What are the political tasks confronting us, given Canada’s colonial relationship to the United States and the anti-national role played by our ruling class? It is the purpose of this section of our paper to put forward, in its broad outlines at least, the program of the Progressive Workers Movement for national independence, to show the relationship between the struggle for independence and the struggle for socialism, and to explain our views on what socialists should do in the context of the present Canadian situation.
There are many “socialists” in Canada, people who wish to see Canada become a socialist country. But there is more to the achievement of socialism than the mere statement of its necessity and inevitability. The specific tasks confronting socialists have varied from country to country, from one historical period to another. To say that we want socialism in Canada does not constitute a program, it merely states what our final purpose is. How we propose to attain this purpose is what constitutes a program, and our program must be based on an understanding of the particular situation we find ourselves in.
We stated in our introduction:
... it is the position of the Progressive Workers Movement that the development and success of a national independence movement in Canada is absolutely vital in our struggle for socialism, that no advances towards the goal of socialism can be made without such a movement developing, and that socialists must take an active and leading role in the building of this independence movement.
This position is based on our analysis of the specific Canadian situation, as described in the previous two sections. Very simply, in a colony, the chief obstacle on the path of progressive political development is the presence of the colonial power. In Canada, it is not the only obstacle, but it is the main one. It is the one we have to deal with first if we are to make any headway towards our ultimate goal of socialism. As Mao Tse-tung has pointed out:
“... if in any process there are a number of contradictions, one of them must be the principle contradiction playing the leading and decisive role, while the rest occupy a secondary and subordinate position.
“Therefore, in studying any complex process in which there are two or more contradictions, we must devote every effort to finding its principle contradiction.”
It is not difficult to see the truth of this statement in the present Canadian situation. What is the main contradiction in Canada? The main contradiction here is the one between U.S. imperialism and its Canadian servants on the one hand and the Canadian people on the other. This simply means that in Canada, the main oppressor is the “continentalist” American bourgeoisie through its servants, the Canadian comprador bourgeoisie. This is the contradiction that many people, Marxists and others, clearly recognize. In the words of the Watkins Manifesto:
“The major threat to Canadian survival today is American control of the Canadian economy. The major issue of our time is not national unity but national survival, and the fundamental threat is external, not internal.”
If we restrict ourselves to uttering slogans about socialism and ignore the question of national independence, what do we stand to achieve? In the first place, we shall render ourselves into a kind of political Don Quixote, directionless, tilting at all kinds of windmills in search of great ideals but not recognizing and not dealing with the most important, the most fundamental problem facing us at the present time. Secondly, we shall actively aid U.S. imperialism by denying its primary and controlling role in the Canadian situation. It, too, would like to deny its own existence – it is served well by “Marxists” who claim that their country is independent, or that, for one reason or another, American domination is not the number one contradiction we have to face. Finally, we would isolate ourselves from the Canadian people, more and more of whom are beginning to see the necessity of a Canada independent from American control. It is the task of socialists not to isolate themselves from the people, but to integrate their work with the struggles of the people, to provide leadership through all stages of the struggle. Of course, if most people were bent on pursuing a path that was harmful to their interests, then it would be the duty of socialists to actively oppose the taking of that path. Such would be the case if a political crisis developed and the majority of people were misled by the ruling class into supporting fascist objectives. But when the political sentiments of people reflect the very real situation they find themselves in, when these political sentiments are a healthy reaction to oppression, then socialists should be trying to provide active leadership, not opposition, so that these sentiments can be transformed into political action.
The “nationalist”, “anti-American” feelings of many Canadians have nothing to do with racism, have nothing to do with the kind of vicious chauvinism that ruling classes promote in order to oppress people both at home and abroad. These feelings represent nothing but the basic realization of Canadians that the chief source of their problems is the American control of their economic, political, and cultural lives. All people dominated by imperialism develop these feelings sooner or later, and all imperialists and their servants try to prevent such feelings from gaining effective political expression. Where foreign imperialism is in control, such feelings are basically progressive. That is, socialists and revolutionaries can relate them to a progressive program. We have seen that it is the Pearsons and the Trudeaus that equate the nationalism of the oppressed with the nationalism of the oppressor. We have seen that it was the pro-U.S. union national council of the NDP led by David Lewis who declared that “anti-Americanism is as barren and negative a concept as is anti-French or anti-English or anti any other country or people.” We have seen that after the publication of the Watkins Manifesto, it was the imperialist-dominated media in Canada that would not tire of attacking the “anti-Americanism” of the NDP faction. Is it not obvious that it is precisely this pro-independence sentiment of the Canadian people that most frightens the Canadian servants of U.S. imperialism? They understand only too clearly what the main contradiction in Canada is.
