THE NATION’ |

Fascists greeted,
democrats barred

By TIM. BUCK

HE prowing preference of big business and

the St. Laurent government for fascism and
fascists was flaunted brazenly a week ago. Four
Frenck Vichyites, who have been found guilty
of wartime collaboration by French courts and
have been sentenced there in absentia, secured
illegal entry into Canada after their escape from
France.

They were exposed eventually, concurrently
with the exposure of the collaborator Count
Jacques de Bernonville. According to Canadian
law they, and Count de Bernonyille, should be
deported. According to the laws-of France they
should be returned to that country. According
to the United Nations, Canada certainly should
not give sanctuary to convicted fascists who
have not yet satisfied the law of their native
land.

What dic the St. Laurent government do?
It went out of its way to make those war crimin-
als welcome.in Canada. ‘To make it possible for
them. to remain here in defiance of the Canadian
immigration act, the law
United Nations, a special law was enacted—by

order-in-council, without the knowledge of the

public or members of parliament.

The men for whom the St. Laurent govern-
ment performed this extraordinary service are:
Dr. Georges Benoit Montel, Dr. Andre Charles
Emanuel Boussat, Julian Gaudéns labedan, and
Jean Louis Huc.

' No wonder public opinion was outraged. It
is but a short time ago that several anti-fascist
refugees were deported back to the DP camps
in Germany because they had entered Canada
illegally. Against Hitler’s victims the law of

Canada was enforced in all its majesty to an_

accompaniment of hypocritical protestations of
“impartiality” and “inability to make exceptions.”
In favor of Hitler’s friends the law of Canada
is Overruled by secret government action.

@ The contrast between Louis St. Laurent’s
“sympathy for the fascist collaborators and his
antipathy to those who fight against fascism is
illustrated by the contrast between the case of
the four collaborators (and the squirming of the
dominion department of immigration in the effort
to give Count de Bernonville sanctuary against
the wishes of the French government) and the
case of Jean St. Andre and his wife now de-
tained in Montreal immigration barracks.

Jean St. Andre was not a collaborator during

the war. He was an active member of the Free.
He came to Canada early.

France movement. 1
during the war with a group of Free Frenchmen,
Significantly enough, the immigration depart-
ment had no fault to find with him then. When
France was overrun by the Nazis he went to
the United States and joined the U.S. merchant
marine. He was decorated during the war for
meritorious service .At the end of the war he
returned to Montreal and established himself in
business. He was doing well and considered
himself and his wife domiciled in Canada.

He has now been ordered deported to France
because he does not have proper immigration
documents. No wonder that he complains bitter-
ly: “Collaborators are being permitted to remain

in this country, why can’t something be done —

for my wife and me?” ie

The labor movement and all democratic Can-
adians should speak out against this cynical de-
nial of all the principles for which democratic
people wage the war. Send the fascist collabor-
ators back to face people’s justice, open the
doors of Canada to the Jean St. Angles and
proven enemies of fascism.

of France and the °

‘disappear into thin air?

Arms plants sold
at fraction of cost

By MARK FRANK

ae —OTTAWA
ANADA spent over $700,000,000 of taxpayers.’
money on machinery, equipment and_build-
ings for production of ‘munitions and weapons
during the Second World War. Of this amount
70 percent went to machinery and equipment and
30 percent io building.

What happened to this vast outlay? An
official report dated June 1948 reveals that many

~ of them were “of modern construction and were

Did they

equipped with the latest machinery,”
And

Who got them?
for how much?

Partial answers to these questions are now
being provided in official government reports of
War Assets Corporation and the Department of
Reconstruction and Supply.

Of the 170 plants, 104 were sold and five
leased to private industry. Ultimate disposal of
the plants, their cost to the government and the
price they sold at, to industry is difficult to trace
because of the evasiveness of the government
reports. While the figures are available they are
not printed alongside each other. Instead the
sales price to industry is given in most cases,
while the cost to Canadian taxpayers is omitted.

A tabulation made in January; 1947, of 67

‘sales including sale of complete establishnients

and lands, and buildings reveal that the entire
lot valued at $73,819,00 sold to private industry
for $26,787,500 or at 36 percent of cost.

Some sample deals were:
—Dominion Magnesium (Haley's Corners)

sold to Dominion Magnesium (Toronto). Cost
$3,461,860; sold for $1,400.000.
—lLaCorne Molybdenite (Val D’Or) to

“Molybdenite Corporation of Canada. Cost $443,-

068; sold for $75,000.
—John Inglis to Addison Ltd. (Toronto).
Cost $1,767,992; sold for $510,000.

