This text is a portion of a lecture by Hervé Buyet ata
Canadian Tribune Forum in Toronto in February en-
titled: The Constitution Crisis: What Are the Choices?
Hervé Fuyet is currently a Communist Party candidate
in the Quebec elections.

By HERVE FUYET
_ The constitution has become a major topic of discus-
sion, and that is quite understandable, because prac-
tically everything today is connected in one way OT the

B constitutional alternative

provincial states, and that could only be at the expense of
Canada as a whole.

The multi-nationals, mainly from the USA, and in
particular those connected with oil and other sources of
energy, push in that direction so that they will have
easier control. So, when we talk about a constitution, we
should have in mind not only a constitution in the narrow
sense but we should also have in mind economic ques-
tions, such as public control and nationalization of
energy resources, and various parts of the Canadian

a
z
economy. F3

other with what type of new fundamental law we require.

_How can we resist, for instances, the right-wing poli-
cies of the Reagan administration which are being pres-
sed upon us? Obviously by some sort of unity. And it’s a

The Clark policies of a community of communities is 8
another attempt to substitute something for the national =
rights of Quebec and of the Native people, to substitute ©
extensive provincial rights,

extensive provincial {

critical question to resist U.S. imperialism today.
Without a united Canada we cannot resist it; and we
cannot have a united Canada unless we have democracy,

_and national equality, for example between Quebec and

English Canada, or without taking into account the rights
of the Native people. —- nae
‘We are opposed to the patriation of the constitution
ause we consider that it is not really a constitution in
the first place. It is really a British colonial act. Some
people argue that it is not quite so because since the

_ Statute of Westminster in 1931 we merely entrusted the

British to act as a notary. But never has the British North

America Act represented the will of Canadians, at any

time, before or after 1931.
oa * *

Trudeau pretends that bi-lingualism is some sort of
principle for him, but he seems to be loose on the prin-
ciple, because when he comes to Ontario, it doesn’t
seem to apply any longer, to the point where the

‘ranco-Ontarians’ democratic rights, in terms of educa-
tion in their language, are_not really protected.
, So the real principle is not bi-lingualism; the real prin-
ciple is rather to displace the problem and to eliminate
the whole national question.in terms of Quebec. It be-
comes a substitute for the frank dealing with the exis-
tence of the French Canadian nation, and the right to
self-determination. ae

We are in a situation where Trudeau continues to
ignore the reality of the bi-national state ... and opens
the door to a situation where, around the idea of renewed
federalism, anything goes, in particular, demands on the
part of provincial governments for such a degree of

decentralization, and is anothef attempt to hoodwink us.
ee, See

In Quebec, when the Communist Party presented a3
brief at the National Assembly, in February, one deputy z

said: But if you have a constituent assembly (as we
proposed) you will have the same political problem, the
same politicians with the same party discipline, and you
won't achieve anything. :

But the truth is, if people feel they want to work on the
basis of a constituent assembly as distinct from the nor-
mal course of events, they would elect people for that
specific purpose. Some of them would be constitutional

_ experts, true, but most of them need not be. The Cana-

dian labor movement, and the Communist Party, for
example, took very clear and important positions on
such an issue. They certainly would have representation
in the constituent assembly. :

And to have any chance of success, such an assembly
should be convened on the basis of certain fundamental
principles which would be accepted ahead of time. One
of them is that the French Canadians are recognized as a
nation. Success depends on such recognition, and on
free and equal association of the people of Quebec and
the people of English Canada, in a bi-national Canada,
which would be sovereign and independent.

The Communist Party thinks in terms of a new con-
stitution, made in Canada, and which would transform
Canada into a confederal republic, with a government

‘consisting of two chambers, the lower house with de-

puties elected as we are used to doing, on the basis of
population, -on the basis of one person, one vote; and
another house which would be a bi-national house, the

2
9°
=
w

Trudeau’s failure to recognize the reality of a bi-national
state opens the door to ‘‘anything goes” around the idea
of renewed federalism.

house of the two nations, embodying the democratic
principle of the equality of nations, regardless of their
size, and probably that is where the Native people would
have representation.

There French and English Canada would have an_
equal number of representatives; and laws, to be passed,
would have to be voted on by both chambers.

a * * >

Ina recent petition campaign in Quebec, which stated
that we are opposed to the patriation of the BNA Act, in
Yess than a month we got 715,000 individual signatures.
The text was very simple, stating opposition to the fact
that the constitution will be patriated or amended with-
out the agreement of Quebec.

We are trying to move the labor movement into a more
united reaction to the situation. And perhaps the people
could demonstrate what type of constitution could be
achieved . . . involving the labor movement, progressive
organizations, perhaps some PQ elements, Communists,
NDPers, those who are willing to stand up.