Recognizing U.S. domination as being the chief obstacle on the road to socialism, socialists should direct their efforts towards removing this obstacle. Only an independent Canada can move unhindered towards socialism, and only an active and vigorous independence movement can provide the leadership in the struggle for independence. Socialists should participate in and help build such a movement. This means working amongst the various sectors of the Canadian population and uniting as many Canadians as possible against their number one enemy, U.S. imperialism. A broad coalition must be built, a broad coalition whose purpose is the breaking away of Canada from the American empire, the achievement of the power of self-determination of the Canadian people. This movement must be built everywhere – on the campuses, in the labour movement, in the community. It must be comprised of Marxists and non-Marxists, socialists and non-socialists – all those who are ready to struggle against the American domination of Canada.
What would be the tasks of such a movement at the present time? Obviously at this stage, the independence movement must play a primarily educational role, in the broadest sense of the word “educational”. We must educate people in the necessity of independence, in the necessity of waging a struggle if independence is to be achieved, and in the possibility of success when such a struggle develops. We must actively involve people in the development of the fight for independence. In other words, the ideological hold of imperialism over the Canadian people must be broken.
We must expose to people the anti-national role of the comprador bourgeois class and its political representatives. It would be the task of the independence movement to thoroughly discredit the Liberals and the Conservatives as having been nothing but the Canadian bailiffs of U.S. overlords, to show how they have sold out their country in return for a share of the profits and the right to govern. We must thoroughly expose the Social Credit governments of British Columbia and Alberta as having distinguished themselves from the Liberals and Conservatives only in that, if possible, they have been even more eager to sell out their provinces to the Americans. And we must show people that the NDP leadership is struggling for no more than the right to behave in the same way.
It is important for the independence movement to maintain a correct, well-considered policy towards the NDP for the obvious reason that both amongst the rank and file members and the general supporters of the NDP there are many people who either now support or readily can be won over to a pro-independence, pro-socialist position. As social democratic parties everywhere do, the NDP appeals for mass support precisely to those people who want social change but think social change can occur under imperialism. Historically, social democracy has been one of the major political developments of imperialism and on more than one occasion it has stepped in to save imperialism from collapse. The Labour Party of England is just the latest of social democratic regimes to completely betray the very workers whose interests they are supposed to serve. There is no reason to suppose that the NDP will behave any differently from its European social democratic predecessors; we do not have to project into the future to see the role played by the NDP government of Manitoba or the labour bureaucrats who control the party federally and provincially.
The same labour bureaucrats who keep the Canadian trade union movement suffering under the misrule of the pro-imperialist AFL-CIO leadership control the NDP. It is naive to believe that these people will either give up their control voluntarily or will allow their bureaucratic and dictatorial control to be taken from them by any democratic means. They will certainly allow some debate to take place within the party; it is even in their interest to do so – it helps maintain the image of the NDP as a democratic, progressive force in Canadian politics. As long as the opponents of American domination within the NDP restrict their activities to the harmless plane of debate, they will be permitted to continue. But clearly any attempt to wrest control of the NDP from the bureaucrats would necessitate some hard organizing and sharp struggle – and that is precisely what they will not be allowed to engage in. To repeat the warning of David Lewis, deputy leader and the grey eminence behind Tommy Douglas: “If they attempt to build a machine, that’s a different story. If they try to push the party around, the party is not going to be pushed around.” Lewis’ warning should leave no illusions: those people now in the NDP who sincerely want to work for Canadian independence must be ready at some point to make a decision between their political objective and their present political affiliation.
