ee ae a el

j \-- ~~ pmination- -of- - soctalism’s- “reat -

‘Créditistes to
_ on their right

By SAM WALSH

e provincial elections — of

h revealed a radical

ee ent of political forces

r

ji ‘bec.

a Pne new National Assembly

Liberals will have 102 seats

ia of a total of 110, with a

ular vote of 55%. The Parti

Vebécois has become the of-

2a | opposition with 6 seats and

x a ular vote of 30%. The

ad managed to hold on

Beer e
Creditiste ts with a popular

to two sea

11
ic ; has 7: cashed from. the

i sembly, having fal-
cn “20% of the popular
i jn 1970 to 5% in 1973.

the Minister of Justice,
a “jerome Choquette said elec-

; night, the Liberal Party had
al jed the whole right-wing
ee of the political spectrum,
ee iving the coup de grace to
Ee paion Nationale and sever-
a wounding the Creditistes.
7 Victorious Attacks —

/ ry beginning of the

vad ain, Messrs. Bourassa and
EF quette launched vicious at-
eee against the trade union
yement and its leaders. These
att cks rendered impotent and
oF dines ridiculous the efforts of

i ionale and of the
the Union Sea end hate
flank.

the violent anti-labor,

Be nd-order” opening anes
of the Liberals, who could take
Dupuis, C'éditiste leader,

Pe custy. when he kept refer-
to the pol'cies of the Libe-
government as “creeping
socialism?” Whereas Mr.
bier, Union Nationale leader,
couldn’t find anything better to
do than concentrate almost ex-
clusively on attacking the Parti
Québécois, who finally only took

¥

In his speech to the World
Congress of Peace Forces,
Leonid Brezhnev called hypo-
critical the campaign conducted
in the West in “defence of hu-
man rights” — in the socialist
countries.

Some initiators of this cam-
paign claim that detente is im-
possible unless some changes
are effected in the internal or-
der of the socialist countries.
‘Others leave the impression of
not actually opposing detente,

put declare with amazing frank-

their intention to use the
Se cess of detente to weaken

x the socialist system, and, ulti-

‘m; to secure its destruc-
ee Sor. the public at large,
this tactic is presented as Con-
cern for human rights or for a
so-called “liberalization” of our
system. =.

Let us call a spade a spade.
With all the talk of freedom
and democracy and human
rights, this whole strident cam-
paign sérves only one purpose:
to cover up the attempts to in-
terfere in the internal affairs of
the socialist countries, to cover
up the imperialist aims of this
policy. They talk of liberaliza-
tion, but what they mean is eli-

gains and erosion of the socio-

. The Union Na-

Lou- -

one seat away from him, while
the Liberals took all the rest.

Thus, as the Montreal Star
and the Gazette said quite
frankly and rather smugly the
day following the elections, the
Liberal Party has emerged as
the party of conservatism, of the
right, of “law-and-order”.

: Separatism Issue

After having out-manoeuvred
the other right-wing parties, the
Liberal Party set to work to
polarize its supporters by in-
sisting on a vote for or against
separatism. Despite the very
evident reticence of the PQ
strategists, who were trying to
conceal the fact their recent
convention had decided on inde-
pendence without a referendum
in case of the PQ electoral vic-
tory, the PQ was finally obliged
to accept the challenge with
their model budget for Year One
of an independent Quebec. Thus
the Liberals-succeeded in simpli-
fying the choice: stability and
prosperity with federalism or
economic adventure with separ-
atism. :

With this strategy the Liber-
als attracted about 10% of the
1€% of the popular vote lost by
the Union Nationale (who lost
15%) and by the Créditistes
(1%), while the Péquistes picked
up 6%.

What should be said about the
30% of the popular vote won
by the PQ? To begin with, the
present electoral system is mani-
festly unjust, for the Péquistes
will only have six seats (as
against seven in 1970 with
23%), that is, 5% of the seats.
As the Labor Minister, Mr.
Cournoyer predicted, it is quite
likely that the real opposition
will “take to the streets”, espe-
cially the workers.

These 30% in no way repre-

political rights of the peoples of
the socialist countries.

We have no reason to shun
any serious discussion of hu-
man rights. Our revolution, the
victory of socialism in this coun-
try, not only proclaimed but
have in effect secured the rights
of the working man of all na-
tionalities, the rights of millions
of working people, in a way
capitalism has been unable to
do in any country of the world.

From the bourgeois stand-
point such human rights as the
right to work, education, social
security, free medical aid, rest
and leisure, and the like, may
be something secondary or even
unacceptable. Just one figure:
nearly a 100 million people are
at present unemployed in the
non-socialist countries. Many
capitalist states infringe on the
rights of national minorities and
foreign workers, and the right of
women to equal pay for equal
work. This is probably why
many western powers have not
yet subscribed to international
covenants establishing the so-
cial and political rights of man.

