EDITORIAL PAGE Export of logs is booming, firms are raking in profits. Is Seaway outdated? esd WEEK Queen Elizabeth and President Eisenhower officially epened the new St. Lawrence Sea- way. In the opening speeches of both notables, stress was laid upon this great engineering achievement, and upon the democratic amity and friendship between Canada and the U.S. which made such an achieve- ment possible. In fact Ike went one better by declaring the project to be without “a parallel i in the world.” A “look see” further afield at some of the outstanding achieve- ments along similar lines *in the Socialist sector of the world, and particularly in the USSR and Peo- le’s China; achievements which dwarf the St. Lawrence Seaway in time completed and scope, make such boasts a bit farfetched. What is disconcerting, however, is the fact that the capitalist “plan- ners” of the Seaway have proven themselves a bit shortsighted. Al- ready voices are on the air, on TV and other media of public informa- tion, confirming some disturbing factors, chief among which is the fact that the St. Lawrence Seaway, in terms of world trends in shipping, is already obsolete; that for freighters- above a certain tonnage, this seaway to. the “heart of the continent” is useless. As an Ottawa commentator terse- ly stated last week on a TV pro- gram, just one day prior to the Royal-presidential official opening, the St. Lawrence Seaway has one major defect: “It isn’t wide enough Pacific Tribune Phone MUtual 5-5288 Editor — TOM McEWEN Managing Editor — BERT WHYTE Published weekly at Room 6 — 426 Main Street Vancouver 4, B.C. Subscription Rates: | One Year: $4.00 Six Months: $2.25 Canadian and Commonwealth countries (except Australia): $4.00 one year. Australia, United States and» all other countries: $5.00 one year. and it isn’t deep enough.” We can find similar short-sighted parallels on numerous B.C. bridges and highways — a three-lane pro- vision for a six-lane need. With motorist patience however, plus the aid of a good traffic policeman, congestion can be eased, whereas the skipper of a ten-thousand ton freighter drawing 25-feet in salt water, scrapes bottom when he gets into the fresh-water lower buoy- ancy of our newly opened seaway, and at the same time scrapes off the sheen of our “achievement,” thus proving it obsolete for the purpose designed. ? Injunctions le HAS long been loudly con- tended by those interests who stand in need of such arguments that Communists, Socialists and others of radical opinion “have no respect for the law.” Without going into an analysis of the nature and purpose of the “state” or the validity or other- wise of such arguments, a brief look at what is becoming an almost daily occurance in our “free-way- of-life” puts this question of “res- pect” in proper focus. A union (any union) goes on strike for wage increases or other justifiable cause. The bosses or com- pany concerned immediately rush off to court to secure an injunction, *a legal instrument “restraining” the said. union from exercising its in- alienable right to strike and picket. In 99 percent of the cases in which such application is made, the court readily obliges. Any detailed survey on the granting of injunctions against un- jons, and the number is legion, would show among other things that little or no inquiry is made as to the “other side” of the dispute; that a minimum of argument is re- quired for the bosses to secure such a “legal” instrument, and that in and: str numerous instances the injunet ‘is already prepared befor with the judge obligingly break! his nightly slumbers to affix okay to this restraining instrume Try as they may, working and women, whether radical of radical, find it difficult, to m| any degree of- ‘ ‘respect” for laws, knowing as they do from experience that these restraints § directed against them, and in f@ of their exploiter. Many years ago when the i injus tion gimmick was being tensively against the then you virile AFL, that body had a 5 formula to meet the problem; fight injunctions, ignore them!” True, AFL leaders from Gompers down didn’t always ss by their formula, but their ‘ pect” for such restraints stem from fear of court reprisals, than the “majestic equality ol law” with which the bosses’ ¢ clothe themselves when 4 hobbles to labor. Fifty years later with injun n against unions as thick as cops on a parking meter beat still don’t know of a better forn short of Socialism with its peo? courts, than the Gompers one: Tom McEwen) W PUTNIKS and Luniks and Ss. . The New Party.” That is the imposing title of a four- page pamphlet just issued by the Political Action and Educational Department of the Ontario Feder- ation of Labor. Its author is Morden Lazarus, educational dir- ector of the OFL, executive mem- ber of the provincial (Ontario) CCF, and co-editor of the CCF paper Comment, This particular pamphlet is pre- sumably intended (by the author at least) to present argumentation in favor of a new political labor- farmer-people’s party, as set forth by the Canadian Labor Congress at its 1958 Winnipeg convention. In actuality it is a gross politi- cal distortion of the CLC resolu- tion, since CCF pundit Lazarus places the “new party” if, as and when it is ever born, on a exclu- sive diet formula of anti-commu- nism. Like a good right-wing social democrat, Lazarus berates the snobbery, the extravagance, the stupidity, the humbug and all the other inherent characteristics of capitalism, not because it has made a botch of things in general, but because it hasn’t fought communism to the satisfaction of CCF’er Lazarus and his right- wing social democratic colleagues in the OFL and out of it. “We have to make up our minds now,” says Lazarus, “about what is important and essential and effective in our battle for leader- ship against the Communists. We have to give these things top priorities and make the snobbery of excessive luxury and the lux- ury of excessive snobbery take a back seat to these priorities.” It would seem that modern capitalism is not moving decisive- ly or firmly enough against ‘“‘com- munism” to suit this CCF “edu- cationalist,” so let’s get going with the CLC’s “new party” to do the job right! That such disruptive and di- visive tripe should be written by an individual who boasts of being a “socialist” is bad enough. That | it should be published by a great body of working men and women — like the Ontario Federation of Labor, and especially at’ a time when government-employer at |) tacks against labor’s Cn rights on a nation-wide scale 3 increasing with mounting” in- tensity, is almost tmbelievable But there it is. Any new party or mover which sets as its prime aim and target a fight against communism, is doomed to ignominous failure and defeat. Any “new party” or movement coming into being on that premise is even strangled be- fore birth;; an act which Lazarus, in the name of the Ontario Fed- eration of Labor, seems hell-bent on accomplishing. nari Trade unionists everywhefe, which includes many sincere CCF men and women who are €o vinced on the need of an‘all-in- © clusive united labor-farmer-peo- — ple’s party to replace the To Liberal and Socred henchmen of big business, will reject CCF “educationalist” Morden Lazarus’ conception of a “new party” a concept that could well have been written by the U.S, state depart- ment. ' July 3, 1959 — PACIFIC TRIBUNE—PAI