By ALAIN PATRIE

MONTREAL — This city has
been rocked with the incredible
performance: by the Confedera-
tion of National Trade Unions
which held a three-day congress
devoted to an exercise of back-
biting and poisoning the at-
mosphere against those seg-
ments of the union leadership
that pursue a policy of mili-
tancy and unity. Their efforts
were culminated by the public
expulsion from their ranks of
Michel Chartrand, president of
the Montreal Central Council,
and Florent Audette, director of
the Montreal Construction
Union. ;

Mr. Pepin, president of the
CNTU, accused Mr. Chartrand
of anarchism and splitting the
union. What he was referring to
was Mr. Chartrand’s decision as
technical advisor to the Mont-
real Construction Union, to
join the walkout of some 20,000
building trades workers affiliated
with the Quebec Federation of
Labor. This contravened the
policy of the CNTU. °

The three-day meeting man-
aged to generate a lot of heat,
including reams of copy in the
bourgeois press as they specu-
lated on the outcome of a sup-
posed personality conflict, while
very little light is being shed on
the concrete issues themselves.

Issue of Unity
With. the position he has

taken Mr. Chartrand clearly opt--

ed for unity in his approach to
the working-class struggle in
Quebec; in particular a unity
that transcends narrow national
views and joins hands with the

international unions in the strug-
gle against employer-exploiters.

Along with this, the recent
strike of the Montreal Construc-
tion Union exhibited a militant
position against the draconian
and corporatist-tinged Bill 290
promulgated by the Quebec Na-
tional Assembly in its effort to
suppress the labor struggle.

For Mr. Pepin, an. avowed
right wing opportunist who
never ceases to espound his “a-
political” - position, Michel Char-
trand has become a bone in the
throat. ‘““‘We cannot continue to
endure,” Pepin said with emo-
tion, “‘a man whose every gesture
is anarchistic. It’s a question of
the future of our movement.”

Feeling of Frustration

There is no question that in
the past Michel Chartrand has
acted as a clumsy anarchist. One
of the Montreal’ papers put it
(anarchism) aptly as ‘feelings
shared by many in the move-
ment who are frustrated at the
inability of unionism to radically
push society towards their vision
of social equity.”

Lenin’s statement takes sub-
stance in this case when he said
that anarchism was often “a
form of punishment for the op-
portunist sins of the working
class movement.”

Mr. Pepin’s opportunism has
become legendary. He was
groomed as a replacement for
Jean Marchand (ex-head of the
CNTU and now Regional Expan-
sion Minister in Trudeau’s cabi-
net).

Mr. Pepin’s. speech consisted
in the main of stressing the func-

- tion of unions as being economic
4

“struggle. A few years ago there

might have been some merit in
his saying that a strike is a pure-
ly economic battle. One factory
going out on strike does not sig-
nify a class struggle. But in re-
cent times there have been many
strikes and at the same time.
These signify political struggle.
There has been a qualitative
change in the country as a whole
and this is the root reason for
the internecine duel in the
CNTU.

‘Political Battle

An index of this development
is just beginning to take form
in the upcoming municipal elec-
tions in Montreal. For better
than a decade the metropolis
has been victim of a high handed
and elitist city government. The
city continues to stagger from
bad to worse: housing, transpor-
tation, welfare, pollution, em-
ployment—each one more scan-
dalous than the next.

Mr. Chartrand has been elo-
quent recently over. the need to
create a united front of the three
major Quebec labor groups, the
CNTU, QFL and the Quebec
Teachers Federation. If this stra-
tegy became reality then they
could join together with the
FRAP, a losely knit group of
citizen’s committees, so that the
Montreal working class might
show the scurrilous Drapeau-
Saulnier team the way out.

The accomplishment of the ex-
pulsion will in no way further
the militancy and unity of the
working class. Recent elections
have shown what splintering
costs.

or professional red-baiters?

By ERIK BERT

NEW YORK — We have re-
ceived two bits of evidence sug-
gesting that~the so-called ‘con-
struction’ workers demonstra-
tion of May 20 in New York
City was really infested with
professionals of quite a different
character. ©

This evidence consists of two
mimeographed documents. One,
entitled, ‘Hello, Remember
Me?” is a plea to remember “Old
Glory,” or the “Star Spangled
Banner,” and the men who fell
at “Anzio, Guadalcanal, Korea
and now Vietnam.”

The other is entitled “It’s
later than you think!” At the
bottom of. each leaflet are the
words: “Note: The above was
distributed on Wall Street on
May 20, 1970 by patriotic, seri-
ous-thinking students.”

This subscript suggests that
both leaflets are now being dis-
tributed as historic documents
of the “construction workers”
confrontation by ultra-Right for-
ces.

The “later than you think”
leaflet is the more venomous.
It says:

“Over fifty years ago, in May
of 1919 at Duesseldorf, Ger-
many, the Allied forces obtained
a copy of some of the ‘Commun-
ist Rules for Revolution’. Now
fifty years later, the Reds are
still ‘following the rule’. As you
read the list, stop after each
item and think about the pres-
ent-day siuation where you live
—and all around our nation.”

In the absence of any more
Specific allegations, which could
be refuted in detail, all that it

‘to have faith in “theif

is possible to say is that ee
never were any such “CO
ist Rules for Revolution,
that therefore, the Allied fo
never obtained any, 1%
at any other time.

