CP leader blasts B.C.’s constitutional propos als Bennett would As prime minister Trudeau and provincial premiers sat down in Ottawa at the consitiutional con- ference, Communist . Party provincial leader Maurice Rush prepared this article criticizing the much publicized constitutional proposals of the B.C. government delegation headed by premier Bill Bennett. By MAURICE RUSH Premier Bill Bennett’s proposals to the Ottawa Conference on the constitution, meeting in Ottawa this week, would balkanize Canada, and make the province “easy pickings” for U.S. multi- national corporations without solving our basic constitutional problems. Neither prime minister Trudeau’s Bill C 60 or premier Bill Bennett’s proposed changes to Canada’s constitution come to grips with the basic cause of the present constitutional crisis, and that is recognition of the existence of two nations in Canada, and the need to adopt a new constitution which would satisfy the national aspirations of the French Canadian people while at the same time protecting the rights of al] Canadians as well as legitimate provincial rights. Premier Bennett’s proposals would — decentralize substitute provincial rights for national rights, and make Canada’s provinces supreme over the federal authority. The only ones who would gain from such a policy of decentralization would be the monopolies and multinational corporations, who, under the cover of provincial rights, would erode the gains of the working people and at the same time strengthen U.S. control over the Canadian economy, particularly in the field of natural resources and energy. The main thrust of premier Bennett’s proposals lies in the demand that the federal govern- ment turn over to the provinces. such powers as would make provincial government’s dominant in a reorganized federal state. In putting forward these proposals Bill Bennett is speaking for the multi-national corporations who would prefer to deal with fragmented parts of Canada, playing one off against another, and winning increasing domination of provincial resources while getting the most generous taxation and financial concessions which would boost. their control and profits. The main gist of Bennett’s proposals are that a new House replace the Senate which will be made up of appointees of provincial governments, .with one senator from each province being a provincial cabinet minister who, on critical matters, would cast a bloc vote for his delegation. This new Senate would have the power to turn down constitutional amendments and would give every province veto power over any future constitutional change. The new Senate would also have the power to veto appointments by a federal government to crown agencies like the CBC, Bank of Canada, the CRTC and Canadian Transport Commission. A further proposal made by Bennett would give the province’s, through the new Senate, power to veto any appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada. In effect, Bennett’s plan is to set up a second House (or new Senate) which would enable the provinces to veto and override decisions of Canada’s elected parliament and federal government. While working class and progressive Canadians are not satisfied with Canada, - Premier Bill Bennett's constitutional proposals would balkanize Canada and open the door to tighter control over Canadian resources by multinational corporations says B.C. Communist Par- ty leader Maurice Rush. big business policies pursued by the federal government and its agencies, the fight for progressive and democratic reform would be made much more difficult by the establishment of a second House run by the province’s which would act as a barrier to future progressive legislation. It’s significant that Bennett’s proposals for a new Senate come very close to the Conservative. proposal for a House of Provinces which reactionaries see as acting as a check on future progressive legislation which the Canadian people may demand. ’ The reactionary character of Bennett’s plan is further un- derscored by his stand against including fundamental civil rights in a new constitution. He proposes that this be left to the provincial legislatures who could give or take - away rights anytime it suited a provincial government. This too, is a provision which big business will whole-heartedly support because it gives them greater power to in- fluence provincial governments against democratic and labor rights. It reflects the Socred government’s fundamental anti- democratic position. Premier Bill Bennett has taken on himself the mantle of national crusader for reactionary con- stitutional change. He sees himself and his government as leading Canada’s provinces in the fight for right wing constitutional reform. That explains why he went to Ottawa a week before the con- ference to try and achieve a united front of the provinces and to get media exposure for his reactionary constitutional reforms. Premier Bennett’s solution to the constitutional crisis would be no solution at all. In the end it will deepen the crisis of Confederation and will lead to a divided Canada rather than a united Canada. On this critical issue for all British Columbians and Canadians, the NDP in B.C. has no position at all. NDP provincial leader Dave Barrett, like the NDP national leadership, refuses to face up to the constitutional crisis because they refuse to recognize the need for a new made-in-Canada constitution which would guarantee the national rights of Canada’s two peoples, French and English-speaking Canadians. Speaking to the IWA convention recently Barrett said there is no constitutional crisis and that the BNA Act is all the constitution Canada needs. This stand is taken by Barrett and the NDP because they refuse to face up to. the real , crisis — the right of French Canada to recognition of its national rights — and because that stand may prove unpopular and lose them votes. In keeping with the Communist ‘balkanize’ Canada Party of Canada’s stand on th constitution crisis, the B.