the spokesmen of the monopolies
ring the alarm bells, we can be sure we’re on the right road.

We were proud, let’s be frank about it, when René Lévesque
aligned himself incongruously with Trudeau against the trade union
movement’s declaration in favor of the establishment of its own
mass party of labor. The petty bougeoisie trembles before the per-
spective of the working class organized politically as well as eco-
nomically as a class for itself. For it is through such declarations
of René Lévesque added to his denunciation of the magnificent
united demonstration of the three central labor bodies in October
1971, that the working class learns the hard lesson that we can
“only rely on our means.”

But it’s quite another thing when the president of the Canadian
Labor Congress, Mr. Donald McDonald, hurls the same accusations

of “Marxism” against the Quebec Federation of Labor and threatens
employees of the CLC who work in Quebec with being fired if they.

follow the orientation decided by the Quebec Federation of Labor’s
recent convention. This has been revealed a few weeks before the
convention of the CLC. We are not at all proud of this. On the con-
trary, it’s shameful. =

I face of the anger of the QFL and of the majority of CLC em-
-ployees working in Quebec, Mr. McDonald has denied expressing
such sentiments in a secret meeting in December. But the truth

rsists. 4
pe why has Mr. McDonald attacked the policies of the QFL decid-
cided in their last convention? :

If he is horror-stricken by the recognition of the reality of the
class struggle, is this not an affirmation of his own cowardly devo-
tion to the shameful theory and practice of class collaboration, of
the subordination of the interests of the working class to the sys-
em of capitalist wage-slavery? . :

If he is horror-stricken by the statement that the state isa “mech-
anism of our exploitation” by state-monopoly capitalism, is this not
an affirmation of his devotion to the theory that the state stands
above classes? And the police clubs that crack the skulls of demon-
strators, do they do likewise to the skull of Paul Desmarais of
Power Corporation? :

For Mr. MacDonald NDP leader David Lewis seems to be tops as
a leader worthy of leading the working class to its social and natio-
nal emancipation. But this graduate of the London School of Econo-
mics isn’t acceptable to the workers of Quebec who regard him as
a condescending politician.

For Mr. McDonald, to speak of.self-determination for the French-
Canadian nation means automatic separation. The question arises:
why are you so convinced that if the French-Canadians had the
right to divorce that they would immediately use it to divorce?
Is your conscience bothering you, Mr. McDonald? Do you see your
fortunes closely linked with those of the capitalist class against
whom you were chosen to lead the fight? ;

Finally, as to the denunciation of the capitalist system and the
declaration in favor of socialism, what would you have liked them
to say? The very opposite, as had Louis Laberge, president of the
QFL, a few short months ago? But Louis Laberge appears to have
Jearned something from the class struggle and from the pressure
from below. And you, McDonald? You are susceptible too, aren’t
you? If not, why all your protestations of innocence with respect
to threats to CLC employees in Quebec?

The present situation places the working class and particularly
the Communists face-to-face with the political problem which Lenin
posed so well. We are at the eve of the convention of the CLC in
May. What is the duty of Communists in English Canada? What is
the duty of Communists in Quebec?

Delegates from unions in English Canada must declare squarely
for the right of the QFL to criticize class collaboration policies and
to support class struggle policies; for the right of the QFL to de-
nounce state-monopoly and to favor independent political action of
the working class; for the right of the QFL to denounce the capi-
talist system and to declare for Socialism; and, we stress, for the
right to national self-determination for the French-Canadian na-
tion in Quebec, up to and including the right to separation. The
delegates from English Canada ought not only to demand these
rights for the QFL, but these policies of the QFL should become
the policy of the CLC. }

On the other hand, delegates affiliated to the QFL should not

only be the vanguard fighters for these policies, all of them, but

an additional responsibility, which no worker worthy
ore sane can deny. They must fight for organic unity of the
Canadian working class. Not on the basis of class collaboration,
not at all. But on the basis on the common struggle against imperial-
ism, against state-monopoly capitalism. ae
We are duty bound to repeat, even if it displeases some leaders
of the QFL, that the campaign for French unilingualism in the
schools is harmful and unrealistic. j
A language cannot be imposed by coercion, only by the demands
of capitalist commerce. Let’s not put spokes in the wheel of our
liberty chariot by picking up the divisive slogans of the bourgeoisie.
Let us advance the struggle for unity of the working class around
the fine new orientation taken in the last convention of the QFL

by -fighting>for..self-determination..withaut. falling. into. the.trap.of...ployees and workers: ini.

