a eT TAT AT TTT Te

~~ Speak English and

4

earn 40 percent more!

By MEL DOIG

ae Léonard is-a suburb of
eeatteal. Ten years ago it was
Gael community of French-
an Quebecers, while the
eee of the right to self-deter-
ia ation of the French-Cana-
in N nation was a storm gather-
de Over a distant horizon. To-
~ St. Leonard has 12,000 tax-
xem of whom ten thousand
Itali néo-Québecois,” mainly
4 tan-Canadians. Their efforts
fess the right to choose
. anguage of education for
: €ir children are bringing into
cea focus the clash of demo-
tons Solutions and narrow na-
8 ism in the fight for the
0 Mch-Canadian nation in
Uebec,
aia St. Léonard English Cath-
the | Ssociation of Parents asks
ide ay school board to prov-
sch nglish-language elementary
nee for the children of those
= nts who want such schools.
the past few years, St.
cay has had four French-
W 8uage elementary schools
ee English is taught as a
lin nd language, and four bi-
i oo French and English
eo: Last November, the St.
mi ita Catholic School Com-
= decided to phase out
nites bi-lingual schools, sub-
Ing for them four French
Schools,
1 week, one thousand
1an-Canadian parents attend-
‘ache pecting in a St. Léonard
the i to present to the head of
misc Catholic School Com-
lishiee a petition for an Eng-
tion @Nguage school. The peti-
iors Feaumenced two days be-
2.500 he meeting was signed by
oe People. Frank Vatrano,
nts Association president,

alf dewhurst

ane Proposed agreement now
ing discussion for a. no-raid-
Fe ane between the Quebec
ae of Labor, the Confe-
Monee of National Trade
ean 2 and the Corporation of
tering TS of Quebec is encoun-
adian Opposition from top Can-
; Officials of some interna-

ti :
ce unions affiliated to the

The
Would
er of
ates of
It is est:

terms of the agreement
make possible the trans-
Members between afiili-
me QFL and CNTU if
ablished b i rtial
u y an impartia
ree that the culture or
aE nee rights of the workers
they . being respected, or that
ervice. hot getting adequate
€ agreement will
on! We
cei _ those affiliates of the
41 Signing bodies who rati-
its terms.
N excellent
Wo cellent agreement one
fo ea think. It opens the way
Cog choice of union without
Ones and destructive raiding
.~l0ns. It holds the promise

i : :
coulg roved union services. It

Catj

apply

: trade union
t in Quebec in one
dy

SO, say the Canadian
Of some international

1 t

faders
io

"8, At least one such leader

told the meeting, “We aren’t
asking for what isn’t coming to
us. We ask only the right to
educate our children in the
language of our choice as re-
commended by the Parent Re-
port.” The reply of the School
Board chairman, Marc Drouin,
was, no—that the board would
continue the four bi-lingual
schools for 1968-69 and then
have only French language
elementary schools. The Italian-
Canadian parents will appeal to
the Montreal and Quebec edu-
cational authorities.

The Rassemblement pour
’Indépendance du Québec (RIN)
swears “to fight fiercely against
this unjustifiable demand of
parents of Italian origin.” For
the RIN, even bi-lingual schools,
a “bastard solution,” are unac-
ceptable — unilinguism, one
Janguage, French, must be the
answer.. “No Québecois must
integrate with French Quebec-
ers,” says Fernand Boudreau,
president of the local RIN,
“otherwise St. Léonard and
other suburbs will become ang-
licised very quickly.” :

What is the situation? Accord-
ing to René Levesque, leader of
the Mouvement Souveraineté
Association, ‘“nine-tenths of im-
migrants coming to Montreal
opt to speak English,” and no
one will dispute this. In the
opinion of Claude Ryan, editor
of Montreal’s Le Devoir, “The
immigrants will naturally choose
the language that leads to the
greatest economic advantage.”
And to quote again the local
RIN leader, “If neo-Quebecers
wish to become anglicised, it’s
simply because in Quebec the
language of work is English.”
No extreme nationalist, the for-

mer Quebec Minister of Educa-
tion, eminent constitutional au-
thority, Paul Gérin-Lajoie, speak-
ing of the inferior position of
French-Canadians in the econ-
omy of Quebec, noted that “the
average income of French-
speaking Montrealers is 40 per-
cent below that of their Eng-
lish-speaking compatriots.”

The economy of Quebec, who
controls it and in whose inter-
ests, the government that serves
these interests—this. is the nub
of the matter. Monopoly, Unit-
ed States and Anglo-Canadian
monopoly, their - French-Cana-
dian counterparts scrambling
for a bigger share of monopo-
oy’s profits, these are the forces
that today control Quebec. The
struggle against them and for
the free, full development of

-the French-Canadian nation in

Quebec is a democratic strug-
gle. The unity of democratic
forces developing here today
against monopoly, unity moving
toward a mass labor political
party, has nothing in common
with chauvinism, with narrow’
nationalism that denies democ-
racy to minorities.

“| FTHE COMPANY SAID THERE
was A 4% INCREASE IT MUST
BE HERE - SOMEWHERE /”

~ ©

_Humanize—

work sites

By DON CURRIE

Wildcat strikes on northern
Manitoba construction sites con-
tinue to break out at short in-
tervals. Poor camp conditions
and no recreational facilities

have been high on the list of
grievances. Strong arm tactics
by security police at Thompson
and discrimination against In-
dian workers have sparked
other walkouts.

Last September workers
walked off the Kettle Rapids
project complaining of poor
working conditions, poor equip-
ment and not enough safety
precautions on the job. Work-
ers returning from the site com-
plain of being hamstrung by the
no-strike agreement signed be-

“tween the companies and the

unions. While the agreement
stipulates that no non-union
men are to be employed on the
job, there is such a large turn-
over of men that it is difficult
to enforce the clause.