We could demonstrate, not only to stop patriation (of
the BNA Act), but demonstrate that the people of
Canada could.do better than is being done in preparing a
constitution. :

decentralization that we would end up with 10 little

'

_ Why

The press of March 12 informed Cana-
dians that Prime Minister Trudeau along -
with U.S. President Reagan, witnessed
the signing of the renewal of the North
American Air Defence Agreement.
(NORAD) for five more years. The un-
seemly haste to renew NORAD, which
was not due until May, is cause for public
concer. This is particularly so because
parliament was not consulted. How did

the haste to renew NORAD?

he he

Alfred Dewhurst.

‘| Marxism-Leninism Today

and depth of such risk we note it here.
Estimates which have been published
__ from time to time indicate that total nu-
clear warheads in the world are in excess
of 40,000. The total explosive power of
present nuclear arsenals is estimated to
. be in the neighborhood of one million
Hiroshima bombs, which equals some
13,000 million tons of TNT. This in tum
is equivalent to more than three tons for

this come about? How will parliament
react to such blatant arrogance on the
part of the prime minister and his
ministers? : -

* *  *

’ This military pact with the USA came
up for renewal in May of 1980. At that
time it was debated in parliament, which
confirmed its renewal for one year only
instead of the customary five years. Ob-
viously there must have been an impor-
tant reason for such a result. That reason
could have been based on the extensive

public opposition to Canada being tied’

militarily in an unequal alliance with the
USA. ese

If such was the case, and we have
cause to believe it was, then why does
the prime minister flaunt that public opin-
ion now? Why did he deliberately by-pass
parliament on such a vital issue as
NORAD? Those who are wise to the
ways of politicians in our capitalistic soc-
iety are concerned, that the automatic
renewal of NORAD by the prime min-
ister and his ministers could only come
about with the tacit approval of the lead-

ers of the opposition parties in parlia-
ment. _ eee

The government and the opposition
parties, especially the New Democratic
Party, must surely realize that NORAD
is not a defence agreement for Canada

- but, rather, is a device to convert Canada
into an outpost of U.S. militarism. Itis an -

outpost directed against our neighbor to
the north, the USSR. And like all military
outposts; Canada would be expendable
in the event of a nuclear war breaking out

between the USA and the USSR. In such”

event, Canadian airspace would be the
advance battlefield of a nuclear war.

Surely, our parliamentarians are not so

naive as to believe otherwise. We do not
believe they are. It is our opinion that
many of them, for one reason or another,

are prepared to take a calculated risk with

our lives as the stakes in that gamble. Not
to speak of the nuclear destruction of our
populated centres, and the reduction of

"vast areas of our land into nuclear waste-

land. s

_ Such calculated risk is based on, the
erroneous notion of a dictated peace
through military might, based on nuclear
weaporiry and a strike-first policy. The

only peace such strategy will bring, is the
* peace of the grave. ° . x6,
* * * 2 .

It is important to never forget that the
armaments industry is extremely pro-
. fitable in our capitalistic society. And it
will be more profitable under the Reagan
plan to modernize and expand consider-

ably U.S.-arms production. Such expan- ~

sion includes anti-ballistic missiles, mul-
tiple targetable re-entry vehicles
(MIRV), cruise missiles, mobile land-
based missiles and the neutron weapon.
With a crisis-ridden economy showing
little or no signs of improvement, the
promise of an economic shot in the arm
through a possible sharing in U.S. arms
production expansion, could look very
good to Canadian industrialists, govern-
‘ment and big business generally.
It could be that such promise of getting
a share of a beefed-up arms market, en-
tered into the ill-conceived decision of
‘the federal government to renew
NORAD for another five years. Need-
less to say that decision is rooted in the
- calculated risk notion.

* * *

To give the reader.an idea of the extent

every man, woman and child on earth. -

This is the destructive power that
Canada is tied to by its alliance with the
USA through NORAD — a military pact
that is based on the calculated,
strike-first policy of the U.S. military-

- industrial complex. ‘
‘ So eR

It is imperative that parliament should
demand that the government's renewal
of NORAD be reviewed. The NDP
parliamentary group would perform a_
most notable service to Canada and her
people in placing such a demand before

Prime Minister Trudeau and his min-
isters. Let it not be said that the NDP
failed this most important responsibility
to the Canadian people.

Rather than serving as a pawn in the
game of ‘‘calculated risk’’ with a nuclear |
holocaust, parliament should demand
that Canada serves as a bridge for peace
between our two mighty neighbors. We
urge that parliament call upon U.S.
President. Reagan to accept uncondi-
tionally Soviet President Brezhnev’s
proposal for a summit meeting on con-
fidence-building measures between their
two countries. ;

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MARCH 27, 1981—Page 5

Sica

ee es ee