~ narrow: nationalisat. Y4nt $344 vAGla=-"U@iranslated from Combat)
PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1972—PAGE 8

MONTREAL—A further move
has been made to unify and co-
ordinate actions of the labor
movement in this city. At a re-
cent meeting of the Montreal
Labor Council a resolution was

passed asking the Montreal
Confederation of National Trade
Unions, Central Labor (CNTU),
the Montreal Teachers Associa-
tion (QTC) to form a planning
committee to study the struc-
ture of a regional coordination
committee, which will act as
the liaison in the initiating of
common actions.

In other labor news from
Montreal, 15 unemployed work-
ers sent as inspectors to 25 con-
struction sites during the week
of Jan. 24-31 by the Montreal
Construction Union (CNTU)
found not less than 160 serious
infractions of 34 security regul-
ations.

Who was it that charged big,
crippling strikes and wage set-
tlements in excess of produc-
tivity as being responsible for
cost-push inflation in the United
States? It was President Nixon’s
Secretary of Labor, Mr. James

D. Hodgson, speaking at a
White House Conference on the
Industrial World Ahead, Febru-
ary 7th, this year. The confer-
ence was exploring goals and
problems of the U.S. economy
for the next two decades and
was attended by the elite of the
business and industrial world
along with government officials.

Who was it that said ‘“me
too” and faithfully echoed the
same sentiments as the agents
of the employers and govern-
ment in the American trade
union movement? Why, George

Meany, of course! Who else, but ©

the so-called leader of over 13
million organized workers in the
United States who has. openly
boasted that he never was in a

strike or walked on a picket line, -

would come out with such boss
propaganda.

For boss propaganda it is, and
most dangerous anti-labor pro-
paganda at that.

Leaders of the Canadian Labor
Congress were quick this time,
fortunately, to take issue with
Mr. Meany.

William Dodge, _ secretary-

. treasurer of the CLC is quoted

as saying that nothing prevents
people from accepting volun-
tary mediation or arbitration as
a means of settling labor dis-
putes. “But we don’t think many
people will be interested in
that method of settlement, and
we don’t think it would affect
materially the incidence of
strikes.

“We are greatly concerned
about the fact that it would be
a very short step from wide-
spread voluntarily arbitration to
compulsory arbitration imposed
by government legislation.”
Mr. Dodge is right on the
beam this time. Only the most
cursory glance at the bargain-
ing picture across Canada this
year proves that.

Look at the government em-

services across the country. The

public i»that labor

scored by Toronto labo

Delegates to the Labor Coun-
cil of Metropolitan Toronto res-
ponded to AFL-CIO President
George Meany, who recently ad-
vocated binding arbitration,
agreed on voluntarily by both
parties, as a substitute for
strikes. In their response, the
delegates endorsed the state-
ment by CLC President Donald
MacDonald, that “we have no
knowledge of any substitute for
a strike. It is a part of the col-
lective bargaining . . . a last
resort. No one yet has come up
with a realistic alternative, and
until they do it will continue to
be used at the discretion of our
membership.”

Although the delegates en-
dorsed the statement, many felt
that it was not strong enough,
and cries that “Meany is ob-
solete and should be replaced”
arose from the floor. One trade
unionist pointed out that “We
don’t need labor leaders to tell
us the position of big business.”