¢ Communist Party outlined it position in a forthright manner 4 the B.C. hearings of the Task Fore on Canadian Unity. At that time W proposed that Canada ‘‘adopt , new constitution to provide fo two chambers: one such as th House of Commons today, based 0} representation by. population; the other to replace the present Senat and to be composed of an equa number of elected representatives form each of the two nations. Each chamber should have the equal right to initiate legislation, bul both must adopt the legislation before it becomes law. Thig structure will protect both democratic principles: equality oj rights-of nations whatever their size, and majority rule.” The Communist party believes that a representative constituent assembly should be called at which a new constitution would be drawn up. “Such a new constitution,” the B.C. Communist Party said in its brief to the Task Force hearing,” is of vital importance to B.C. not only because a united Canada is in the interests of the people of this province, but also to bring about constitutional changes which would redefine federal and provincial rights ending the historic discrimination against the west.”” Such a new constitution should also give recognition to the importance of urban governments, now completely ignored in the BNA Act, and incorporate a Bill of Rights which would make inviolate the fundamental civil rights of all Canadian citizens. ¢ Vu nog Wo ebWw ees dt Airs si The proposals of the Communist _ Party for a new made-in-Canada constitution remain the only solution to the crisis of Con- federation and to preserving: the unity of Canada. Make Canada a bridge to world peace, U.S. economist urges Toronto audience ~Noted American economist: Victor: Perlo called on the Canadian peace movement to make Canada ‘‘a bridge of peace” in world affairs by making Canada “a powerful influence to turn around the arms race, to defeat the Pentagon and the CJA, to make detente farreaching and irreversible,”’ Military spending has gone out of control in the United States, he told about 200 Canadians at the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute in_ Toronto Jast week, and the United States could cut its military budget by as much as 40 percent without reducing-U.S. security in the least. Perlo, author of numerous books and articles on the economy and disarmament, was part of a panel discussion on disarmament and peace along with John Makatini, representative to the United Nations from the African National Congress (South Africa) and John Morgan, president of the Canadian Peace Congress. The panel was held to mark the 33rd anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. ; Perlo linked military spending directly to inflation, saying that in fact the ‘arms race is the central dynamic force behind inflation.” Perlo noted that it is an historic fact that war has always brought about inflationary spirals yet the current arms build up, now in-- PACIFIC TRIBUNE—November 3, 1978—Page 10 creasing at the rate of $10-billion yearly in the United States, was the “most far reaching peacetime military buildup in history.” Canada’s dollar should be strong today, not weak, Perlo said, based on our country’s favorable trade balance, but instead our dollar is suffering under an unprecedented discount of 15% as a result of the vast amount of profits taken out of Canada by U.S. multinationals. Last year, Canada’s favorable trade balance reached $1.3 billion, a figure which paled beside the unfavorable balance on income investment of $5.5 billion. “One of the key functions of NATO, of the conspicuous U.S. military presence on Canadian soil is to make those investments sacroscant, to inhibit the Canadian people from claiming ownership and use of their own resources, for stopping the multi-billion dollar drain of revenues to U.S. im- perialism.” Perlo stated. The only way to ease the situation, Perlo said, is to ‘‘break the NATO grip, to impose ex- change controls over - the hemoraging of foreign profits, to concentrate on developing equal economic relations with socialist and developing countries; to put economic ties with the United States on a truly equal basis by curbing and gradually freeing Canada from the corporate colonists.”’ “But,” Perlo asserted, “‘the case against the arms race, for detente and disarmament does not rest wholly, or even decisively, on economic grounds. The decisive case is to eliminate the war danger. The ultimate case is to eliminate the danger of a third world war.” : Perlo refuted the arguments of a number of peace-oriented groups and individuals that both the United States and the Soviet Union _ were equally responsible for the burgeoning arms race. ‘‘While the U.S. armed forces are over- whelmingly designed for fighting elsewhere, for aggression; the Soviet armed forces are decisively oriented for defence. « “The fact is that the Soviet Union has led, for 56 years, the world campaign for disarmament, and with particular effectiveness in the past decade or so in the United Nations, where the majority of the world’s countries repeatedly support resolutions urging the great powers to carry out these proposals.” Perlo pointed out that even in the face of continued provocation by the U.S., including the develop- VICTOR: “PERLO:..:: “US? author, economist issues appeal to Canadian peace movement at lecture in Toronto. ment of new weapons systems, the Soviet military budget has declined by more than one billion rubles in the past five years, “while the U.S. military budget ‘outlays went up 58 percent from $74-billion to $117-billion.’’