N THIS centennial year of Cana-
-J. dian Confederation there is

much uncertainty concerning the
future of this union of French and
English-speaking Canadians. The
situation is aggravated by threats
te our political independence as a
result of growing economic power
of foreign capital and an unmistak-
able trend towards continentalism.

The Robarts government has
called for a rededication to the
principles of Confederation. As part
ef such rededication the govern-
ment has proposed a Confederation
of Tomorrow Conference to discuss
the future course of our federal
system of government.

What, precisely, are these prin-
ciples of Confederation, to which
we now must rededicate ourselves?
It is not reasonable to assume after
a time-span of 100 years, that, had
these principles been sound and

firmly dedicated to equality and.

justice of the two principal part-
ners to the union, in the first place,
there would now be little question
about its future course?

The problem must be traced back
to the British military conquest of
the French in North America and
the subsequent failure of the con-
queror to absorb and to digest the
vanquished. In fact it is a bad case
of indigestion. The facts are that
the union of British and French,
within the flimsy framework of the
British North America Act, has
proved to be an unequal and dis-
criminatory union.

The growth of population, com-
merce and industry,. within the fe-
deral-provincial framework of the
British North America Act has in-
tensified the inequalities because
of the high concentration of private
economic power. This monopoly
of economic power in private
hands, oftentimes directed from
abroad, has brought about extreme
unevenness in economic growth,
and in social and cultural advance-
ment. The bringing into this coun-
try of millions of immigrants from
close to 70 different nations and
ethnic communities, when added to
the original inhabitants of Indian
and Innuit people, has served to
broaden the base of discrimination,
unevenness in economic status and
political confusion.

Faced, as we now are, by a re-
volution in technology, superim-
posed upon class and national con-
~flict, the flimsy fabric of our con-
federal structure is being literally
pulled apart.

The main areas of manufactur-
ing, industrial and financial activ-
ities in Canada are concentrated in
Ontario and Quebec. Only Ontario
and Quebec are large enough to
challenge federal power in several
important areas of public admin-
istration. These two areas, plus the
Maritimes, were the cradle of the
early struggles of our pioneers, and
of Confederation. It is, therefore,
no exaggeration to say that the
future of Canadian Confederation
rests, in the main, upon economic
and political developments now in
the course of maturing in Ontario
and Quebec. Needless .to state,
gentlemen, this places an extra
heavy responsibility upon you
when you debate the Ontario pro-
posal for a Confederation of To-
morrow Conference to discuss the
future course of our federal system
of government. :
...With respect to the crisis of
Canadian Confederation, Premier

Robarts did on Feb. 1, last, outline

For a united
and independent
Canada

AN OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS
OF THE ONTARIO LEGISLATURE

An open letter was addressed last week to all members of the
Ontario Legislative Assembly by the Communist Party. The letter,
sent to the members by Bruce Magnuson, the party's Ontario
leader, discusses the “important issues confronting Canadian Con-
fedration in this Centennial year’. Published here is the text of

the letter.

two distinct paths in dealing with
the problem.

The first and ‘‘negative” choice
would be, in his words: ‘‘If English
Canada, through lack of initiatives
and positive steps, admits in prac-
tice that Quebec is the nation state
of the French-Canadians . . .”’ This,
in Mr. Robarts’ mind would lead
to “a continuation of a drift which
recently has been taking place in
federal - provincial affairs.” Mr.
Robarts went on to suggest that
this would Jead inevitably to a
loose form of associate status for
Quebec, or even separation.

ww

The second and so-called ‘“‘posi-
tive’ choice, as outlined by Mr.
Robarts, was that ‘‘We must accept
the proposition that Canada is the
enly nation state of French-speak-

ing as well as English-speaking

Canadians.” The acceptance of this
proposition requires, .in the pre-
mier’s view, “that English Cana-
dians recognize by actual practice,
and not only by words, that Can-
ada is essentially a country of two
societies and two founding peoples,
in addition to the Indians and
Eskimos.”” From this the premier
drew the conclusion that “there is
a fundamental difference between
the position of a French Canadian
outside of Quebee and a person
whose ethnic origin is Ukrainian,
Italian or of any other language
group. other than English and
French.”

