LABOR FRONT

By WILLIAM KASHTAN

Some form of flirtation seems to be developing between
a few leading members of the New Democratic Party and
the Liberal Party in Ontario.

Recently a story appeared in the
press reporting a discussion between
three unnamed leaders of the NDP and
leaders of the Liberal Party. Queried
about it, Murray Cotterill, publicity
director of the United Steelworkers of
America, is quoted as saying there have
“undoubtedly been numerous discus-
sions going on between individuals” but
he knew nothing of an “official nature”’
about meetings between unionists or NDP officials with the
Liberals.

The day after he made the above statement it was report-
ed that Murray Cotterill and William Mahoney, Canadian
director of the Steelworkers, were among the three who had
held discussions with the Liberals.

What were the discussions about? The press speculates
that they centred around the idea of a Liberal-Labor coalition
in the coming provincial elections.

This has been denied dy Messrs. Mahoney and Cotterill.
But they did admit to discussing the kind of labor ‘platform
the Liberal Party should advance in the elections.

What is the purpose of window dressing the Liberal Party
labor platform if not to attract the working-class vote at
the expense of the NDP? One does not need to be a prophet
to know that the parties of monopoly are often prepared to
make concessions and to promise many things except one:
to get off the backs of the working people.

* * *

One can only conclude from these political manoeuvres
engaged in by Cotterill and Mahoney that they see no prospec-
tive advance for the NDP in the coming provincial elections
and are therefore throwing their weight behind the Liberal
Party. If that is not so, what is behind the flirtation?

Could it be that the international union headquarters in
the USA are exerting pressure on their Canadian officers to
break with the NDP and throw the support of the Steel union
behind ‘the Liberal Party?

During a Canadian Labor Congress convention in Mont-
real a few years ago International President McDonald of
the Steel union made no bones about his opposition to inde-
pendent labor political action.

On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly clear to a
growing body of Canadians that the Liberal Party is the
preferred party of the Kennedy administration. One has only
to see how quickly Mr. Pearson has responded to the “‘deli-
cate” pressures of that administration with respect to nuclear
arms for Canada and her armed forces to realize that, in
effect, it has become the “American Party” in Canada.

Messrs. Mahoney and Cotterill may argue that this is a
sound piece of politics, that what they are striving for is to

bring about a new political re-alignment in Ontario and in
Canada.

But whatever their intentions may be, what they are
doing in fact is weakening the movement of independent labor
and labor-farmer political action, undercutting the NDP and

- Opening the door for the strengthening of the parties of mon-
Opoly.

They may argue that they are not in favor of a Liberal-
Labor merger or coalition. But in practice they seem to be
veering in that direction. No matter how they may try to
disguise it, they appear to bé following a course laid down
in a series of Toronto Star editorials which called for a mar-
riage of Liberals and the NDP.

What started as a flirtation could therefore lead to an en-
gagement and a marriage at the expense of independent labor
political action. It should be condemned by all who see the
need and the possibility of such action and are prepared to

work might and main to advance it. -
* aaa *

The labor movement which has taken a forthright posi-
tion against nuclear arms in Canada and for her armed forces
is now faced with -one of its greatest challenges as a resuit
of Mr. Pearson’s and the Liberal Party’s “about face” on this
great issue.

It is obvious that the steam roller is working overtime,
determined to push the Canadian people into accepting a wea-
pon which neither defends peace nor Canada’s security.

It is equally obvious that efforts are afoot to break the
united front of the labor movement on this issue, paralyze
the resistance to accepting nuclear arms and, if possible,
force the trade union movement to change its position on this
vital issue.

The Jenoves and Federmans are playing the game of those
who are trying to do exactly that.

Now is the time, therefore, for all sections of the trade
union movement to speak up again in opposition to nuclear
arms for Canada and her armed forces. Now is the time for
the CLC, the CNTU and other unions, in unison with the

NDP, the farm and cooperative movements, the peace move-
_ ments, to speak and act with one voice.

MSNAUGHTON SPEAKS OUT

‘Columbia pact represents major |
calamity for Canada and B.C."

McNaughton deals with
Mica only incidentally in
the material released so

far, but in it he shows that |

this giant, second only to
Grand Coulee in potenial,

would also’ be subordin-
ated for U.S. interest.

¢ “I would say that there is no

provision in the Treaty which
gives Canada any right to regu-
late Mica for other than optimum
system benefits at the call of
the U.S. entity... . By the time
Mica generation comes to be in-
stalled — if ever — the U‘S. re-
quirements for regulation will be
essentally for ‘‘peaking’’ while
the Canadian need will be for
firm power.

