Y BRUCE MAGNUSON

* tecord increase in food
} and the jump from June
Y in the consumer price
follows hard on the heel
se in corporate profits of
hoo the second quarter and
Poing 39.8% during the
3 mer of this year. At the
Ime the average increase
py labor in wage negotia-
aS declined from 9 to 7%
oer the first and second
: cee this year. It is there-
4" as can be that this is
e for Organized labor to
Or one moment on the
© for more pay, but on
wale TY to intensify that
“baglgele for more pay at
me "saining table must be
ng €d by an immediate and
Public campaign by or-
abor to eliminate sub-
tally Wages. Specifically,
RA for a drive to enlist
peeort for an immediate
aa legislated minimum
Droys, -at both the federal
Mcial levels of govern-

t
ern’ time when the federal
sa announced its in-
ac federal minimum
Nov. from $1.75 to $1.90
~ +, It was undoubtedly
ent the reasoning of Pre-
ci, a Cost of Living
eg a made all wages
J Dresiq Rr hour subject to
lh in Ents wage freeze,
nh feeeet made that a le-
sae in the USA. Since
Otea ver) the U.S. Senate
Be tg raise the minimum
eteg “a and in so doing,
a ehh Ss  pro-
fe ituestion now being de-
be», What is substandard
‘tum at ought a_ legal
Wage provide in

Ry LARRY FINE

Do
Coy

Pari & youth seminar
Mon ciPants from Vancou-
Wee Se and Toronto. The
the puinar was sponsor-
leq nt Board of the
eg hay, Sh People’s Order.
Car, included labor, wo-
te, 2g eae Society, Que-
les steers telated to the
e gp UBBles in Canada.
ad ae highlights was

‘ Socialism in Can-
hn Biz he platform shared
a Chairman of the
idate unist League, and
hy a the federal riding
tty, for the Commun-
8 Derg and James Laxer,
Until pie ality in the Waffle
i eat recent withdrawal,
pe in York East
repie
th trig beaker, John Bizzell,

& Worl © main struggle

f imparts, between the
ang ,Petialism on the one
o Other sceS Of socialism
ing Canna Went on to
we fonnuan struggle in
the mast! Context and out-

‘He .. “anadian indepen-
Co pen
e eutded by placing
utionience the Com-

nto these strug-

‘tive and free of animosities.

minimum wage scale

The U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics has three budget lev-
els, periodically adjusted inline
with its own cost of living in-
dex. The lowest of these pro-
vided for $7,214 annually for a
family of four at the time the
Nixon pay freeze took effect
last fall.

This level would call for a
minimum wage of $3.50 per
hour, which is what the labor
members of the U.S. Pay Board
called for when they were still
members of that Board and the
majority over-ruled them by
adopting the $1.90 per hour, or
the “poverty line” income of
$3,692 a year for a family of
four.

Now U.S. Federal Judge Wil-
liam B. Jones, ruling on the
matter of what the U.S. Pay
Board should consider as the
line for “substandard” wages,
stated that Congress had intend-
ed the wage controls should ex-
empt all persons whose earnings
run below what the Labor De-
partment’s Bureau of Labor Sta-
tistics found to be the need for
the lowest of three budgets to
provide adequate needs for a
family of four, (or a minimum
of $3.50 per hour).

This is the figure also’ en-
dorsed by the Communist Party
of the USA and campaigned for
by its candidate—Gus Hall for
president and Jarvis Tyner for
vice-president—in this 1972
election campaign.

Here in Canada, the official
labor movement has adopted a
demand for a $2.50 per hour
minimum, while the Communist
Party of Canada has $3.00 in its
platform of immediate demands.
Now compare this to $1.50 as a
legal minimum wage in- BS:
and $1.65 an hour, or $66.00 for
a 40-hour week in Ontario.

"2zell, Laxer air views

gles through the formation of a
united anti-monopoly, anti-im-
perialist, democratic alliance,
leading the way to the formation
of such a government and thus
opening the door to socialism.
James Laxer opened with a
historical sketch of the Cana-
dian economy and suggested that
the colonial ties which once
bound Canada to Britain now
bind Canada, as a colony, to the
U.S. The solution as he sees it,
is to organize the workers in the
one-industry cities and then
move the “Revolution” to the
major centers. The organizing
work in the major centers would
first take place among women
and then among new immigrants.
During the question period,
Laxer was asked about the fu-
ture of the Waffle and he re-
sponded that of the options
available to the Waffle he favor-
ed the formation of a mass
movement for Canadian Inde-
pendence and Socialism. Bizzell
was asked to elaborate on the
composition of the anti-mono-
poly coalition and the. Party
stand on trade union autonomy.
The meeting was friendly and
constructive, and in spite of the
sharp ideological and program-
matic differences between the
two speakers it remained objec-

These are two of our richest
Canadian provinces. Quebec has
instiuted a series of increase in
its minimum wage of $1.50 in
Montreal and $1.35 in the rest of

Quebec to bring it up to $2 by .

November 1974.

At the same time the Atlan-
tic Economic Council has re-
ported that federally employed
nurses receive as much as $1,800
a year less in the East Coast
provinces than nurses doing the
same work in B.C. And 10% of
the population in New Brun-
swick is on welfare. Talk about
regional disparity! It is more
than high time the trade union
movement seriously -embark
upon a campaign to put an end
to this most intolerable situ-
ation.

a

‘Sorry, I’m Lunching ‘Alone!’

where

QUEBEC TODAY

Ottawa-Quebec ping-pong

By SAM WALSH

'“Ping-pong diplomacy” a la
Munro-Castonguay has nothing
in common with the celebrated
China-USA “ping-pong diploma-
cy.” In the latter case the game
constituted the opening of new
relations between the two gov-
ernments, whereas in the for-
mer, it’s nothing but the conti-
nuation of the same wearisome
old game.

