HAP

os WRONG with Par-

ing| nt? There is seem- Verin Y endless debate, ma- Mage, a Or partisan ad- of aye Very little in the Sblems 10n on the pressing € country.

e

the a8 debate is on again rt despit of it all is far from Ms toy the fact that there a reasonably gen- t on the part of , Canadians on

Mg oni; Coupled with a a s fet Parliament | , | With Gthe matter and , & €r urgent busi-

NS); Roy. ae these which © Canagi,c@ the minds of lang these days,

f leader td ich a

oOo 2

rat

Sh

Spok.

fe C. Douglas has charged that th i aa all Canadians are made not in ‘ye then Man a the monopoly financial institutions an fy eWS the Y of which are owned by foreign investors.

Storey tower in Montreal is the hi

oun) Next ding ever conceived. It is also conce

“glas etteg it will provide many more of the of.

Nes T be home of the Montreal and Canadian Stock

A report from the Couchiching conference By NELSON CLARKE

were the subject of intensive discussion at the 33rd Couchich- ing conference held at the end of July under the joint sponsor- ship of the Canadian Institute of Public Affairs, and the Cana- dian Broadcasting Corporation. Present were people represent- ing a wide cross section 0. opinion.

To begin with, it was obvious that there is a deep-going sus- picion the press is not doing 4 good job of reporting on events in Parliament.

In the course of one discus- sion Peter Newman, Ottawa editor for the Toronto Star and author of a gossipy and super- ficial book about Diefenbaker called Renegade in Power, as- serted that the big problem in

ao e economic Ottawa but d large Photo

ghest rein- ivable that board

Pt cult I LLL tae

Parliament was that Diefenbaker and Pearson don’t like each other! This writer, in the question period suggested that it was hardly likely that the institu- tion of Parliament was so de- ndent on the “cult of two per- sonalities,” and expressed the view that the press itself is con- tributing to public cynicism about Parliament. There was an outburst of applause in response to these remarks, and when Newman endeavored to an- swer by saying that the “press doesn’t make the news, but only reports on it,” the audience ex-

pressed its scornful rejection of

this defense.

As a result, the following evening three representatives of the press were put up as a panel, and had the unusual and for them discomforting eXPe- rience of answering questions instead of asking them.

From all sides they were com- pelled to listen to charges that the press gives @ slanted and biased interpretation of events, and prefers to dwell on sensa- tionalized accounts of clashes in Parliament which may sell newspapers, but does little to convey the real facts about what is going on in Ottawa.

As the conference went on it became clear that the people there were not satisfied to dis- cuss the workings of Parliament in general. They wanted to get to a discussion of some of the big political issues that confront Parliament and the country.

ere was very special con- ee he relations be-

ernments, getting in it is in & «< pbetween Ottawa and

ies”, 1 ) provinces which it cannot am

end or change.

This suspicion was pretty well confirmed when the sponsors of the conference brought down on the last day, Maurice Lamon- tagne, the secretary of state,

to outline his views on “co- operative federalism.” Listening to him it was easy to under- stand why some people in Que- bec have recommended that the Queen knight him for his ser- vices to the British crown.

According to Mr. Lamon- tagne, there are not two na- tions in Canada, just 10 pro- vinces. Since one of the 10 — Quebec — is demanding more autonomy, Mr. Lamontagne’s solution is to give them all more autonomy. Much more. The responsibilities of the fe- deral government should be greatly reduced. In fact, just about all he could think of the federal government doing was looking after such matters as moving pictures, and ballet.

One wondered why he didn’t come right out and propose that the federal government be turn- ed over to the CBC, leaving the 10 provinces to deal as their respective governments see fit with everything else.

With these kind of people in high places, it’s easy to see why the Parliament of Canada is in trouble, and will be in trouble until we get a new constitution which recognizes the national rights of French Canada to full equality, and which will make it possible for English Canada to get on with arrangements for central organization of urgent matters like education, and national health and welfare.

Both NDP and Communist spokesmen, in answering La- montagne, joined in stressing the need for a new constitution.

This argument around Confe- deration serves to illustrate the point that seemed to be widely sensed and sometimes openly expressed that week on the shores of Lake Couchiching — that the main problem of gov- ernment in Canada is not the in- stitution of Parliament as such — but the policies that are es- poused by those within Parlia- ment.

This in turn raises the ques- tion of where and how policy decisions are made, and most especially of the role of the big monopclies in cooperation with

August 28, 1964—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 5

the highly placed officials of the machinery of state in deciding the course of events outside of Parliament.

At the recent Saskatchewan CCF provincial convention NDP leader T. C. Douglas declared: “The real gavernment of Can-

‘ada is not in Ottawa, but in the

board rooms of the banks, in- surance companies and other large corporations, many of which are owned by foreign in- vestors. These are the people who make the economic :deci- sions which affect all of us. These decisions are so import- ant that we will never be able to build a sound economy until the government takes them away from the centres of power, and transfers them back to the people through their eleeted re- presentatives...”

_ There were undoubtedly many at Couchiching who would have agreed with this viewpoint, and some _ pointed questions along these lines were asked. But the question of where power actually lies in our country was not really faced up to by the conference.

Yet it is to this problem—of curbing and eventually breaking the power of the big monopolies —that all democratic Canadians will soon have to address them- selves.

Parliament — the elected re- presentatives of the people — can be an essential instrument in this process providing that a constant struggle is waged to make it more responsive to the people’s will, and _ providing above all that the labor move- ment as a whole and all other progressive forces can be united

in independent political actions:

to elect representatives who will stand up for the new,,poli- cies our country needs. »

Therefore, while being very critical of the present Parlia- ment and its failures, let us not fall into the trap of cynicism about Parliament itself. For this would serve no one but the big monopolies, and the Goldwaters in our midst who would destroy democracy altogether.