FRED ROSE, LP.

Convicted and sentenced
to six years imprisonment
On an espionage frame-up,
this champion of labor has
been judicially gagged
and convicted even before .
‘trial,, and now denied
freedom on bail pending
his appeal. The vicious
sentence given Rose and
the report of the Kellock-
Tachereau Commission are
part and parcel of a reac-
tionary attack against la-
bor, and like Hitler, singles
out the communist move-
ment for the first blows,
as a move to divert the
workers’ attention from
the burning issues of
wages, shorter working
hours and union security.

RADE unionists who have

followed House debates
have been disappointed and
alarmed by the absence of
labor spokesmen in Parlia-
ment. If this sounds the
slightest bit exaggerated
you are invited to examine
soberly and objectively the
3000 pages of this season’s
Hansard.

The record of the last two
months since the Internation-
ai Woodworkers: strike began in
British Columbia should arouse
all sections of labor to immediate
action.

A typical case of M.P’s “on
their toes’ was cited by the
Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, than

whom labor has never produced
a more bankrupt representative.
On May 15, the opening day of
the IWA strike in B.C., he rose
in all his ponderous ignorance
to announce ‘i was expecting
to be asked a question about
the strike of the lumber work-
ers in B.C. Since no Hon. Mem-
ber has asked about it, I think
the House is entitled to be in-
formed.”

The information Mr. Mitchell
dished out was of the usual
fare. It waS on a par with the
Gistortion to which he gave birth
twe months later when he an-
mounced the final woodworkers’
settlement as a 10c instead of
a i15¢e across the board agree-
ment. .No other M.P. had con-
sidered it important to ask about
the woodworkers’ strike.

Wext day (May 16) Angus Mac-
Innis, CCH member for Vancou-
ver East, got up to ask a “la-

bor” question. You probably
guessed right, because it was
mot about the woodworkers. This
was it: “Did the government

invite Canadian employers’ rep-
resentatives to the recent con-
ference held at Cleveland, USA,
under the auspices of the ILO?”
Right on the bit, you might say.

The next five days were of
strong and eloquent silence. At
Jast it was broken. But not by
a CCE member. It was T. Reid,
Liberal member for New West-

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — PAGE 12

Why the CCF silence?

Where is Labor’s yoice in the House of Commons during this
greatest of all strike battles in Canada’s history for decent wages,
shorter working hours, economic and social security? Has the
CCF, which claims to be ‘labor's political arm”, gone numb in
the political atmosphere of monopoly domination?

minster, who asked the first
question about the strike on
May 21. On May 24 Mr. Mac-
innis proved that eight days

was enough to warm his party
up to it. =
‘HOUSE INACTION’
{= is a2 painful experience for a
labor observer to watch the
present House in action, or
miore accurately its inaction, on
labor matters. One can be sar-
ecastic, but there is no joy in it.
Think of how you would have
enjoyed hearing Angus Macin-
nis, one of the two chief CCE
spokesmen on labor questions,
offer this advice on June 7:
“I suggest this House go on
record asking the parties con-
cerned Gn the woodworkers’
strike) to refer all matters in
dispute to arbitration.”

in other words, “go back to
work, boys, and leave it to the
labor department’s representa-
tives.” The 37,000 workers who
got a 15c an hour increase, the
40-hour week (in the bush) after
six months irrevocable check-
off, etc., should now ask them-
selves where a B.C. M.P’s ad-
vice would have led them.

But that isn’t all. When Mit-
chell fired his red-baiting charge
at the- leaders of the Seamen’s
Union in the last-minute at-
tempt to save the tottering slave
system of the shipowners, Mr.
Clarence Gillis (Sidney, N-S.—
CCF) patted him on the back.
On June 13 he declared, “If the
Minister of Labor ... believes
that a small group in the lead-
ership of any organization . .

are manipulating these organiza- ~

tions for political purposes or

for their own purposes, then TI _

Say the minister should be just
as frank with that small group
guilty of disruption of produc-
tion as he would be on the other
Side.”

Mr. Gillis hadn’t found it
within him during these first
three weeks of that epic battle
against the 84hour week to
Pillory the slave drivers on the
Great Lakes, to rouse the Gana-
dian people to the grandeur of
the cause for which seamen
were battling. But when the
Hon. Humphrey Mitchell tried
an idith hour manoeuvre to
smash the strike he was right
en his feet to urge him on.

PRAISE FOR MITCHELL
TWICE Mr. Macinnis went out

of his way to praise Mitchell
for his role. On June 17 MacInnis
said, ‘There is a shipping strike
—and the minister of labor has
worked hard, I believe, to bring
it to a satisfactory conclusion.”
And he later heaped love and
sympathy on the labor minister.
“In my view the minister has
Been long suffering in these dis-
putes; he has tried to negotiate
fairly between the parties” (in
seamen’s and woodworkers’
strikes).

When I told a CCF friend of
Mine about this’ he thought I
was exaggerating. When aE
pointed to WHansard and then
proved that it was a Social
Creditor who first dissociated
himself from Mitchell’s filthy
diatribe he was honestly alarm-
ed. ©. FE. Johnson (Social Credit)
had said, “I do not think the
labor unrest in this country is
due to communist elements. Men
are striking for legitimate rea-
sons.”

Much to the distress of any

By Robert Laxer

Pacific Tribune, Ottawa Staff Writer

debates,
examples.

cne whe follows the
these aren’t isolated
To my knowledge the rubber
and brass strikes have been
completely ignored in the House.
The all-important textile battle
in Quebec, with its fateful poli-
tical consequences for Quebec
and Canada has been mentioned
only by Raymond of the Bloc
Populaire, and for the first
time on July 10 (in the 6th
week) by Mr. MacInnis. A few
queries have been made about
steel.