—Ferranti Electric (Toronto) to the same
. company.
—CPR (Montreal) ta the same company. —

Cost’ $159,083; sold for $78,000.

Cost $319,092; sold for $90,000.

—Canadian Strip. Mill (New Toronto) to
Anaconda American Brass. Cost $1,022,947;
sold for $455,000.

_-—Research Enterprises (Leaside) to Corning
Cost $522,000; sold for $150,000. -

Glass Works.

—Otis-Fensom Elevator (Hamilton) to the
Studebaker Corporation of Canada. Cost $2,626,-
039; sold for $500,000. Rae

—Alberta Nitrogen Products (Calgary) and
Consolidated Mining and Smelting, both sold to
Consolidated Mining and Smelting. Cost $15,637,-
802; sold for $7,500,000.

LABOR FOCUS

Contrast marked
in labor meets

By J. B. SALSBERG

HE, 1948 conventions of the trade union con-

gresses are over. They provide material
for a study in contrasts. They also provide a
warning and lesson to all workers.

The CCL meeting in Toronto lived up to
nearly all expectations of big business while
the Trades Congress convention in Victoria was
a major disappointment to it. The CCL was
found to be “refreshing” to the organ of the gold
mine owners — the Toronto Globe and Mail,
while the TLC was evidently not so exhilarat-
ing to the money barons.

The CCL was. dominated by a clique of ex-
treme rightwing “socialists” of_ Ernie Bevin’s
type and, like their prototype they also received
the blessings of the Tories. The TLC, on the
other hand, was influenced by an unfettered and
politically diverse group of leaders who are far
closer to the rank and file and incomparably
more representative of the true relationship of
forces inside the Canadian trade union move-
ment than was the CCL gathering.

One was steamrolled by an unrepresentative
machine-controlled majority, while the other was
in control of delegates who were free to act and,
therefore, aligned on each major issue in accord-
ance with the merits of the issue. One has left

. most delegates, even the machine delegates, de-

jected and frustrated, while the other sent the
delegates home in a mood of buoyancy and
optimism.
Nowhere was. the difference revealed more
sharply than on the central, overriding issue of
unity. Big business and its press was cheered
by the action of the CCL burocracy in suspend-
ing the metal miners’ union. These anti-labor
forces: in connivance with Labor Minister Hum-
phrey Mitchell, labored to bring about the most
damaging split within the bigger of the two tiade
union centers, the Trades and Labor Congress.
The fighting seamen were their immediate target
and Frank Hall was their poisoned arrow. Frank
Hall’s newspaper build-up was only second to
that of Elsie, the Borden cow. so
@ What did the two conventions accompl:sh?
The Mosher-Millard-Conroy crowd nearly choked

its own delegates by forcing down the decision.

The

to uphold the suspension of the miners.

, ayeekes

TLC, on the other hand, smashed the Frank Hall- — o

big business splitting. conspiracy completely. ©
The agents of the shipping corporations were
blown sky high. Unity was reafhrmed; the :ea- _
men’s strike was unanimously endorsed; the
supreme issue of labor unity triumphed as
gloriously in Victoria as it suffered mercilessly
at the hands of the Mosher cabal.

On the issue of red-baiting, that Hitlerite
weapon of destruction of labor and democracy,
the contrast is also clear. True that a majority
of TLC delegates swayed and bowed somewhat

_ to big business pressure and also adopted an
unjustified resolution.

But the CCL machine
plunged overboard entirely, outdoing even Drew
and Duplessis on red-baiting. It was a miserable
picture.
_ As to the critical issue of war and peace
and international relations, the TLC resolution

could, of course, stand a great deal of improve- |
on But it held up —
the traditional labor banner for peace and against _

ment from our point of view.

war. The right-wing CCF-CCL machine at.
Toronto was literally howling for war. Its 1eso-

lution on the Marshall Plan and the international _

crisis does not differ from the statements and
policies of the Wall Street bankers by one iota. -
The contrast can he extended ‘te all other
important issues which are before labor and
the people: The CCL convention, however, has:
one redeeming feature. It was staged by the
machine to be an anti-Communist, red-baiting
spectacle. But the machine overreached itself
and overdid it. It literally demoralized its own
picked delegates. The opposition was the real
victor at the CCL convention despite the count —
of votes which went against it.

as the battle wore on, while the “leaders’ on
the platform were dwarfed even in the eyes of
their own, captive, delegates. We are confident
of the reaction of the CCL membership. We
trust and have faith in the rank and file.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—OCTOBER 29, 1948—PAGE §

wi The leaders of ©
the opposition rose in the eyes of all delegates _