It is not to be expected, however, that people will recognize immediately the validity of our position and leave the NDP just on our say-so. The independence movement must therefore be ready to maintain close ties with the progressive elements amongst the NDP following and to encourage the latter to carry on their pro-independence fight within the NDP up to and including the inevitable split with their leadership. Meanwhile the anti-imperialist struggle will not wait for internal developments within the NDP. Those who want to work for independence now and harbour no illusions about the NDP must organize their movement outside the NDP. In fact, the emergence of a genuine pro-independence movement outside the NDP will be a major factor in forcing: the split between the pro-U.S. NDP leadership and the many honest people who still hope to see that party lead the nation against American domination.
On the campuses it is necessary to build student movements on as broad an anti-imperialist base as possible, actively uniting all those who are willing to help in propagating an anti-imperialist, pro-independence perspective at the universities. All too often the student movement in Canada has ignored (or failed to recognize) Canadian realities and has merely copied the issues and tactics of the American student movement. Some students have fallen into the habit of talking about the war “our” society is waging in Vietnam, the slums “our” cities have allowed to develop when they mean the United States. This is the reflection of a colonial attitude. Canadian students must see the great necessity of developing our own analysis, strategy, and tactics to deal with the Canadian situation. It is true that the Canadian university serves the same ruling class as the American university, but it does so in different ways. It does so by furthering the cultural domination of Canada by the U.S., by doing research and training technicians for our “branch plant” economy. The struggle must begin at the universities against the specific role Canadian universities are playing, against the specific way they serve U.S. imperialism in Canada. This means, for example, a fight against the rapid and continuing Americanization of our universities, or some sharp ideological struggle against the pro-imperialist ideology taught in many of the courses. Whatever the tactics, they must be part of a strategy that recognizes Canada’s colonial relationship to the U.S. and is aimed at ending that relationship.
In the community we must develop an anti-imperialist analysis to provide a perspective for struggle that goes beyond any single issue and deals with fundamental causes. We must point out to people that, in the final analysis, every issue finds U.S. imperialist domination as its root cause. For example, for people concerned about pollution, we have to point out exactly who is responsible for pollution, that with an economy dominated by giant American corporations our environment is being destroyed in order to increase the profits of imperialism, and that it is politicians servile to foreign masters who allow this to take place. On the question of Vietnam, we must point out what is the true relationship of Canada to the Vietnamese struggle for self-determination. We must explain that it is not merely a matter of “Canadian Complicity,” as the Trotskyist-influenced peace groups put it, but that Canadian raw materials and weaponry are placed at the service of the American war machine precisely because the same people who are waging the war against the Vietnamese control Canada as well. This is how the slogan, “Their fight is our fight!” will really become meaningful. On an issue like the underground nuclear blast at Amchitka Island, it is not enough merely to protest against the callousness and irresponsibility of the Americans towards Canada, we must also point out to Canadians that it is their own docile politicians who allow such potentially dangerous nuclear tests to continue without more than a few token words of displeasure. In the women’s liberation movement, anti-imperialist women must show that the oppression of women is part of a social order supported by U.S. imperialism. In the unemployed organizations, we should not only attempt to build unemployed groups that can wage an effective struggle for employment and fair treatment; we should also explain that it is the American control of the Canadian economy that ties our economic fortunes to the uncertain fluctuations in the American economy, and which prevents job-producing secondary industries from developing in Canada. In other words, at every level on every issue we must provide an anti-imperialist, pro-independence perspective to the struggle.
If an effective struggle for independence is to take place in Canada, it is absolutely vital that an independent labour movement be built. This is not because Canadian unions can win better contracts than the “Internationals” (although this is usually the case). The real damage that American unions do to Canadian workers is not measured in so many nickels-per-hour on a contract. More destructive is the effect that the AFL-CIO controlled unions have on the working class movement, not only in Canada but also in the United States. For example, by organizing only a section of the working class (about 30% in Canada), the working class is divided and poorer paid workers abandoned. Also the stultifying bureaucracy of the “Internationals” makes the workers feel apathetic not only about their own union, but in general about the possibility of organizing in any way to improve their lot. But the most important aspect of the AFL-CIO control is the political control that goes with it. While a trade union organization is not itself a political party it can support political parties (like the Democratic Party in the U.S. and the NDP in Canada). Furthermore, its activities can have important political consequences – for example, a trade union centre could support, or refuse to support a political general strike at a critical point in a nation’s development. Because of this kind of political power, the CIA has been interested in trade unions for years, and the CIA’s influence in the AFL-CIO is well documented.