LIBERAL-CCEF AGREEMENT?

LAST week the rumor went

around the Hillthat there was
@ tacit Liberal-CCh agreement
to shorten the budget debate.
My own opinion is that this was
by no means unfounded. But
when it comes to labor problems
you always feel that Mitchell
is appealing to the anti-red

‘sentiments of certain CCE mem-

bers. He often says, “You know
the gang I mean who are al-
ways making trouble,” when he
is answering a. CCE member’s
question ~ about a strike.

For example, on June 3 Mit—
chell poured oil on Mr. MaciIn-
nis’ head. “I want to say that
the Hon. Member for Vancou-
ver Past has been very help-
ful in these (labor) matters.’
What a doubtful compliment for
anyone to be a member of Mit-
echell’s fraternity!

A statement by Gillis on red-
baiting, of the type quoted, is
just what Mitchell is waiting
for. The other day, M. J. Cold-
well asked about the steel situ-
ation. Mr. Mitchell referred in
general terms to “trouble mak-
ers.” Mr. Coldwell reminded him
that this was “not true of the
Steel union.” Lo which the min-
ister quickly replied in some-
what apologetic terms, that the
“Steel union” was “different.”

What does this do for Labor?
It fosters disunity. It allows the
monopolists -to intensify - their
anti-union, anti-strike propa-
ganda. That is why it is so dan-
gerous.

From my own experience, I
know that some CCF.and other
M.P.’s would present real trade
union views, if they were visited
more frequently by delegations,
if they were bombarded by tele-
grams and ‘letters.- This is a
technigue most unions have still
to learn.

On June 17, Mr. Irvine (Cari-
boo-CCF) made a very com-
mendable speech on the sea-
men’s strik€* in which he re-
fused to fall pray to Mitchell’s
red-bditing. That’s the type of
speech every CCE member
would be expected to make on
every major strike, until the
country knew about it, until the
government was forced to make
concessions to the workers.
Every House sitting could be
opened with a bombardment of
accusing and pointed questions
instead of meek inquiries—if a
group of militant labor repre—
sentatives occupied those green
leather chairs. The trouble is
that few members of the CCF
speak as if they believed that
the Liberal Party and Mitchell
are the Charlie McCarthyes of
the big monopolies. Trade unions
must therefore keep up a high
pressure campaign on the Hill

debate, to

if they are to reduce the effects
of monopoly’s blasts through the
big newspapers.
AND THE TORIES!
AS for the Tories, well, they
are truly beyond the pale.
Tragic for labor and truly dis-
gusting for a labor reporter to
watch is the performance of the
band who without scruple speak
for the trusts. Yet the major-
ity of theSe reactionary M.P.’s
come from Ontario, a big sec-
tion from industrial Ontario
where the working class of steel,
rubber, electrical, auto, imple-
ment, textile, lumber, now lives
‘and fights. How much longer
will labor allow these shame-
less creatures -to speak for its
constituencies ?

As for the Liberals, it is
enough to remind ourselves that
they constitute the federal gov-
ernment to Know what a sery-
ice they have performed for
the working people:

One can’t help looking to one
unoccupied chair at the extreme
end of the left side of the
House. The voice that spoke
so frequently from that area of
the chamber has not been heard
this year. Qne or two veteran

newspapermen have volunteered

the suggestion to me, that many
fighting words would have
reached members’ ears on the
strikes, the budget, on a genu-
ine peace policy, if Fred Rose
were still in his old place. But
his voice and others like his
will be heard more frequently
than ever in our country, and,
yes, in the House, before very
long.
BiGH-WATER MARK

EXT two or three months will

See the high-water mark reach-
ed in the trade unions’ mighty
wage movement. It isn’t too late
to step up the lobbying of
M.P.'s, the stream of tele-
grams, letters and postcards.

But even more important —
labor will be learning, in the
course of its biggest battles in
Canadian history, who are
friends and who are enemies.
The September conventions of
the TLC and CCL will debate
labor political action. Are pres-
ent policies of the Congresses
adequate? Do the parties now in
the House speak for the work-
ing man?

Clearly a. sweeping departure
is needed in labor’s political life.
Only militant and fearless rep-
resentatives will speak and fight
for the people. Even ten or
twenty such representatives from
the ranks of labor in this par-
liament could have transformed
the House into an arena of sharp
challenge monopoly
capitalism and its exploitation of
the people, at every step. Such
a development would have con-
vineed more CCE and other mem-
bers to become champions of
labor’s interests:

Labor must go into politics as
an independent force. In doing
this it will not only have reli-
able spokesmen from its
ranks. It will
by its strength and example.

own

also win others

Here is the big lesson for the

working class during this ses-
sion. The two Congresses have
a wonderful chance to step-up la-

bor’s victories in the days to come.

-— Silent!

M. J. COLDWELL, WP.

uO
ANGUS MacINNiS, M-P:

CLARIE GILLIS, MP.

In the shamieless political
frameup of Fred Rose, MFP,
Montreal-Cartier, the G@E léad-
ership in the House haye fre
mained silent. In the mass
strike struggles of tens of thous-
ands of auto, lumber, seamed,
textile, rubber, mining, stéel, etc,
for higher wages, the 40-hour
week and union security, many
of which were conducted under
the most violent police repres: |
sion, the CCF chiefs haye maii-
tained a sinister silence. Wher
they did break it at times, 25
Angus MacInnis has done, it was

‘to condemn the striking union ~

jJeadership, or to congratulate —
strike-breaker Mitchell im  45i5 |
conduct of a“trying” position. —
Striking CCF workers, as with?
others, expect something differ-
ent from men elected on the
strength of their avowed social
ist principles.

FRIDAY, JULY 26, 1946