A

ty 16 meeting of that body. Led by Charles Millard and guided by opportunist electoral

olicies, the small group of CCE
artisans decided to rob the
sade union movement, and par-

= mdependent action. The CCF
tain-trusters embarked upon
is dangerous and splitting
ietic on the eve of the most

teful Dominion election in
story.

At a time when the growing
ade union movement has an
nparalleled opportunity +to
slp shape national policies
(rough its co-operation with
1 democratic forces in the
‘ontry, Millard and Company
‘cided to usurp the reputation
“the PA€ and to trade contra-
ind stuff under its label.

Under the constructive lead-
ship of Philip Murray, J. R.
jomas and Sydney Hillman
e PAC of the CIO in the
ited States achieved a bril-
mt record of accomplishment.
$3 non-partisan, political role
‘abled it to unite the forces
‘labor and democracy and to
iver-a Knockout blow ~ to
action in the United States.
ow, the CCE group carried
rough a brazen coup for the
irpose of using the reputable
id appealing name of PAG to
hieve the very opposite of
dat PAC did in the United
ates. They decided to make
2 PAC of CCL a partisan in-
rument for CCE electioneer-
=: They violated the pledges
the delegates attending the
+ CCL eonvention; They un-
samedly~ discarded the deci-
wm of PAC at its November
meeting; They transformed
i€ into a “come-on” sign for
trow CCE election ambitions.

That such®a high-handed ac-
m would sharpen labor’s po-
ical division within the CCL
jons; that it would help the
ry plot to split labor and di-
de it from the main demo-
atie forces in the country; all
‘S was evidently of no concern
the €CF brain-trusters who
sk upon the trade union move-
ent as something to be kid-
ipped for the benefit of their
ty, fortunes:

HHIR disgraceful and harm-
ful attack on PAC is dictat-
| by the political opportunism
lich determines ‘their whole
litical strategy. The federal
sction is around the corner.
te latest Gallup poll shows
at €CE support has declined
tently; that the Liberal Party
ll receives the largest public
Pport; that the reckless
Mes are still second in public
pice; that the GCF has not
& remotest chance of electing:
piadoxity, to the next Parlia-
paes

otmion sense would dictate
at, as in the United States,
& political strength of the
ade unions and of the entire
D0r movement should be util-
td to strengthen its own rep-

ularly the unions of the CCL,

Volume 1, No.

15, February 10, 1945

CCF Attack on PAC |

= -= €CF policy seeks to isolate CCL unions from the rest of organized
labor in the country and from non-working class democratic for-
ces. It is a splitting, devisive tactic dividing even the CCL unions.

By J. B. SALSBERG, MPP

resentation but to do that
within an overall objective to
defeat Toryism and to prevent
a combination of the Tories and
reactionary Liberals from com-
ing to power. But political op-
portunism disregards all these
considerations and, in the hope
of gaining a temporary advan-
tage, the main CCF trade union
leaders in the CG drive fran-
tically to prevent the trade
unions from emerging as a de-
cisive and independent political
force. Instead they decide to
Steal the reputation earned by
CIO’s PAC in the hope of ad-
vancing their party interests
during the coming few months.

This method of using reput-
able and inspiring names from
labor’s lexicon for ulterior pur-
poses is nothing new. Marx felt
called upon to urge the adop-
tion of the name “Communist”
by the real socialist parties of
his day in order to differentiate
between true scientific social-
ism and the mish-mash which
misused that name. The work-
ing class of France and other

Huropean countries were also

confronted by bourgeois and
outright reactionary political
parties who used. the name
“worker” and “socialist” as pre-
fixes to their party names. In
its crudest form it was em-
ployed by Hitler who sought to
exploit the German working
class adherence to socialism by
naming: his fascist party ‘“Na-
tional Socialists.” In our own
country we are witnessing the
attempt by discredited Toryism
to attach the name, “Progres-
Sive” to their traditional, but
odorous name. The latest CCE

_ Manoeuvre in PAC bears all the

earmarks of such deception.

