LABOR FOCUS \ li ye I i By J. B. SALSBERG CCF national leader stabs the fighting seamen in the back HIS is written just after the publication of a brief mo report ae = J. Coldwell’s speech in Sydney, th ; on Saturday, y 21. Coldwell is quoted as saying ae the Canadian Seamen’s Union needs a “house ,. cning.” The same report also refers to his having _ Ramed CSU President Harry Davis and Secretary T. G. McManus as ‘definite Communists’.” ‘I am certain that this will arouse nothing but -Tevulsion in the ranks of all class conscious workers. I Am also certain that Coldwell’s reported statements Will be met with utter contempt by the vast majority of the coal miners and steel workers of Sydney and Glace Bay, ‘ Such reckless statements only highlight the general Course which the top circle of the CCF leadership is Pursuing. Vicious and repulsive, but isn’t it of a piece with what his lieutenants, Millard and Mosher, have done in the Case of the metal miners’ union campaign in northern Ontario? i U.S. Senator Taft had attempted to prove the worth f his notorious anti-union bill. He claimed that Ommunist trade union leaders” feared his law so Much that they “escaped to Canada.” On the following day ©. ‘H. Millard and his friends expressed full agree. Ment with union-busting Taft and acted as “finger men” by naming Reid Robinson, Mine-Mill vice-presi- dent, who had been invited by the northern miners to €lp them in their organizing campaign, as proof of the correctness of Senator Taft’s statement. That - Pleaseq the gold mine barons, of course, and that pro- Vided a cover for the Ottawa government to feport Robinson and (Other Mine-Mill lead- €rs, and to try to break the most promising Unionizattion campaien m the northern gold fields, - Tt is of a piece with € asinine statements re CCF secretary David €wis, who proclaimed that the main task of - Fers in the unions Sto fight Conmmun- ists in the unions. Yes, Just like that—not the “osses, not anti-labor Sovernment, but fight ~Ommunists. .. . At is of a piece with * the traitorous act com- ened by the top circle = the CCF leaders in Sudbury where they expelled eapert Carlin, former CCF MPP, from their party and AS to elect a Tory MPP instead, because he re- La to subscribe to the destructive policies of Cold- 1 and Lewis that “the main task of CCFers is to &ht Communists in the unions.” ‘ Examples of this sort can unfortunately be listed Without end. It is a policy which will leave wreck and Tuin in the camp of labor if allowed to continue un- checked by the workers of this country. The latest €monstration of it given by Coldwell in Sydney, N.5., ll, I am sure, intensify the struggle against this Wreck-and-ruin COF policy throughout the labor move- on as well as within the ranks of the CCF party. M. J, COLDWELL A stab in the back Members of St. Laurent’s cabinet, whose hands are filthy from the dirty work they are engaged in against € seamen, are scurrying hither and thither for ex- ‘uses to cover up their foul deeds. The miners’ union ie NS., which has formerly affiliated to the CCF and {S contributing to the coffers of the CCF, is whole- ‘eartedly behind the seamen, raising funds to aid them ay their families, joins with them on the picket Nes and speaks on their behalf through the radio 8nd press to all the people of N.S. Yet in this kind f labor battle and in the heart of the coal and steel Center, Coldwell displays his arrogance by attacking ‘Ae seamen’s union and its leaders. What soothing Salve that must be for the wounds of Humphrey Mitchell and what burning acid on the flesh of workers Whose hard-earned pennies’ are used by the Coldwells °r such anti-labor activities! Little wonder that the steel workers’ union of Sydney, N.g., decided by an overwhelming majority to €nd its bloc affiliation to the CCF. Little wonder that the same sentiment is sweeping the ranks of the mili- In. this case it is, of course, particularly tant coal miners of N.S. Little wonder that the vast majority of CCL members have thus far refused to automatically obey the CCF-CCL diktat to pay one dollar per member for the CCF election campaign with- out being given the elementary rights to select candi- dates or determine the policies of the CCF! Coldwell and Lewis have much to answer for. I am confident that honest workers will demand an answer for such destructive and back-stabbing behavior. Honest trade unionists, regardless of their party affiliation, will rally more enthusiastically than ever to the sup- port of the seamen and thus give. their resounding answer to the anti-union shipping trusts, the union- breaking Cabinet ministers and to the Coldwells who contribute their own special kind of sabotage to the outstanding battle of Canadian labor at this moment. Frank appeals case to Speaker EFERRING to the “unprecedented decision of the | DB present executive of the Parliamentary Press Gal- lery” in refusing to give a personal hearing in the matter of his sudden suspension of privileges as an associate member of the Press Gallery, Mark Frank, the Canadian Tribune’s Ottawa correspondent has requested interven- tion on his behalf in a letter to Gaspard Fauteux, Speaker of the House, Frank was suspended from the Gallery, following publication of an “off-the-record” spéech by External Affairs Minister Lester B. Pearson in the Canadian Tribune. While Frank did not write the story in ques- tion, a hurried meeting of a small number of Press Gallery members withdrew his gallery privileges. Frank was mot informed of the meeting until after it was over, and was not given opportunity’ to answer the charge. He still has not been given a chance to presen his case against the undemocratic action. : Frank informed the Speaker that Chester Bloom, president of the Gallery, had told him his request for a hearing had been “filed.” That was on March 27. A letter from Maurice Jefferies, Gallery secretary, dated March 29, informed Frank that his appeal for a hearing” from the Gallery “will be brought to the attention of the Gallery executive.” E ‘Jt is my opinion that a serious breach of con- ‘stitutional procedure has been committed, which can have profound consequences for any newsman presently employed in the Parliamentary Press Gallery,” Frank stated, pointing out that the discriminatory character of the action taken against him was emphasized by the fact that the Press Gallery had officially ignored the breaking of an “off-the-record” story by another Gallery member, R. K. Carnegie. ’ In an editorial last week, the Canadian Tribune stated: “Press censorship has begun in Canada, initiated by the Libera] government. : “In its issue of March 21, the Canadian Tribune published a front-page story headed “Government Okays Secret War Pact Clauses.’ This story reported an ad- dress by Lester Pearson, minister of external affairs, to a group of weekly newspaper editors and managers. ' It caused repercussions in the capitals of Europe, un- “easy at secret maneuverings behind the cloak of the Atlantic war pact. * “Following publication of the story, Mark Frank, Canadian Tribune staff correspondent in Ottawa, ad- vised his office that his privileges as a member of the Ottawa Press Gallery had been suspended. No reason was stated. No hearing was permitted. “Thus, censorship of the press begins in Canada .. . “Chief Gallery spokesman for the government at- tempt to silence Frank and the Canadian Tribune is reported to be Chester A. Bloom, president of the Gal- lery and Ottawa representative of the violently Liberal party Winnipeg Free Press. “Ome is entitled to ask: How far has the govern- ment gone in buying up space and newspapermen to polish its tarnished record? Is Chester Bloom a journal- ist or a propagandist for the government? Reporters who can so easily ignore the facts in the Frank. case cannot be expected to make honest reports to their newspapers, , “Press censorship in Canada must be squelched now, before it cam be extended.” By TIM BUCK Liberal promises and next House T the beginning of his campaign for return to office Louis St. Laurent assured an audience in the Mari- times, “There are no immediate issues in this election.” In a certain sense he was right. The leaders of the Liberal, Tory, CCF and Social Credit parties have each declared their agreement with him and with each other on the central issue confronting Canada. All four parties united in the House of Commons in support of decisions which determine the main lines of Canada’s policies at home and abroad. Speaking of the relation- ships between those four parties and their attitudes towards the basic issues of national policy St. Laurent was right. But as between service that the people of Canada need and what they have been getting from the govern- ment until now there are issues aplenty. As between the problems that will confront the new House of © Commons and what either the Liberals or the Tories will try to do to meet them, there are issues aplenty. As between the widespread desire of democratic people to ensure a resounding electoral defeat for Canada’s would-be “man on horseback” Colonel Drew and the ‘Liberals’ record of service to reaction there are issues aplenty. ‘ THE NATION It’s remarkable how life asserts itself. Less than a week after he had declared there were no immediate issues, the pressure of popular sentiment compelled St. Laurent to acknowledge the existence of several which, while not the subject between Liberals, Tories and CCF in the House of Commons, were well known to hundreds of thousands, yes millions of our people. e : The most striking, because the most surprising, of St. Laurent’s acknowledgements was the one regarding the urgent need for homes. Not only did he admit that the question of housing is an issue, he promised to build low rental homes. Indeed the Liberal papers headlined him as declaring that the building of homes will be the first aim of his government if he is re- elected. Other leading Liberals took up the propaganda immediately. In Toronto, David Croll and other Liberal - spokesmen started promising a large-scale governmental] housing scheme if St. Laurent is returned to power. At the head of the lakes C. D. Howe was reported as declaring: “the government will not consider the hous- ing problem solved until every family has a home.” It must be noted, of course, that the value of such promises is impaired by the fact that the same man made the same sort of promises during the election in 1945. During the election campaign the Liberal _ leadership promised that, if returned to power,, they would build 50,000 low rental homes for veterans im- mediately and 100,000 new homes per year for the next 10 years to solve the housing crisis They didn't keep the promise, indeed they made no. attempt whatever to keep it. Shortly after he became prime minister, St. Laurent explained his attitude towards the housing problem when he assured an audience in Montreal that no government that he heads will ever subsidize. housing. Today, a great many people are wondering which was the real St. Laurent, the one who, in an election speech, promised an audience that the building of homes will be his first consideration, or the one who, at McGill University declared that he would never countenance subsidizing homes. — ‘@ 5 But the vital question is not, “Which is the real St. Laurent?” ‘The ‘vital question is, “How to get the same sort of democratic pressure exerted upon St. Laurent when parliament is in session as he feels now when he is campaigning for election!” _ The Liberals reneged upon their 1945 promises be- cause the main public pressure to which they were subjected came from the Right—from the Tories and the reactionary interests that the St. Laurent govern- ment serves. . The leadership of the CCF did not at any time mobilize public opinion to try to compel the Liberals to live up to their promises. By agreeing with and supporting Mackenzie King and St. Laurent on all central issues and policies, attitude towards the United Nations, the Marshall plan, Wall Street war pact, the cutting off of trade with the New Democracies and orientation upon the war plans of U.S. imperialism, the leaders of the CCF surrendered the moral right to offer genuine opposition to the government upon meas- ures which derive from or are subordinate to those - central and decisive questions of national policy. The one means by which it can be assured that the voice'of the people will be heard in the House of Commons, insisting that the promises being made in this election be carried out, is to elect LPP candidates wherever they are running. Canada needs men at Ottawa who are not pledged either to St. Laurent’s un- Canadian foreign policy or to his policy of sacrificing Canadian economy to facilitate the Marshall plan. The only candidates who meet the real needs of Canada today are the LPP candidates. In constituencies where LPP candidates are nominated, even liberals—who want the government's present rash of promises carried out—should vote LPP. : PACIFIC TRIBUNE — JUNE 3, 1949 — PAGE 9