CANADA'S CRISIS: ‘Need entirely new relations’ The 85,000-word report of the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, tabled in the Commons last week, stressed that there is a large, dynamic and distinct French-speaking society ‘ strongly dissatisfied” with present conditions. It also emphasized that wide- ranging negotiations must be initiated to work out a truly equal partnership between English and French-speaking societies. The Commission's report has now lifted up this question to num- ber one importance in Canadian life. Recently the Communist Party published a small pamphlet entitled: “TWO NATIONS — ONE COUNTRY,” which sets out in clear and concise terms the nature of the problem and what must be done about it. The pamphlet, written by Nelson Clarke, sells for 5c and is available at the People’s Co-op Bookstore or the CP office, 503 Ford Bldg., Vancouver. Following are some pertinent excerpts from that pamphlet: ; ie do French Canadians want? Is Quebec really going to leave Confederation? These kind of questions are being’ asked on every hand by English Canadians, But before coming to this, let us put another question. What do Canadians as a whole want for our country? “Would it not be true to say that Canadians in their majority want Canada to be prosperous and independent, to make the fullest contribution to establishing and maintaining peace inthe world; that we want democracy and freedom to be steadily strengthened; that we believe that policies should be followed by governments which will advance the well-being and living standards of the Canadian people,.., “If we think in these terms it follows that it would be very much in the interests of BOTH French and English Canadians to co-operate together for these common goals, and to work out whatever constitutional changes are necessary to further this co-operation, It follows, too, that we should look for the causes of disunity between our two people and seek to remove them, “But this will not be brought about by pretending that a real problem of relationships between French and English Canadians does not exist, or by passing off that problem as unimportant ,., .To come right to the heart of the matter, we in English Canada have to face upto the fact that French Canada is a nation, ERR “Fundamentally, the problem is that the French-Canadian people are not, and never have been recognized as a nation, Peter Gzowski put the matter quite well when he wrote in Maclean’s Magazine for Sept, 7, 1963 that French Canadians “want to run their own nation, to decide their own fate, They want to be not a minority but partners in Canada—or they want a country in which they can be the majority. , . .’ “This determination to make their basic national decisions for themselves grows ever more strongly in this age of great world change when so many other nations (many of them smaller and weaker than French Canada) are winning indepen- dence and beginning to work out their own future, , .. sei ee “This then is what French Canadians want, What should be the response of those who live in English Canada? We will have to recognize the right of French Canadians to run their own affairs, including their right to separate from us if they so decide, “There is no use trying to ignore the problem and hoping that it will go away. While it would be good for our own cultural development if more English Canadians could speak French, this is’ not going to meet the demand of French Canada for recognition of their rights as a nation, To try and insist that French Canada must remain joined with English Canada and accept continued inequality under the present conditions will only worsen relations, and could even lead to the terrible disaster of civil war, Should we in English Canada decide then that nothing can be done, and that we might as well accept the inevitability of separation? It is one thing to recognize the RIGHT of French Canada to separate, It is quite another thing to accept such separation as unavoidable, For separation would mean the end of Canada as we have known it, It would mean that each of the two parted nations would be weakened and would fall more and more under U,S, domination, “It would mean the end of the dream ofa great country reaching from sea to sea, It would mean an end to all that has been good in the relations of French and English Canadians, and despite all our differences there has been much that was good—the labor of our two peoples in building a new country out of the wilderness, the battles fought together in defense of our land, the common struggles for democracy and a better life, “Surely, it isin the best interests of both English Canadians and French Canadians to look for NEW forms of co-operation that will make it