It is not only a move to block
the growing movement for in-
dependent political action on
the part of organized labor but
it is also an unashamed per-
formance to exploit the name of
PAC which stands high inthe
eyes of American workers as
the synonym of successful, non-
partisan political action for the
most partisan and disruptive
political purposes.

Little wonder that the an-
nouncement of the decision
adopted by PAC at its meeting
in Ottawa on the 16th of Janu-
ary has already aroused a spon-
taneous revolt in the ranks of
the largest, most influential and

" politically most alert unions af-

filiated to the CCL.

(pees latest CCE attempt to
- prevent the trade unions
from exercising political influ-
ence and to usurp political
hegemony over the organized
workers climaxes a long period

of tireless, but unsuccessful ef- .

fort to achieve such conditions.

Since its inception, the CCF
leadership showed a desire to
receive the support of the trade
unions, but displayed fear and
distrust of trade union influence

CYNICAL and reckless raid was made by a handful of CCF trade union politicians
on the Political Action Committee of the Canadian Congress of Labor at the Janu-

within the GCF. When, after its

formative years, many trade
unions joined its “Labor Sec-
tion” as a part of the Federa-
tion, the non-working class
leadership of the CCF became

alarmed over the influence of

the trade unions and trade
union officers. To rid them-
Selves of direct labor influence,
they dissolved the Federation
Set-up; transformed the CCF
into a single membership party
and thus ousted the trade
unions from its ranks.

Since then it has been basic
CGF strategy to receive financial
Support from the unions, to
get their voting strength but
to deny them any direct role in
the leadership or in the formu-
lation of its policies. They want
the trade unions to be the hew-
ers of wood and the carriers of
water, which, of course, the ma-
jority of the unions reject.

At the 1943 CCL convention
in Montreal the CCE leaders
succeeded by the manipulation
of disproportionate national
delegations, to get an endor-
Sation of the CCF as “the po-
litical arm of labor.” That con-
vention also appealed to all
trade unions to affiliate to the
CGF. -This was done in the face
of strenuous opposition from
Some of the larger CIO unions
within the CL. The CCL did
not even make an attempt to
get. such an endorsation from
the Trades and Labor Congress
of Canada. That this decision
did not represent the views of
the majority of CCL members
became clear during the year
that elapsed between the Mont-
yeal convention and the 1944
meeting of the CCI in Quebec
city. Towards the end of 1944
less than a hundred local unions
— ClO, AFL, National, Inde-
pendent — out of a total of
about 5,000 Local unions affili-
ated in block to the CCF.

e
HE evident failure of the
decision of the Montreal
CCE convention spurred the

CCF group within the CCL to
a new manoeuyre. They organ-
ized a Political Action Commit-

tee with: rabid, partisan CCE- .

ers as the appointed members
of that committee. Millard mis-
represented the character of the
PAC which he established to
the chief international officers
of the Steelworkers Union. The
official report of the. United
Steelworkers of America men-
tions the fact that “in Canada
a PAC similar to the PAC in
the United States” was estab-
lished. Millard had no intention
of establishing a non-partisan
PA€ as did Murray, Thomas
and Hillman. But under this
misrepresentation he succeeded
in getting a sizeable subsidy as
the Canadian members’ share
for political activity. There is
no doubt but that the interna-
tional officers of the U.S.A.
acted in good faith.

The new PAC, with Millard
at the head, showed its colors
immediately after its forma-
tion. It was to be a CCF agency.

Coal miners, auto workers,
electrical _ workers, shipyard
workers, lumber workers and

others refused to have anything
te do with such a PAG. At the
Quebee CCL convention this
issue became the center of dis-
cussion. That Millard’s PAG
“was not like the PAC in the
USA” became clear even to
a visitor like Mr. Len De Caux,
CIO editor and Publicity Di-
rector, who covered the conyen-
tion for the “CIO News.” De-
seribing this discussion in CIO
News” of October 23, 1944, De
Caux says:

“This attitude towards the
CCF was sharply challenged at
the Quebee convention in a
large number of resolutions from
the CCL affiliates, which op-
posed restricting support to one
political party; called for ex-
pansion of the Political Action
Committee to include represen-
tation for a wider range of po-
litical thought;
a non-partisan policy similar to
that of the CIO in the U.S. for
the election of pro-labor and:
progressive candidates regard-
less of party, and looking to-
ward a coalition of all »rogres-
sive and democratic forces for
the enactment of a common
program.”