In Canada, the AFL-CIO uses its political power mainly to oppose the development of an independence movement (note, for example, its activities at the last NDP conference). This is in its interest both from the point of view of the dues that would be lost if an independence movement engulfed the trade unions, and also from the point of view of the rewards that come from being a faithful servant of imperialism. An independent Canadian trade union centre cannot substitute for an independence movement. But an effective independence movement in Canada will not be possible as long as the political aspect of the trade unions basically reflect the needs of U. S. imperialism. Some people say that the policy of Canadian unions for Canadian workers would “divide the international ranks of labour,” that it would place Canadian workers in antagonism with the American working class. Our position is that a struggle for Canadian independence would no more put us into opposition to the American working class than has the Vietnamese struggle placed the Vietnamese people in opposition to the American working class. It is the duty of the working class in the imperialist country to oppose the imperialism of its ruling class – if it fails to do so, that cannot be blamed on the people of the oppressed country. The highest form of internationalism is to fight against the common enemy of all the world’s working and oppressed people, U.S. imperialism. Only if the American workers choose to side with imperialism would we find ourselves in opposition to them. It is an absolute necessity that an independent Canadian working class movement provide leadership in Canada’s anti-imperialist struggle. Class conscious workers in the United States can only welcome the development of such a labour movement. (For a more detailed position on our attitude towards the American working class, see the Appendix.)
It is an undeniable fact that broad sections of the Canadian working class are thoroughly disillusioned with the policies and leadership of the “internationals” and would welcome an opportunity to effect a change. The important factor that has been missing was the existence of an alternative Canadian labour center which would provide leadership and a rallying point in the exodus of Canadian workers from the American unions.
Earlier in this paper we described some of the difficulties Canadian workers must face when attempting to organize their own independent unions. But the situation is far from hopeless, the stranglehold of U.S. unions over Canadian workers can be broken. Some small steps toward the establishment of an independent Canadian trade union center have already been taken. The Council of Canadian Unions, a newly formed association of independent Canadians unions, has made the most significant contribution toward such an independent Canadian alternative to the U. S. controlled “internationals” and their “Canadian” Labour Congress. At this point the CCU represents twenty-thousand workers. The creation of a vigorous Canadian trade union movement should do much to destroy the disillusionment, apathy, disunity, and demoralization that now pervades the ranks of organized labour.
Very often, of course, the fight for Canadian trade unions will begin over questions of internal democracy and local control rather than out of a larger political perspective that recognizes the need for a nation-wide independence struggle. Once more, it will be the task of the independence movement to show the relationship between the way the “international” bureaucracy oppresses the Canadian worker and the overall control that the U.S. exercises over Canada. Socialists must point out the necessity for the working class to take a leading role in the independence struggle.
At some point in the development of the independence movement in Canada, an independence party must arise in order to advance in the educational phase of the anti-imperialist struggle. The task of this party will be to lead the fight to such a stage that the U.S. rulers will no longer be able to control their Canadian colony by purely ideological and economic means. In other words, the Canadian comprador bourgeoisie will have been completely discredited and the U.S. will no longer be able to use them to mask its control of Canada.
In general terms, the party will be the organized expression on a nation-wide basis of the various tasks that will have to be carried out in working for Canadian independence. In addition to the various organizational tasks, such as the ones we have been outlining here, the independence party will be able to make use of the electoral process to publicize and agitate for the goal of national independence.
At the point where the Canadian compradore ruling class becomes unable to continue administering the country on behalf of their U.S. masters the independence struggle will have to move to a higher stage – unless we believe that the Americans will peacefully give up their most prized possession. Some people do seem to believe this. Cy Gonick, editor of Canadian Dimensions and NDP MLA in Manitoba who as we have seen clearly understands Canada’s primary importance to the American empire, has written:
“Talk of American invasion of Canada is clearly absurd and irresponsible. No doubt the Americans could retaliate in ways short of military invasion.”
But that is just the point. We are speaking of the moment when the U.S. can no longer keep Canada in line by whatever peaceful means; political, ideological, economic: at that moment, they will not hesitate to do here what they have done elsewhere when their empire has been threatened.
