THE NATION’ |

Fascists greeted, democrats barred

By TIM. BUCK

HE prowing preference of big business and

the St. Laurent government for fascism and fascists was flaunted brazenly a week ago. Four Frenck Vichyites, who have been found guilty of wartime collaboration by French courts and have been sentenced there in absentia, secured illegal entry into Canada after their escape from France.

They were exposed eventually, concurrently with the exposure of the collaborator Count Jacques de Bernonville. According to Canadian law they, and Count de Bernonyille, should be deported. According to the laws-of France they should be returned to that country. According to the United Nations, Canada certainly should not give sanctuary to convicted fascists who have not yet satisfied the law of their native land.

What dic the St. Laurent government do? It went out of its way to make those war crimin- als welcome.in Canada. ‘To make it possible for them. to remain here in defiance of the Canadian immigration act, the law United Nations, a special law was enacted—by

order-in-council, without the knowledge of the

public or members of parliament.

The men for whom the St. Laurent govern- ment performed this extraordinary service are: Dr. Georges Benoit Montel, Dr. Andre Charles Emanuel Boussat, Julian Gaudéns labedan, and Jean Louis Huc.

' No wonder public opinion was outraged. It is but a short time ago that several anti-fascist refugees were deported back to the DP camps in Germany because they had entered Canada illegally. Against Hitler’s victims the law of

Canada was enforced in all its majesty to an_

accompaniment of hypocritical protestations of “impartiality” and “inability to make exceptions.” In favor of Hitler’s friends the law of Canada is Overruled by secret government action.

@ The contrast between Louis St. Laurent’s “sympathy for the fascist collaborators and his antipathy to those who fight against fascism is illustrated by the contrast between the case of the four collaborators (and the squirming of the dominion department of immigration in the effort to give Count de Bernonville sanctuary against the wishes of the French government) and the case of Jean St. Andre and his wife now de- tained in Montreal immigration barracks.

Jean St. Andre was not a collaborator during

the war. He was an active member of the Free. He came to Canada early.

France movement. 1 during the war with a group of Free Frenchmen, Significantly enough, the immigration depart- ment had no fault to find with him then. When France was overrun by the Nazis he went to the United States and joined the U.S. merchant marine. He was decorated during the war for meritorious service .At the end of the war he returned to Montreal and established himself in business. He was doing well and considered himself and his wife domiciled in Canada.

He has now been ordered deported to France because he does not have proper immigration documents. No wonder that he complains bitter- ly: “Collaborators are being permitted to remain

in this country, why can’t something be done —

for my wife and me?” ie

The labor movement and all democratic Can- adians should speak out against this cynical de- nial of all the principles for which democratic people wage the war. Send the fascist collabor- ators back to face people’s justice, open the doors of Canada to the Jean St. Angles and proven enemies of fascism.

of France and the °

‘disappear into thin air?

Arms plants sold at fraction of cost

By MARK FRANK

ae —OTTAWA ANADA spent over $700,000,000 of taxpayers.’ money on machinery, equipment and_build- ings for production of ‘munitions and weapons during the Second World War. Of this amount 70 percent went to machinery and equipment and 30 percent io building.

What happened to this vast outlay? An official report dated June 1948 reveals that many

~ of them were “of modern construction and were

Did they

equipped with the latest machinery,” And

Who got them? for how much?

Partial answers to these questions are now being provided in official government reports of War Assets Corporation and the Department of Reconstruction and Supply.

Of the 170 plants, 104 were sold and five leased to private industry. Ultimate disposal of the plants, their cost to the government and the price they sold at, to industry is difficult to trace because of the evasiveness of the government reports. While the figures are available they are not printed alongside each other. Instead the sales price to industry is given in most cases, while the cost to Canadian taxpayers is omitted.

A tabulation made in January; 1947, of 67

‘sales including sale of complete establishnients

and lands, and buildings reveal that the entire lot valued at $73,819,00 sold to private industry for $26,787,500 or at 36 percent of cost.

Some sample deals were: —Dominion Magnesium (Haley's Corners)

sold to Dominion Magnesium (Toronto). Cost $3,461,860; sold for $1,400.000. —lLaCorne Molybdenite (Val D’Or) to

“Molybdenite Corporation of Canada. Cost $443,-

068; sold for $75,000. —John Inglis to Addison Ltd. (Toronto). Cost $1,767,992; sold for $510,000.