possible forus to continue to live together and work together for the mutual good of both, “But to achieve this will require the working out of a new ‘relationship—a completely voluntary partnership based on full equality, It will require the scrapping of the old and outdated British North America Act, andthe writing ofa new constitution for our country, which will spell out in clear langtiage that new relationship. .. .” Time U.S. changed foreigt policy says George Kennan n indication of the sober tone that prevailed among the “western oriented” personalities that took part in “Pacem in Ter- ris” convocation at the United Nations in New York was the speech of George F, Kennan, for- mer ambassador to the USSR.and Yugosalvia and generally re- ferred to as the major expert in America’s diplomatic circles on the Soviet Union, Kennan concluded his analysis of what he sees as faulty in the approach of the Nato allies with “a plea for something resembling a new act of faith in the ultimate humanity and sobriety of the people on the other side: and I would like to address this pleato our communist contemporaries as well as to ourselves,” Kennan singled out for critic- ism four major characteristics of Western policy: 1, “The assumption of a strong Soviet desire to attack” the West- ern half of Europe and obtain a “commanding influence” over its governments, _ 2, A belief that the USSR“ could only be deterred by western re- liance on nuclear power including “as a primary component, the military power including re- armed Western Germany,” 3. Pressure for German unijfi- cation by a course that envisaged “a unilateral retirement of Soviet forces from Eastern Germany in face of a continuing Western military presence in the ensuing United "Germany, plus a full- fledge association of that united Germany with the Atlantic Pact,” 4, The cultivation of a “little Europeanism” consisting of the Western countries “involving a heavy reliance on the United States,” “Spill blood in Vietnam’ The February 21 issue of the New York Times magazine .sec- tion carried an article by Hanson Baldwin, who isa leading spokes-. man for the war-seeking elements in the Pentagon. Here are some excerpts of what he said: “The reasons we must fight for Vietnam have little to do with making Saigon safe for ‘de- moecracy’ or ‘freedom!’ There has been far too much cant on this point.,...” With bloodcurdling calm, he calls for “continuing U.S. air and sea attacks on North Vietnam,” to “serve notite on Hanoi and Moscow to force Hanoi to the conference table....” «....1f we are inhibited from action by Hamlet-like indecision over legalistic concepts of inter- national law, we shall lose the world.” “You cannot win a war without spilling blood. We must pay the price of power,” Baldwin asti- mates that “200,000 to 1,000,000 Americans would be fighting in Vietnam” and that “it would take years of effort inside South Vietnam to reduce the Vietcong to manageable proportions.” A ou ies — —Erich Schmitt, ‘‘Berliner Zeitung” i) “We've mounted the rocket on a turntable so we can swing it around if NATO friends get out of step.’’ “It is evident that the results of a policy embracing these ele- ments,” Kennan went on, “have been sterile and unsatisfactory, No general agreement has been reached on European problems, and no perceptible progress has been made in that direction, Ger- man unification has been brought no nearer, “The dangerous uncertainty surrounding the postion of Berlin has been prolonged and intensi- fied, Grievous disunity has emerged within the Western com- munity over the problems of economic unification and those of control and possible use of nuclear weapons by members of the Western coalition in peace as in-war, “None of this is surprising, Such a policy is replete with inner contradictions,” Unless the HEAR WM. KASHTAN | NEW NATIONAL LEADER COMMUNIST PARTY SPEAK ON “Crisis in Ottawa’ — HASTINGS AUDITORIUM | policy is ‘reshaped’ and the conf tradictions are eliminated, sé!’ Kennan, there was “little hope an advance of European life al the lines indicated “by the 1® Pope John’s encyclical.” In steps for new approach ™ suggested a re-examination of policy that holds nuclear weap “permanently essential” for fense, He suggested a more sé ous examination of the Poli® “Rapacki plan” that calls for! denuclearized zone in Centl?) and Eastern Europe, a \ He finally appealed for fullé appreciation of the intentions” ~ the socialist countries and the! “peace commitment to their ow people,” : | | | 828 E. Hastings St., Vancouver Sunday, March 7, 8 p.m. YOU CAN MEET THE NEW COMMUNIS!| ALSO LEADER, PERSONALLY. ) Victoria, Sat., Mar. 6, 8 p.m. Williams Hall, 749 Broughton St- March 5, 1965—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—P?