Not everyone is so naive as Gonick. George F. Ferguson, editor emeritus of the Montreal Star has stated recently:
“Canada is no Cuba. It is far more important to the United States than a small, impoverished island. Apart from the huge American investment in Canada, we occupy here a landspace between the United States and the Soviet Union... if a Canadian Castro followed the same line that the Cuban Castro did, we would be immediately overwhelmed.“
Not that we must mistake Mr. Ferguson for a dedicated anti-imperialist. For him, this was an argument against, instead of for, attempts to gain control over our own economy.
At the point of U.S. military interference the struggle will assume a military character. But does this mean that at the present time we should unite only with those who recognize the eventual necessity of military struggle? Far from it. We should unite in the independence movement all those with whom we have a basis of unity for action right now, in order to perform the tasks we can agree are necessary right now. As we have stated, the present phase of the struggle is primarily educational, therefore all those who are willing to agitate for Canadian independence should be considered allies in the anti-imperialist struggle.
We must understand that the “educational” phase deals only with the superstructure of society, the political and ideological means by which control is maintained over us. But the power of U.S. imperialism rests on its control of the economic base of society; in Canada it rests on its control of the Canadian economy. An independence party could conceivably be elected as the dominant governing body – but if it began and persisted in meddling with the U.S. control of the economic base, the retaliation would ultimately be military. Either Canada would be invaded or the elected government would be attacked by an imperialist-supported force of right-wing Canadians. The response of the Canadian people would therefore have to be a military one – defending our country from an actual invasion or from an imperialist-supported right-wing coup – or the advance to independence would be cut dead.
But until then we must direct our blows at the superstructure of politics, culture, and ideology in order to achieve a position of being able to threaten the imperialists’ rule over Canada at its economic base. And until then we must not expect everyone to agree with us on every point of our analysis before we are ready to unite with them.
The necessity is to build the broadest possible united front in order to free the nation from foreign domination, Socialists must be ready to unite with non-socialists in the struggle for independence. We must not be afraid of such alliances; we should attempt to build them. As Lenin wrote in “Left Wing” Communism:
“The more powerful enemy can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and without fail, most thoroughly, carefully, attentively and skillfully using every, even the smallest “rift” among the enemies, of every antagonism of interest among the bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries, and also by taking advantage of every, even the smallest, opportunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this ally be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who fail to understand this, fail to understand even a particle of Marxism, or of scientific, modern Socialism in general.” (p. 67)
“Socialists” who do not see the necessity of waging this anti-imperialist struggle in Canada have no place in the united front. If they oppose the struggle for independence, they will be helping to maintain imperialism – and therefore capitalism – in Canada. At this stage, the struggle for independence is the struggle for socialism.
This is not to say that nationalists and socialists have the same perspective. Socialists will realize that replacing the imperialists with a crop of home-grown exploiters is not only undesirable, but as a long term “solution”, it would be impossible. For, in the period when various imperialisms have divided up the entire non-socialist world, no emerging national capitalist class has the power to maintain itself as the ruling class. In order to defend independence, the working class must be the dominant force in the independence struggle. This means that, for example, the independence movement must demand that foreign controlled property be nationalized (without compensation) and be turned over to the Canadian people, i.e., to Canadians generally, not the handful of Canadian bourgeois.
As long as any property is in the hands of capitalists, no country can be completely socialist, i.e., communist. (Even China, in that sense, is not completely socialist). But if the section of the Canadian economy that is now dominated by foreign capital were in the hands of the Canadian people (which, as we have pointed out, could only take place with a military struggle), then we would have taken a giant stride towards socialism. The struggle against the national exploiters (which is now being waged by the foreign exploiters in their own interest) could be waged by the Canadian people with the former assets of the imperialists plus the power of the working class which will have gained military experience in the struggle against imperialism.
However, if the independence struggle takes place under the leadership of the national bourgeoisie with the result that they become the ruling class, not only would Canada remain capitalist, but also it wouldn’t remain independent for very long. Faced with the alternative of either mobilizing the working class or capitulating to imperialism in some new form (or perhaps a different imperialism – e.g., Russian), the national bourgeoisie would undoubtedly choose capitulation. The Canadian independence struggle would have been diverted down the same blind alley as, for example, was the Algerian struggle.