—Ferranti Electric (Toronto) to the same . company. —CPR (Montreal) ta the same company. —

Cost’ $159,083; sold for $78,000.

Cost $319,092; sold for $90,000.

—Canadian Strip. Mill (New Toronto) to Anaconda American Brass. Cost $1,022,947; sold for $455,000.

_-—Research Enterprises (Leaside) to Corning Cost $522,000; sold for $150,000. -

Glass Works.

—Otis-Fensom Elevator (Hamilton) to the Studebaker Corporation of Canada. Cost $2,626,- 039; sold for $500,000. Rae

—Alberta Nitrogen Products (Calgary) and Consolidated Mining and Smelting, both sold to Consolidated Mining and Smelting. Cost $15,637,- 802; sold for $7,500,000.

LABOR FOCUS

Contrast marked in labor meets

By J. B. SALSBERG

HE, 1948 conventions of the trade union con-

gresses are over. They provide material for a study in contrasts. They also provide a warning and lesson to all workers.

The CCL meeting in Toronto lived up to nearly all expectations of big business while the Trades Congress convention in Victoria was a major disappointment to it. The CCL was found to be “refreshing” to the organ of the gold mine owners — the Toronto Globe and Mail, while the TLC was evidently not so exhilarat- ing to the money barons.

The CCL was. dominated by a clique of ex- treme rightwing “socialists” of_ Ernie Bevin’s type and, like their prototype they also received the blessings of the Tories. The TLC, on the other hand, was influenced by an unfettered and politically diverse group of leaders who are far closer to the rank and file and incomparably more representative of the true relationship of forces inside the Canadian trade union move- ment than was the CCL gathering.

One was steamrolled by an unrepresentative machine-controlled majority, while the other was in control of delegates who were free to act and, therefore, aligned on each major issue in accord- ance with the merits of the issue. One has left

. most delegates, even the machine delegates, de-

jected and frustrated, while the other sent the delegates home in a mood of buoyancy and optimism. Nowhere was. the difference revealed more sharply than on the central, overriding issue of unity. Big business and its press was cheered by the action of the CCL burocracy in suspend- ing the metal miners’ union. These anti-labor forces: in connivance with Labor Minister Hum- phrey Mitchell, labored to bring about the most damaging split within the bigger of the two tiade union centers, the Trades and Labor Congress. The fighting seamen were their immediate target and Frank Hall was their poisoned arrow. Frank Hall’s newspaper build-up was only second to that of Elsie, the Borden cow. so @ What did the two conventions accompl:sh? The Mosher-Millard-Conroy crowd nearly choked

its own delegates by forcing down the decision.

The

to uphold the suspension of the miners.

, ayeekes

TLC, on the other hand, smashed the Frank Hall- — o

big business splitting. conspiracy completely. © The agents of the shipping corporations were blown sky high. Unity was reafhrmed; the :ea- _ men’s strike was unanimously endorsed; the supreme issue of labor unity triumphed as gloriously in Victoria as it suffered mercilessly at the hands of the Mosher cabal.

On the issue of red-baiting, that Hitlerite weapon of destruction of labor and democracy, the contrast is also clear. True that a majority of TLC delegates swayed and bowed somewhat

_ to big business pressure and also adopted an unjustified resolution.

But the CCL machine plunged overboard entirely, outdoing even Drew and Duplessis on red-baiting. It was a miserable picture. _ As to the critical issue of war and peace and international relations, the TLC resolution

could, of course, stand a great deal of improve- | on But it held up — the traditional labor banner for peace and against _

ment from our point of view.

war. The right-wing CCF-CCL machine at. Toronto was literally howling for war. Its 1eso-

lution on the Marshall Plan and the international _

crisis does not differ from the statements and policies of the Wall Street bankers by one iota. - The contrast can he extended ‘te all other important issues which are before labor and the people: The CCL convention, however, has: one redeeming feature. It was staged by the machine to be an anti-Communist, red-baiting spectacle. But the machine overreached itself and overdid it. It literally demoralized its own picked delegates. The opposition was the real victor at the CCL convention despite the count — of votes which went against it.

as the battle wore on, while the “leaders’ on the platform were dwarfed even in the eyes of their own, captive, delegates. We are confident of the reaction of the CCL membership. We trust and have faith in the rank and file.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—OCTOBER 29, 1948—PAGE §

wi The leaders of © the opposition rose in the eyes of all delegates _