Appropriately, a large

let depicts as “Communist —
resents, in fact,
capitalist enteprise, mae
alleged ‘“‘Red” emphasis }
“sexy books and other hi
ties,” “rising prices,” “st
in vital industries,” an@
disorders.” hr
The leaflet cites aS 2 — a9
rule the attempt to “destty
people’s faith in thelr He
leaders by holding the Lae
to contempt, ridicule ane —
quy.” a
The purpose of this, of ye
is to convince Americans
leaders” like Richard ©
Spiro Agnew, Melvin Lal
similar personalities.
for Nixon and his © te
thus becomes “Red” co?”
for our “natural leaders:
The leaflet—like s¢°
other ultra-Rightist docum
now and in the past, Wa
forgeries or straightforw4 5
trine — lauds “the 0% .
virtues, honesty, sobriety 4
faith in the p (

tinence,

word, ruggedness.” F

not written by const" ;
in the®

workers, but by pros !
democracy and anti-com
rackets. 2

They are interesting
the ultra-Right finds it ne
to present its program a
forged document, rather 0
fering reaction straight ous

(Continued from Page 6)

ingly on limiting the existing power
~ structure without which Canadian in-
dependence will not be regained. There
is no doubt that the struggle to regain
Canadian independence will shake up
Canadian politics, further the process
of polarization and increasingly merge
with the struggle for socialism. The
most revolutionary task in Canada to-
day is the defeat of Canadian monopo-
ly and U.S. imperialism and the re-
gaining of Canadian independence.
There is no real prospects for social-
ism unless that task is accomplished.

THE QUEBEC ELECTIONS

The Quebec election results gives us
another illustration of the process of
polarization which is taking shape in
Canadian political life.

These results are fairly well known.
The Liberals, heavily financed by Cana-
dian and U.S. monoply interests, won
a majority with 44% of the popular
vote. Union Nationale suffered a severe
electoral defeat, with a significant por-
tion of those who voted for it before,
turning’ to Social Credit in the coun-
tryside and to the Parti Quebecois in
the urban centres.

The immediate reaction in monopoly
circles was relief in the fact that sepa-
ratism had been defeated at the polls.
This however, was a superficial reac-
tion which-it was quick to correct, be-
cause bagically the election results did
not vepbive anything. This is why
Bouragsa took a more sober attitude to
the election results and admitted that
the Liberal Government had between
two to four years in which to carry
through its program, and that failure -» +
PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1970—Page 8

to do so, could open the gates to sepa-
ratism in Quebec.

The Bourassa Government
faced with the gigantic task of imple-
menting its election promises, first and
foremost its promise to curtail unem-
ployment which is among the highest
in the country, and make 100,000 jobs
available.

Clearly the Bourassa Government is
not faced with an easy task, that is, to
stay in power in opposition to the na-
tional aspirations of the French Cana-
dian people ond their economic and
social needs.

The root of the problem is equality
of the French Canadian people in all
spheres of social life and that con-
tinues to be ignored. The average wage

_in Quebec is considerably lower than

other parts of the country while, as
already noted, unemployment is
amongst the highest in the country.
The educational system in Quebec is
inferior to that in English speaking
Canada. The key positions in industry
and finance are in the hands of Eng-
lish Canadian and U.S. monopoly. Re-
ducing unemployment somewhat will
not overcome the inequality which ex-
ists in Quebec.

The Trudeau Government can be held
responsible for this situation. By
speaking of “one nation in one coun-
try” and treating the problem as basic-
ally one of language and culture; by
refusing to recognize the national and
social rights of the French Canadian
people and incorporating these national
rights in a new Canadian Constiution
on the basis of an equal voluntary part-
nership of the two nations, a more

is now

dangerous and complicated situation
has evolved in Quebec politics. The

perspective thus is one of sharpened .

struggle despite the efforts of the
Bourrassa Government to paper it over.

DEMAND FOR CHANGE >

In assessing the election results it
would be wrong to conclude that the
substantial vote received by the Parti
Quebecois was a vote for separatism.
Undoubtedly a part of it was, although
even here one would have to make a
distinction between different concepts
of separatism, because it could include
those who are for a special ‘status or
a greater measure of autonomy for
Quebec. But it should be equally noted
that a major portion of the vote was
an expression of non-confidence in the
old line parties and in the status quo,
an-expression of a growing demand
for change.

In its own way, and taking into ac-
count the specific flavor of the politics
of the French Canadian nation, the
vote marked a process of polarization
in Quebec politics. This polarization is
likely to continue as the Liberal Party,
the party of Canadian and U.S. mon-
opoly interests, fails to come to grips
with the real national aspirations and
economic and social needs of the work-
ing people,

This polarization. may also find re-
flection in a process of differentiation
within the Parti Quebecois. That party

» is not homogeneous. It is a petty bour-

gegis social reformist nationalist move-
ment which includes in its ranks and
amongst its supporters different cur-
rents ranging from separatists to na-

tional, democratic and socialist
However, its program is petty
geois nationalist and separal
such, it can neither be endo™
supported. é
In the complicated situation
presently exists, the Parti Comte
du Quebec has undertaken 4
atic struggle against petty
nationalism and separatism 4
internationalist policy base
of the working class of Que?
unity of the workers of Fre?
English speaking Canada in the
gle for social and economic “aro
They call for democratic cont
monopoly and for a voluntary 4
partnership of the two nati?
new Canadian Constitution 84
ing the right to self-determin@
both nations. These tasks 9
linked to the struggle to ©?
Bourassa Government to imple™
promise of 100,000 new jobs.
In light of the election
Trudeau Government appeals of
realized that its brutal denial fi
exisience of the French Can@ ive
tion must be modified. This }§ “af
ed in talk of speeding up cons”
reform. patty i
The responsibility of oUt | wy
English Canada is to convincé aly
ing people to press for the Oil
solution of this question whee
the same time lay the basis
of English and French Canada- that
quires recognition of the fact
French Canadians in Quebec
tion, and that Canada needs 4 ty
stitution that guarantees 0 a ti
tions equality and the right t0
self determination.

nd fi

esullé

Cs