THE NATION

Liberal contempt
for government

By TIM BUCK

OR the ffrst time in 29 years the Liberals

have held a convention. It lasted only three
days and of these, only one was devoted to con-
sideration of party policies. The main business
of that day was the valedictory speech of Mac-
kenzie King and the addresses of the candidates
for leadership.

Politically, the convention was a slavish imi-
tation of the circuses put on by the Republican
and Democratic parties in the United States, the
main difference being that those parties do open
up the question of leadership and policy every
fourth year.

What the 1000-odd delegates did during their
3-day meeting and—more particularly—the cyn-
ical attitude of the ruling Liberal heirarchy to
everything the convention did except the identity
of the man named to replace King, provides a
striking commentary on the attitude of the
Liberal leaders to the party’s members and sup-
porters and parliamentary democracy in general.

Their contempt for parliament was shown
on the convention’s eve by the blatant manner in
which they removed Abbott’s special excise tax-
es from a long list of goods, as part of their
convention preparations. There has been a wide-
Spread popular demand for the removal of these
taxes ever since they were so arbitrarily and
bureaucratically imposed. Similarly with the

Bread subsidy. :

Because the government’s action correspond-
ed with the expressed desires of the majority of
the people, it is to be welcomed. Because. the
government would not have done this but for
popular protest against rising living costs and a
the policies which aggravate it, removal of the
excise taxes and the increase of subsidies was 4

Victory for organized popular pressure on
Ottawa. ea
But the evident resoning of the Libera

leaders and the manner in which grave ae
Policies were changed contradicted every one 0
the many unctuous declarations by :
“parliament must decide.” In this case the pees
to help create a favorable public attitude toward
the convention decided.

Ratlianiént was not referred to or-even con’

sidered. This is the line with the trend of

Liberal policy. It was a Liberal acting pi

a : : t
Minister who said that his governmen ‘the
derive its. power from the people but Se
rown. For the Liberal Party aie the
Sibility to the people ends the Gaye #
election is on.

That attitude was shown I ©) : to
the convention and especially im its attitude

: with-
questions of national policy. After 29 years with
Out a democratic overhauling

Mark a real turn towards popul :
Indeed it was thought quite w?
Chubby” Power announced
didate for the leadership so
to “get the Liberal Party bi i
The attitude of the Liberal | ape aye
‘orgs convention decisions on ie and Pp
‘al princi in weneral was SU :
ially' by ules ees real Star. One of the ee ae
Oritative organs of the monopoly ication
Served by the right wing Liberals, a pu oe
Which, it should be noted, campaigned oe eae
Wely for the election of St. Laurent, the

King that.

Cys:

BO dar
kent
me;

i
ne

é

That

SATE eee ;
Petia see
“Sage PETRA Bes arse

(See page 4.)

fascism and war.”

argued that the election of a new leader was the
really important task of the convention.

“| , . Events, either domestic or external,
dominate a party’s course; and these events
take no account of the firm statement of
principle which a good party platform should
contain, .. . If Mr. King be considered a com-
petent party leader—and who could deny him
such a claim?—a glance at the Liberal Party
platform framed in 1919 will bear this state-

“ment out. If such circumstances intervened in.

in
the relatively settled days of the 1920’s, how

much more do they dominate the restless, tur-
bulent chaotic world of today.”

Does the foregoing indicate that the Liberal
leaders attach little or no importance to conven-
tion declarations on policy? Not at all. Their plan
was that it should proclaim aims and policies
which would satisfy even the radical reformers
but elect a leader who will disregard, or circum-
vent, any convention decisions which do not com-
mand the support of reactionary interests.

Convention gossip described this as “the
party’s need for a platform which attracts the
Left and a leader who satisfies the Right.”
Amazing at it seems, none of the delegates
evinced concern at the obvious contradiction in
such aims. Those who commented upon it con-
sidered it to be “the only way to win the next
election.

How can a convention of more than 1,000
delegates accomplish two such contradicfory re-
sults in three days? For the Liberals it was easy.
As one of the newspapermen covering the con-
vention remarked: influential delegates had two

‘programs to keep track of. One was the formal

proceedings in the Coliseum, the other, the really
important one, was the “behind-the-doors pro-
gram” in the hotel-suites where the real decisions
were made for implementation at the convention.