At the time of the Kettle
rapids strike last fall there was
only one union representative
on the site. The Hydro Council,
a committee of the Building
Trades Council are in charge of
the union affairs at the Kettle
site. Some union members allege
that the Hydro Council is more
interested in deducting the $50
initiation fee and dues payments
from the big turnover of work-
ers than fighting for protection
of the workers. Complaints
reached the Canadian Tribune
from workers on the site that
there was no doctor, no hospi-
tal and only St. John’s Ambu-

lance services available. Only
one telephone was available for
use by the workers. 3

Last week members of the
IBEW walked off the job at
Thompson over the firing of two
Indian workers who sat to eat
their meal at a table reserved
for security guards. Only a
month earlier a similar strike
broke out accompanied by vio-
lence and a dust-up in the mess
hall as workers protested the
strong arm tactics of guards.

Workers at the Thompson
site who are enlarging the In-
ternational Nickel Company
plant, claim that INCO is be-
hind most of the trouble. A
carpenter on the job at Thomp-
son complained in a letter to
the Tribune that ‘ INCO is run-
ning Thompson and the camp
like a fascist dictatorship. By
employing their security guards
in a concentration camp like

‘fashion, they invade the men’s

living quarters any time.”

An immediate investigation
into the working conditions, re-
creational needs and medical fa-
cilities should be demanded by
the union, The unions should de-
mand an end to all discrimina-
tory practices used by the com-
pany against Indian workers on
the site and launch a drive to
recruit the majority of the In-
dian workers to the unions. The
no strike clause in the Kettle
Rapid agreement is a millstone
around the necks of the work-
ers and should. be re-negotiated.
These are just some of the
steps urgently required to hu-
manize conditions on the great
construction projects now un-
derway in Northern Manitoba.

attack

has declared that his interna-

tional will withdraw from the:

CLC if the agreement goes into
effect. Another says he is op-
posed because the pact was ne-
gotiated by a provincial federa-
tion of the CLC. The acting
president of the CLC has stat-
ed that he could endorse the
principle of a no-raiding pact
but not the method by which
this one was achieved.

These threats against the
Quebec no-raiding pact come on
the eve of the CLC’s executive
council meeting which will have
the matter on its agenda.

It is not hard to understand
why the internationals would
oppose the pact. Their aim is to
establish a monopoly over the
Canadian trade union move-
ment. In some circles this is
considered as a God-given right.
It can be expected that those
who think in these terms will
oppose any and all measures
which threaten to impinge on
their monopoly aspirations.

But this cannot be the stand-
point of the CLC leadership.
The standpoint of the CLC, as
a central body of the Canadian
trade union movement, must be
of establishing and maintaining
the sovereign rights of the Can-
adian movement. Canadian
unionists have the greatest res-

pect for their American coun-
ter-parts. They would like that

‘respect to be reciprocated. Re-

ciprocation should mean non-
interference by U.S. interna-
tionals in those matters which
are strictly Canadian in nature.
This should be the guiding star
of U.S.-Canadian trade union
relations.

It is quite natural to assume
that the office of president of
the CLC can have no greater
purpose than that of upholding
the sacred interests of the Can-
adian working class. If this is
so, then why such an ambigious
position on the pact on the part
of the acting president? Why
base his opposition on the
charge that he things the meth-

od by which the act was ar-

rived at was wrong?

The acting president says
that he could endorse a no-
raiding pact in principle. If this
pact is correct in principle why
shouldn’t it be upheld. Principles
express themselves in concrete
actions. The Quebec pact is a
concrete action. If the method
used to achieve it on the part
of the QFL' was wrong in terms
of the CLC constitution, which
the QFL says is not true, ways

can be found to rectify that. ,
But the Action shouldn’t be ™

killed because some _ interna-

No raiding pact under

tionals fear its effect on their
monopoly aspirations.

These internationals don’t
have to ratify the pact if they
are afraid of it. And if they
don’t ratify it they won’t. have
to abide by its terms. But there
doesn’t seem to be any great

reasons why they couldn’t rati-

fy the pact and abide by its
terms. The terms seem to be
reasonable enough. According to
press reports on the terms of
the pact, they simply boil-down
to a matter of giving workers
an opportunity to make a choice
of transfering from one union
to another within a given juris-
diction in a civilized way, free
of legislative and state inter-
ference.

In fact, looking at the matter
from a worker’s point of view,
it would be useful if the CLC
were to encourage the develop-
ment of similar-type no-raiding
pacts right across the country.
And a good starting place would
be with CLC affiliates presently
competing with one another for
members in. the same jurisdic-
tions.

It is not hard to visualize the
possibility of extending the
scope of.such pacts to include

the organization of the unor-

ganized. A cooperative effort to
bring unionization.to the areas

VEL

of employment unorganized on
the basis of an agreement to
place the new members in the
union most suitable for their
purpose is worth consideration.

The Quebec pact highlights
once again the special question
of the Quebec trade union move-
ment and the relationship of the
CLC to that movement. There
can be no percentage in the
Canadian working class tailing
behind capitalist concepts and
solutions of the national ques-
tion and the _ constitutional
crisis. It serves the interests of
capitalist profits to keep the
workers divided in their aims.

It would serve the interests
of all the workers of this coun-
try if the CLC was to recognize
that Quebec is the homeland of
the French Canadian nation.

And on the basis of this recog-
nition to undertake the struc-
tural reforms necessary for its
Quebec section to be in a cor-
rect constitutional position to
uphold the sovereign rights of
the workers of Quebec. Per-
haps a federated structure would
be the form through which the
aims of all workers in Canada
could. find a common ‘expres-
sion.

* UKARCH'29 1968CCP AGIEIG TRIBUNE—Page 5