That really was the issue at
stake and that still is the issue
at stake.

In the face of powerful oppo-
Sition the leaders of the CCL
promised the delegates to re-
move the 1948 resolution from
the already printed program of
PAC. Pat Conroy, the GCL sec-
retary, promised to see that
PAC did not. become a partisan
instrument.

T the November 16 meeting

of PAC this basic question
challenged its members. Under
the influence of the opposition
manifested at the Quebee con-
vention a. month before, the
CCF partisans were compelled
to compromise. Millard and Co.,
were also conscious at that
meeting of the unanimous deci-
sion of the Trades and Labor
Congress convention to estab-
lish its own non-partisan PAG.
That meeting adopted a resolu-
tion which gave hope for a
non-partisan role for PAG. in
Canada. The resolution stated:

@ “That PAC is an agent of
the Congress unions and is
wholly independent of any po-
litical party;

® “That PAC is eager to co-
operate with and will seek the
co-operation of the Political
Action Committee which the
Trades and Labor Congress of
Canada has decided to estab-
lish and of other Labor and de-
mosratic bodies in the develop-
ment of day to day activities
for the enactment of legislation
that is required by Labor and
the common people of the coun-
try;

@ “That the
join its full

PAC-CCL will
strength and in-

and advocated

fluence with all other demo-
cratic organizations to defeat
reaction and to ensure the elec-
tion of a representative and re-
sponsible government of the
Eseple federally and provincial-
y.

@ “That PAG will strive to-
gether with any other Labor,
farmer and forward-looking or-
ganizations to hasten victory —
to win lasting peace — to pro-
tect the workers, farmers and
our fighting men, during the
period of reconversion and de-
mobilization—to attain full em-_
ployment and social security for
all people — and to gain for
labor its rightful place in the
Councils of the Nations.’

This was clear enough and
was greeted by all CCL unions
and by labor at large as a step
in the right direction. But even
in the face of such compelling
circumstances the Millard group
had already laid the basis for
the nullification of this deci-
sion at the first jopportunity.
They elected Eamon Park, one
of the most partisan oppon-
ents of independent political
action, to become the director
of PAG. =o]

HE opening of the Grey-—
North byelection and the

rapid approach of the federal
election, however, caused the
political opportunists to reverse
‘themselves all along the line.
Their narrow party interests
blinded them to all broader con-
siderations. They could not pos-
sibly be unaware of the effect
of their cynical intentions. But
their collective and individual
ambitions spurred them on to
reckless conclusions.

At the January 16 meeting
of PAC they scuttled the No-
vember policy, went back on the
October convention promises
and brazenly returned to the
dangerous and disruptive posi-
tion which they held when they
first formed the CGCL-PAC.
They decided that:

-@ “National PAC reaffirms its
endorsation of the GCE and
through its organization will do
all possible to elect a CCF goy-
ernment at the next general
election.

@® “That in given constituen-
cies will endorse individual CGF
candidates and offer full organ-
izational supp@rt to these ecan-
didates in their campaign for
election.

@ “That local PAC’s shall
make recommendations to the
National PAC regarding local
candidates but in ordér that a
full and coordinated political
action plan may be followed the
final Congress policy in regard
to candidates will be in the
hands of the National PAC .. .”

There you have it in no
mistaken shape! No independent
political action by the trade un-
ions as was done under the
leadership of the CIO and its
PACE in the U.S.A.! No consid-
eration to the urgent need of
defeating Toryism and of
Strengthening the labor-demo-

—Coniimued on Page 10