“In fact, it is very doubtful if
it would be economically prac-
ticable for Canada to proceed
with the installation of Mica
generation, a_ situation which
would no doubt suit the U.S.
government very well because
their interest in the Columbia
River Basin is in storage up-
stream for use for power and
flood gontrol benefits in the U.S.
unimpeded by any other con-
sideration whatsoever. That is,
their interest in the Canadian
Columbia is as a simple “‘storer
_of water’ or provider of ‘Reser-
voir Space’.’’

McNaughton shows that the
Treaty will result in a growing

Last week the PT pub-
lished the first article
summarizing views of Gen.
McNaughton which were
placed kefore a meting
of Senators and MP’s re-
cently. This article com-
pletes that summary.

settlement in the lower Columbia
Valley around Portland, Oregon.

“The move out into the flood
plain of the lower Columbia
which is taking place at every
increasing rate will raise the re-
quirement for the operation of
Canadian storage progressively
both in frequency of demand and
amount. . . This is an insatiable
never-ending objective which it
has been said might absorb the
operation of 70 M.A.F. of up-
stream (Canadian) storage (4
times the amount already ‘com-
mitted’ by the Treaty.’’)

This particular feature would
enhance the Portland area to the
detriment of Vancouver and
represents a particularly degrad-
ing form of national betrayal.

‘Here is how McNaughton put it:

“While these vast interests in
lower Columbia real estate are
not existent or in hazard, they
will come into existence as a con-
Sequence of the service of Canada
provided for in the Treaty. We
will thus be in a sense the crea-
tor of the crushing burden we
will have to bear in the future
when our lands will need to be

Stepped-up American pressure
against countries trading with
Cuba was indicated in a state-
ment by U.S. press officer Joseph
W. Reap recently.

He said the U.S. has warned
countries whose ships go to Cuba
that they run the danger of los-
ing U.S. foreign aid. This would

be in line with the new U.S. aid

EXPECT U.S. PRESSURE
ON TRADE WITH CUBA

law passed last October.

Reap said that efforts had been
underway to persuade various
maritime countries to end their
shipping to Cuban ports.

A recent article in the Finan-
cial Post said Canada can ex-
pect a squeeze from the U.S. to
stop trade with Cuba.

: rsnf THAT THE PEARSON BOY THAT

WON SOME SORT OF PEACE PRIZE,
—maRTHae”

inundated in flooding and ex-
posed as muddy flats in draw-
down to serve requirements we
ourselves have helped to create
to our distress and hurt and from
which there will be no relief—
ever. (Emphasis—B. Y.)

“For this service, which would
create billions of dollars of in-
vestment opportunity in the U.S.
and provide for its protection
there is no recompense to Can-
ada.”’ (Emphasis B.Y.)

LIBBY KEY PROJECT

Finally McNaughton explains
the decisive betrayal as follows:
“With the key project — Libby—
handed over to.the U.S., I do not
believe an outcome equitable io
Canada could have been secured.
Mr. Fulton and his colleagues
had surrendered and Sold the
pass and all that remained there-
after for the U.S. negotiators to
do was a ‘‘mopping up operation”’
which, ably abbeted by the B.C.
representative on the Canadian
negotiating team, they performed
with great tecnhical skill and
effect and which Mr. Fulton and
his colleagues, despite repeated
warnings, were quite unable to
resist.

“The result of course, with
B.C. playing in with the U.S. in
order to secure cash for Peace
River development, has been de-
plorable and this Treaty, which
Mr. Fulton negotiated represents
a major calamity for Canada
and equally so for B.C.”

—B. Y.

* * *

EDITORS NOTE: McNaugh-
ton’s warning must be taken ser-
iously by all those who have the
interests of Canada at heart and
oppose the sellout of our country.

It was the calculated decision
of Premier Bennett to surrender
the Columbia to the U.S. when
he vetoed the Kootenay diver-
sion (unilaterally) and gave the
green light to Libby.

The Socreds are the main driv
ing force in B.C. behind the draft
Treaty. They stand forthright for
integration and even call it by a
slightly better understood term
—Economic Union.

But the people of B.C. are op-
posed to the sellout of our pro.
vince to the U.S. The draft Co-
lumbia River Treaty can bring
down the Socred government in
B.C.—the main instrument of the
sellout. And the NDP in B.C.
can, if it follows the example
of the Federal NDP members
who have shown they understand
the true nature of the treaty,
lead a movement of the pecple
to stop the Columbia sellout.

t

aaa 12. al

OMMUNIST PARTY:
Weekly Radio
Commentary
‘NIGEL MORGAN

CKWX

DIAL 1130
Every Sunday

7:05