How could decisions made outside be pro-
jected into such a convention of more than 1,000
delegates? How could their advocates be sure
of getting the floor? The convention was so
organized that even that was easy. The agenda
provided that, whenever there was time for
speeches not arranged and announced before the
opening, speakers would get the floor “as ar-
ranged by the chair.” There was but very mod-
erate interest and absolutely no enthusiasm when
the resounding declarations calculated to appeal
to-reform-minded voters were rushed through in
the dying minutes of the convention.

Such was the third convention .of the party
which claims to be the champion of “individual
initiative”. Such is the low level to which re-

_spect for democracy has sunk in the Liberal

Party. The informed observers at the convention
all agreed that Louis St. Laurent, who was
named to take Mackenzie King’s place, person-
Sg the aims of the convention which elected
im.

LABOR FOCUS...g307
W armongers’ big
objective labor

By BRUCE MICKLEBURGH

Yo can say that the foreign policy of Canada
is hatched in behind-the-scenes discussions
where the old line parties sacrifice our country on
the altar of war for Wall Street. But you can
also say that it is shaped in the camps and mills
and plants where workers produce the industrial
wealth of this country for war or peace.

For the fact is as plain as the dues stamp
in your union card that no government can launch
this country into aggression over the united
opposition of Canadian labor. And at the coming
labor conventions the membership will have the
responsibility to fight fora new unity for peace. -

Who are the spy-screamers and hysteria
mongers who are fitting Canada into the Marshall
Plan, forging an Atlantic aggression bloc and
granting American forces in Canada the extra-
territorial rights of an army of occupation?
Labor knows them well. They are the same
individuals who contrive union-busting legisla-
tion and use brutal violence in effort to
convert the labor movement into one big gom-
pany union, who plan speed-up through labor-
management committees and strike bans “be-
cause of the international emergency,” and whose
concern for the peoples of the world can be
measured by the slashed wages of their own
employees.

Their face is plain—they are the tiny circle
of multimillionaire finance-capitalists who are
labor’s mortal enemies in Canada.

It takes labor phoneys such as Pat Conroy
or Claude Ballard to cling before their mem-
bership to the pretense that the Marshall Plan
means either food (not arms) to the people of
Europe or aid to the Canadian economy. Big
business spokesmen talking to their shareholders
are much more frank. Latest example is J. M.
Buchanan president of B.C.. Packers Ltd. (fish-

eries arm of the MacMillan octopus) who points ©
‘out that since the end of the war orders for

canned herring have dropped and that there is
little provision in the Marshall Plan for food.
“It would appear that the B.C. canned herring
industry will have to cut back its production
materially.”

As a matter of fact the whole B.C. fish pro- .
cessing industry is threatened by the U.S. pro-
gram to make Canada a source of raw material
for American manufacturers.

The British lumber market is in jeop-
ardy (with our lumber barons pricing them-
selves out of a dollar-restricted market). In
addition raw hemlock is already being exported to
the U.S. to the extent that there are 1,200 less
jobs for B.C. workers who could be converting
it into newsprint, kraft paper, and paper bags.

._ The Marshall Planners have smacked
down what had become Empire protective bar-
riers against American trade domination, thus
removing the main reasom for existence of many
of the 1600 American owned or controlled plants.

Trade unionists’ are finding out on
their own hides that integrating this country in
the Wall Street axis reduces their own living
standards as well as victimizing workers abroad.

Trade unionists have a vital stake in genuine
aid to Europe and Asia, and in world co-opera-
tion for peace. Henry Wallace’s plan shows how
it can be done. Wallace proposes using the UN >
Reconstruction fund to reconstruct European in-
dustry and agriculture, giving priority to the
nations who suffered most from fascist agres-
sion, without big business direction, and without
interfering in the affairs of nations. a

As for what would happen to unions if the
war of agression were launched, Wall Street’s
Business Week, after frankly outlining such steps
as outlawing strikes, summarizes by saying, “there
would be nothing left but the whip.”

.Labor’s worst disaster was Pat Conroy’s
Marshall Plan resolution at last year’s stacked
CCL convention, opening the door to the red-
baiting orgy which can lead Canadian labor to
the 1933 fate of German unions. Labor’s biggest
responsibility is to lead the nation in the fight
for peace and independence. .

The bosses’ government cannot be defcated
without defeating the bosses’ foreign policy.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—AUGUST 20, 1948—PAGE 9

in Canada.

e

_