It would be boring and use-
less to go into the details of the
ping-pong match played by the
federal government (Munro) and
the Quebec government (Caston-
guay), each returning the ball
into his opponent’s court with a
diligence as monotonous as it is
predictable. But we are obliged
at least to recount its highlights.

In the spring, Munro tabled a
bill in the House of Commons
at Ottawa which would have the
effect of abolishing the univer-
sality of family allowances in
order to substitute for it a re-
gime based on the detested
means test. This was part of the
notorious policy first enunciated
by Mr. Trudeau, of making the
not-so-poor pay for a slight in-
crease in the income of the im-
poverished—without, of course,
touching the coddled rich. It
would be fair to say that this
policy constitutes the essence of
the “Just Society” as conceived
by Trudeau, in short providing
some relief for the very poor
and for the very rich at the ex-
pense of the people in between.

Mr. Gastonguay returned the
ball to his Ottawa counterpart
by declaring that henceforth it
would be useless to continue the
talks on the regime of guaran-
teed family income undertaken
by the Quebec government in
September 1971, with the aim of
achieving an agreement on legis-
lative and administrative mat-
ters which would satisfy both
governments. According to him,
only a revision of constitutional
powers in the field of social
security could resolve the prob-
lems of Quebec. He even let it
be understood that he would
resign from the Quebec cabinet,
for the federal bill compromised
his whole “coherent and integ-

rated” social security plan for
Quebec. Since this took place at
the height of the crisis in the
struggle of the public and para-
public workers, he said nothing

to deny the suggestions which
were publicly made to the effect
that the basis of the tough
policy of Quebec government
toward its employees was its
lack of funds due to the refusal
of the federal government to
grant to Quebec its full rights
and the financial means to use
them on the social field. It was,
of course, pure hypocrisy.

Then, at the very end of the
parliamentary session, the fede-
ral government presented the
bill again and “due to lack of
time” did not force a debate for
its adoption.

The ball was then in Mr.
Castonguay’s court. He with-
drew his threat to resign from
the Quebec government, saying
he thought he could really set
up a “coherent and integrated”
social policy in Quebec while re-
maining in the Liberal party
(even if the federal government,
which is the main obstacle to its
achievement, is also Liberal);
that he was very disappointed
that the federal government did
not have its law adopted {!); but
that it’s failure to do so should
provide the opportunity to study
basic revision of the Canadian
constitution. :

To which Mr. Munro replied
(among other things) with this
significant statement: “The Que-
bec and Canadian approaches to
family allowances are funda-
mentally the same.”

Basically this declaration is -

correct. The family allowances
policy forms part of Trudeau’s
concept of the “Just Society”
whose objective is to coddle the
rich while obliging the less-poor
to pay for the destitute, to force
skilled workers to accept lower-
paid jobs by cutting their social
benefits.

In Mr. Castonguay’s letter to
Mr. Munro challenging him to a
television debate, we find this
revealing sentence: “The second
objective (pursued by the Que-
bec government) aims at a great-
er vertical redistibution of re-
sources allocated. to family al-
lowances in such a way that
those who benefit most are
those most in need (this stinks
of the means test.—S.W.) and
so that we can establish more
appropriate social aid benefits
which will stimulate greater in-
centive to work (my emphasis.—
S.W.).

Hence, Mr. Munro is just tell-

ing the sorry truth when he de-
clares that the Quebec and the
Canadian approach to family al-
lowances are fundamentally the

Same.

Well then, why does Mr. Cas-
tonguay, who belongs to the
same political party, pursue the
public debate, even threatening
to make it an issue during the
impending federal election cam-
paign?

Because even for the French-
Canadian bourgeoisie, which
shares the same _ anti-popular
social objectives with their
Anglo - Canadian counterparts,
the national question, the re-
fusal of the right of decision to
Quebec, of the right to national
self-determination, forms part
of social reality, and it is oblig-
ed to reckon with it if its gov-
ernment in Quebec is to survive.

During the public “dialogue”
Mr. Castonguay referred to “ten
years” or more of frustrating de-
bate between the Quebec and
the federal governments (thus
clothing the Quebec Liberal
party in the shining armour of
a noble knight defending the
nation), but the frustrating dia-
logue goes back to the days of
Duplessis and even of Tasche-
reau if not further.

However the French-Canadian
bourgeoisie and its government
in Quebec will never succeed in
winning national self-determina-
tion precisely because its social
aims are just as anti-popular as
those of the Anglo-Canadian
bourgeoisie, and faced with a
choice of sacrificing their natio-
nal aspirations or their social
aims, inevitably their social aims
will prevail.

It is only the working class
and the government of which it
will be a part in Quebec (and, it
must be said, at Ottawa) which
will not find itself in this dilem-
ma and will hence be capable of
solving this problem and to put
an end to the tiresome game of
“ping - pong” between Quebec
and Ottawa.

SOFIA-HAVANA LINK

The Bulgarian-Cuban shipping
line began functioning regularly
as of July 1 and will be serviced
by the Bulgarian ships Peter
Beron, Lyuben Karavelov, Vassil
Droumev and Vassil Aprilov,
which will carry cargoes both
ways. =

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, AUGUST 18, 1972—PAGE 5