Several other delegates also

A
: Ast
stressed that here in Call os
unions that are placeé hat
compulsory arbitration @ “y
as a result of this legal jit,
in WHEE

jacket, maintain parity ‘
shaeases with unions thae™
the right to strike. CE
As to the charge of whe whe
or not Mr. Meany is obs?) Clar
President Meany answer
himself when he was aske@)See_
recent interview, “Why ® ytéce
total membership (of
unions) not growing a5 7°
the country’s labor force he
he answered, “I don’t kn!
don’t care.” ih
On the municipal front
Council approved a report |
the Municipal Committee nat
recommended that, now ‘eth
judgment has been 1 int) ¥
concerning the conflict ys ieen
est charge against Ben GIY 41+ f
City Council reconsider ia INE
vious position and take 4
and unequivocal stand for ™ |

man Grys’ resignation.
ry; g

civil service got their choice of
collective bargaining with the
right to strike, or voluntary and
binding arbitration. Those who
chose voluntary arbitration have
ended up with the short end of
the stick. Those who chose col-
lective bargaining with the right
to strike have found the Treas-
ury Board unwilling to bargain
in good faith. The result has
been strikes of postal workers,
Air Canada personnel, CBC per-
sonnel and probably once again
postal workers this spring. The
idea seems to be to use: this
tactic as a means of stepping up
public hysteria about strikes
and thus soften up the public
for acceptance of compulsory
arbitration in public services.
Once this is done, the strike
weapon will be outlawed and
the government will define the
guidelines for the settlement of
wage and salary disputes in the
same way as Premier W. A. C.
Bennett of British Columbia now
has done with the teachers of
that province.

Once the principle is estab-
lished in the public services it
will be taken hold of by priv-
ate industry. Free collective
bargaining, backed up: by the
right to withdraw one’s services
(i.e. to strike) will be replaced
by a modern form of slavery.

What must be understood
here is that we live in a class
society in which the incentive
for capital investment in pro-
ductive activity and in provision
of public services is private
profit. Labor — the propertyless
class in our society — sells its
labor-power for wages in order
to live and reproduce more labor
power. In such a society, labor
has no way to determine the
price of its labor power other
than through collective bargain-
ing backed up by the right to
strike. Without organization
and the right to strike labor

will be completely at the mercy ~

of the few rich corporations
who control the economy with

the help of capitalist govern-
ments,

It was not so long ago that
George Meany peddled the lie

come middle class. “When you

_ person who has a home, t0*”

ins America shad. bens

have no property, you thie
have anything; you have NO”
to lose by these radic@ |,
tions,” said old Georgé,
ing strikes, of course.

“But when you becal

a

em

servative,” said he. i$
But even George Meany. at
to acknowledge now that ct #
single major labor contra out
recent years has gone to vate
tary arbitration, while there 3a
been strikes and continu®,
be strikes in many vita ic
large industries and serv
Indeed it would be naive
pect anything else in a re pC
where the monopolies TU , a
the interests of monopoly Fig) th
fits and where their malt jj,
is reduction of workers oll
wages, whether this be dom we) Di
means of cheap wage ff fb
ments or through price ti
and heavy government tant of «
of workers’ incomes, or pe | a
all three at the same tim@ 47
There is no use to kee? af
guessing about so-called ‘.)
systems of handling labot
putes in a class society af
workers are exploited more if
more viciously, and the 5 a
gle for existence is now 48
of economic warfare. q
Indeed, workers are pect
ing expert at new and re af
tactics in this economic | 4
fare, such as the postal wo inh
initiated with their rol 9s
strikes. Today CBC technic™,y
have extended this metho (j
a tactic where “the rule 4)
thumb is maximum damage
programming with miniM 7,
loss of wages while mounti? ‘a
maximum load on the cor
tion payroll.” 5 ao
Workers will not willingly ish
cept anything less than a ly ,
wage and will develop thei! ap
tical approach to ways wai
means of conducting econ! .”
war against their exploiters ay
til they will finally see thesia
clear to abolish the whole ®
tem of exploitation and re? Bs
it by a society based ¥

aft &

epublic ownership and contro

the means of wealth produ