Obviously then, it is critical that the working class have the leading role in the independence movement, and put forth demands that will ensure that Canada’s independence, once achieved, will be lasting and that Canada will ultimately progress into a socialist state. Thus, socialists within the independence movement must not commit the mistake of making our minimum basis of unity with non-socialists our maximum basis of action. This was the mistake committed by Communist Parties in several countries during the united front period in the thirties. Having joined a broad “democratic” united front against fascism, they forgot about socialist aims and restricted their activity to the confines of the non-socialist united front. Just as we must avoid the sectarianism of refusing to unite with non-socialists, we must avoid the opportunism of attempting to gain acceptance by hiding or ignoring our socialist principles. In other words, we must continue to work openly for socialism both within and outside the independence movement.
There will no doubt be bourgeois nationalists in the independence movement; and, if they are genuine in their opposition to U.S. imperialism, they belong there. But, as pointed out above, their leadership would be disastrous. In opposition to bourgeois nationalist ideas, socialists will have to emphasize the socialist and internationalist aspects of the struggle. In particular:
(1) That nationalized property belongs to the Canadian people and not to any bourgeois elite.
(2) That our quarrel is not with the American workers, unless they allow themselves to be used as tools of imperialism against us. The defeat of U. S. imperialism is in the interest of the American people as well.
(3) That we support the right of all nations to self-determination. This includes Quebec’s right of secession (our emphasis on the point will lay the basis for unity of English and French speaking workers in the fight against their common enemy).
(4) That we ask for Canada no more than we ask for any nation. We don’t want Canada to advance at the cost of other nations – on the contrary, if Canada advances, we want to help others to advance as well. Our ultimate aim is not to raise our nation above others, but that all nations can be equal – providing one of the necessary conditions for the “withering away” of the various states.
It is clear that socialists, specifically Marxist-Leninists, will not be able to provide leadership in the independence movement and lead that movement in a socialist direction without a party built on Marxist-Leninist principles. It is up to the revolutionaries to give the independence struggle socialist content, but as individuals or as small unconnected groups our effect would be minimal. Only a nation-wide party can provide nationwide leadership. Such an organisation could examine the problems and tasks facing it collectively and scientifically, and act in a collective and disciplined manner that cannot be matched by individuals, no matter how ideologically advanced.
To give a specific example, there are many sincere people who regard themselves as socialists, recognize the necessity of independence as the basis for building socialism, but do not agree that armed struggle must inevitably take place if independence is to be achieved. We have already stated that such people must be regarded as our allies – but it is evident that we must not abandon our own analysis and principles in order to work with them. We must therefore continue to point out the eventual necessity of armed struggle – and only a party organisation can do that on a consistent and nation-wide basis. Needless to say, there are numerous other questions on which Marxist-Leninists will have to carry out their own separate propaganda and organizational work both within and outside the independence movement.
The formation and development of a genuine Communist Party of Canada must therefore be considered one of the primary tasks now facing Canadian Marxist-Leninists. This is not to say that any group of people can just arbitrarily announce themselves to the world as the Marxist-Leninist vanguard in Canada – they would be misleading only themselves if they did. But it does mean that Marxist-Leninists, no matter where in Canada, must organize groups and movements that can lay the basis for a genuine revolutionary party of the working class.
In summary, we see the necessity of building a broad independence coalition in Canada and, specifically for Marxist-Leninists, the development of a revolutionary Communist party to work both within and outside the independence movement.
As we said in the introduction, we cannot claim to be absolutely correct in every detail of our analysis. We feel, however, that our position is fundamentally correct. We realize many people will not fully agree with us and that there are other progressive groups across the country whose analysis might be somewhat different from ours. We feel that a thorough and extensive discussion of the issues of independence and socialism which we have raised here and which other people have raised elsewhere must take place throughout the Canadian left.
We are a small Marxist-Leninist movement operating mainly in the Vancouver area. We see our task as organizing along the principles laid down in this paper, in linking up with other groups across Canada who share our analysis, and in entering into discussion with those with whom the possibility of agreement exists. Although we exist organizationally only in the Vancouver area, we do have contacts across the country; in particular, subscribers to Progressive Worker which (in its previous monthly format) has been distributed nationally for five years. We hope other people will get in touch with us and let us know their opinions, criticisms and suggestions on our position.
 On Contradiction, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1964, p. 33.
 Gonick, Ibid., p. 21.
 The Vancouver Province, Dec. 3, 1969.
 Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1965, p. 67.