The staggering socio-econo-
mic changes in our country are
the result of the far-flung and
conscious political creativity of

the "masses; -and- also- of their : :pendable: guarantee ofi the rights: ;

will to safeguard the system

- Sees radical realignment
_ gn provincial elections

.

sent a weakening of the support
for the PQ, even if all their main
leaders (the so-called moderates,
such as Lévesque, Parizeau and
Morin) were defeated. But neith-
er can the results be considered
an advance for separatism. For
a very large percentage of PQ
votes, especially those of work-
ing people, and even of some
Anglophones, are protest votes
against the rightist policies of
the Liberal Party. Probably prac-
tically all of these voters ‘are

‘for the right of self-determina-

tion of the French-Canadian na-
tion, but would not choose its
separatist expression. It is even
rather amusing to see that the
editorials of Le Devoir, the
Montreal Star and the Gazette
are all in accord in suggesting
seductively to the PQ to drop
its separatism, in order to make
itself acceptable (to St. James
Street, evidently) as the ‘“‘centre-
left” alternative to the Liberal
Party. Bu
Maoists Confuse

A word on the activity of the
ultra-left in this election cam-
paign. The Maoists, as was ex-
pected, “borrowed” the name of
the Parti Communiste du Qué-
bec and added (Marxist-Lenin-
ist). They published an election
program limited to calling for
the dictatorship of the proleta-
riat and for a People’s Republic
of Tibet (pa-rdon, Quebec) as an
autonomous region of Canada.
Their tactic of presenting more
than. 10 candidates, (and who

. donated the funds for this so

“liberally”?) so as to have their
candidates identified as the
Communists on the ballot, suc-
ceeded in spreading confusion.
Nor have we heard that the
Liberals were thrown into a
rage because the Maoists chose
someone called Lévesque to run

L. BREZHNEV

they themselves have created
from every possible incursion.
For this reason, Soviet people
will not tolerate any encroach-
ment on the sovereignty of our
state, the protector of. their
socio-political gains. This sov-
ereignty is no obstacle to con-
tacts and exchanges. It is a de-

and freedoms so arduously won

~Dorion where the PQ leader,
Réné Lévesque, was fighting a
very close election battle.

Expect More

The election found the trade
union movement in disarray.
The three trade union centres,
separately, appealed to the
working people to vote against
Bourassa, without proposing
any alternative. Immediately
after the elections, they talk of
concentration on _ extra-parlia-
mentary trade union and consti-
tuency political action.

But the working class expects
much more united and effective
leadership than that.

Who, in the leadership of the
labor movement, will still dare
after this election to “explain”
to the workers that they must
“postpone the,class struggle” on
the political level until after
independence is won? With the
oh-so-prudent, so clearly petty
bourgeois and nationalist orien-
tation of the PQ in this cam-

by the Soviet people.

Soviet laws afford our citi- .

zens broad political freedoms. At
the same time, they protect our
system and the interests of the
Soviet people from anyone’s at-
tempts to abuse these freedoms.

And this is in full conformity .

with the international covenants
on human rights ratified by the
Soviet Union, which say that
the rights they enumerate “shall
not be subject to any: restric-
tions except those which are
provided by law, are necessary
‘to. protect national security,
public order, public health or
morals of the population or
the rights and freedoms of
Others .. .”

For example, we have a law
banning war propaganda in any
form. There is legislation pro-
hibiting the dissemination of
the ideas of racial or national
strife and hatred, and of those
which degrade the national dig-
nity of any people. There are
laws combatting immoral be-
haviour, laws against the moral
corruption of society. Are we

expected, perhaps, to invalidate -

these laws as well in the name
of a free exchange of ideas and
information? Or are we to be
prevailed upon that this would

3 ~of di t
ase Pe reat ake ties? 1 4 t thd fie hta

paign, who will still dare to pro-
pose “tactical” support for the
PQ, as though some day the PQ
can be transformed into a party
of the working people?
Indispensable Weapon

The principal lesson for the
working class in this election is
undeniable. Despite all difficul-
ties, everything must be done to
surmount disunity, and to create
a mass federated party of the
working people. If not, the
working class will be called on
to face up to a ferociously anti-
labor bill 89, with an official
opposition that is feeble, and
not only numerically speaking,
and without its own mass poli-
tical party which is an indis-
pensable weapon.

It is not Bourassa who builds
(as his main election slogan
declared) but the working peo-
ple. And in order to enjoy the
fruits of their labor, they must
start by building a mass poi
tical party of their own.

Mutual respect condition for peace

We are being told: “Either
change your way of life or face
a cold war.” But what if we
should reciprocate? What if we
should demand modification of
bourgeois laws and usages that
go against our ideas of justice
and .democracy as a condition
for. normal inter-state relations?
Such a demand, I expect, would
not improve the outlook for
sound development in interstate
re‘ations. :

It is impossible to fight for
peace while impinging on the
sovereign rights of other peo-
ples. It is impossible to cham-
pion human rights, while tor-
pedoing the principles of peace-

- ful coexistence.

Let us be blunt: no one is any
longer able to subvert the so-
cialist world. But regrettably it
is still possible to subvert peace.
For peace depends on multila-
teral efforts, and not least of
all on mutual respect for the
principles of sovereignty and
non-interference in internal af-
fairs. As concerns the Soviet
Union, playing across the rip-
ples of propaganda campaigns
hostile to socialism, our ship of
state will continue on its course
confidently, seeking construc-
tive solutions for the problems

tional order of
Bai

2 “= PACIFIC TRIBUNE=-FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9j 1973-+PAGE 9