Besides getting his positives and
negatives placed in reverse, Pre-
mier Robarts failed to explain what
he meant when he referred to “fun-
damental difference’’ between a
French Canadian outside Quebec
and a person from other ethnic
origin, other than English and
French, except to say that Quebec
did not legislate for French Cana-
dians living in Ontario, But neither
does Ontario look after English-
speaking Canadians who live in
Quebec.

As a matter of fact, the difficulty
seems to evolve around the pre-
mier’s. confusion of nation with
state, when the two are. entirely
separate in many cases in real life.

Today,, for example, Germany is
one nation, yet is divided into two
states, one of which is capitalist,
the other socialist.

It may help in this regard if an
attempt is made to define more
clearly what we mean by the word
nation. Our Marxist definition of
nation is as follows: “A nation is an
historically constituted, stable com-
munity of people formed on the
basic. of a common language, ter-
ritory, economic life, a. psycholo-
gical make-up manifested in a com-
mon Culture.”

Looked at from this point of
view, a French Canadian outside
of Quebec, along with his fellow
men of other ethnic groups, is a
part of the English Canadian na-
tion, whereas in Quebec the situa-
tion is reversed and the English
Canadian, along with members of
other ethnic groups is a part of the
French Canadian nation.

Likewise, when the two nations
join together in voluntary union,
which then becomes a confederated
state of Canada, the-powers of this
confederal authority is delegated
to it by voluntary agreement be-
tween the two equal partners that
make up that two-nation confederal
state.

But to let Mr. Robarts continue:
“This positive choice for the future
of our country does not necessaxily
imply that all provinces must have
the same relationship to the federal
government in a country where two
societies are recognized from coast
to coast. It does mean that the ra-
tionale behind the demands of
Quebec for a greatly different
status will be weakened. I believe
that once Canadians have made a
choice as to the general direction
they wish this country to proceed,
any discussion on the relative res-
ponsibilities of the federal and
provincial governments can follow
pragmatically .. .”

(All the above quotations from
Premier Robarts are taken from
pages 148 and 149, Legislature of
Ontario Debates, Feb. 1, 1967. Em-
phasis is ours.)

The acceptance of Premier Ro-
barts’ “positive” choice, we are
told, means that Quebec’s demands
for a greatly different status will
be weakened. At the same time we
are also told that this choice “‘does
not necessarily imply that all pro-

vinces must have the same rela
tionship to the federal government
in a country where two sociellé
are recognized from coast
coast.” a
Which of the “two societies ©

mands of Quebec for “a greatl
ferent status?” Obviously
chauvinistic double-talk aimee
impose a second-class status upot
the French-Canadian people will
Confederation.
As for the matter of Telau
responsibilities of federal and
vincial governments within Cana
dian Confederation, this is soll
thing else again that cannot ©
successfully tackled and ae
satisfactorily until the relations
of English-speaking and Frege
speaking Canada has been set

AG

Canadian Confederation, if ©
ceived of as a mere federation
10 equal provinces, is door
Canadian Confederation, if ©
endure, must first of all pe bas
upon the recognition of tw? eq!
nations, nations with equal vig
joined together in a yolun
union. ee.

We firmly submit to you
able niembers of' the Ontarl
lative Assembly, that the 0” de
to solve the problems of Conte
tions is to scrap the British -
America Act and draw up #
and democratic constitution "ig
a new constitution should
outcome of a wide public § fi
sion and fullest public particle
in its framing by both FF
speaking and English - SP®
Canadians, ee

Such a new constitution j
give unequivocal recognition
two nations that go to M@re
this country as a Confederall?
must . specifically spell .
mutual consent and agreem
tered into on a voluntary 2
each of the two nations that 7
make up the new Confederay i.
precisely what powers an
ity, and in what specific areas,
of the two nations are prepa
delegate to the new Cont
authority, or government. it

Only by means of suc! m
recognition of each other $
including each nation’s
separate from each other
there be a genuine voluntary
of the two national com :
within a new and lasting
Confederation. Here, a5 !"
dinary marriage based upon t
respect for the equal rights righ
party to such a union, the ive
separate does not mean 4 une
advocacy of divorce. of

We call on the members
Ontario Legislature to give cov
thought to this matter ! the
of debate on this issue,
take action to bring ab0U
constitution and a new a C
unity of all Canadians ff?
to coast. Only by s :
become possible to un syst
restructuring of our ta% ith
which is now threaten
plete collapse.

Ontario Committe®
Communist Party of

May 6, 1967—PACIFICN