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