Ma ee i ee i TO 5 ID SD pO AD Bde TE, el 1 oe ENA By JEANNE McGUIRE_ : TORONTO — The Nov. 10 election results in Metro Toronto and particularly in Toronto are both a victory and a defeat. A victory because reform poli- tics won, a defeat because reform politicians lost. John Sewell most clearly exemplifies this apparent contradiction. Sewell added 13,000 to his 1978 vote but was unseated by Liberal Art Eggleton by a mere - 2,000 votes. Dan Heap in Ward 6, elected to City Council, did not win the Metro Council position even though he scored over a 1,000 votes more than Allan Sparrow when he took the Metro seat in 1978. Susan _ Atkinson’s vote was slightly higher than retiring en- cumbent Barbara Adams but she was not elected. In the Borough of York, John Nunziata doubled his — 1978 vote and retained his seat. Similar examples can be found across the city and the boroughs. _ In its preliminary assessment of the election re- sults, the Metro Committee of the Communist Party noted two major contributing factors — the unity of the right and the disunity of the reform forces. Anti-reform unity was signalled early in the cam- paign when John Turner, a prominent Liberal, and Al Eagleson, a prominent Tory, co-hosted a $125-a-plate fund-raising dinner for Art Eggleton. It is also worth noting here that the representatives of big business interests were not only united but well-funded as well. The money which poured in to the Eggleton campaign testifies to the sense of urgency which such elements felt in the face of a growing reform sentiment. Corpo- rate interests not only used financial power to win political power, but also united behind single candi- dates in every marginal situation. : Eggleton’s policy stance, demagogically incorpor- ating as it did much of the reform positions of Sewell and others, is further evidence of the strength of re- form feeling. The right-wing forces, however, did not put all their marbles in the basket with money, unity and hypocritical reform promises. Distracting many electors.from the real and substantial problems facing them (daycare, taxes, transportation, housing, etc.) # SoH A Other \ Further news on how progressive candi- dates in Ontario outside Metro Toronto fared in the Nov. 10 civic vote is coming in. Wel- land reports that Nick Petrachenko and Mil- lie Trufal topped the polls for the aldermanic race in the city’s Ward 6. In Port Colbourne, Garry Hoyle, treasurer of Local 523 (UE) was elected alderman. Windsor reports that Joe Longmoore, run- ‘Metro-election a defeat and victory’ | 4 Jeanne McGuire is chairperson of the Metro Commit- tee of the Communist Party. was the gay-herring that was dragged forwards and backwards throughout the campaign. Confronting this well-funded, united and double- talking effort to halt the process of change was a reform movement divided — vacillating on issues, dispirited by its own disunity. Much of: the re- sponsibility must be placed on the role played by the New Democratic Party. - The NDP blocked broad-based reform cooperation by its refusal to endorse (with the exception of Sewell for mayor in Toronto and Harris for mayor in Scar- borough) let alone work for candidates who did not carry NDP membership cards. In some cases this position, stemming from the arrogant assumption that the NDP alone represents reform sentiment at the -municipal level, was carried as far as urging their supporters to vote for reactionaries rather than a non-NDP reformer. : The consequence of this is clearly shown in Ward 2 where Susan Atkinson lost to the notorious Ben Grys by 18 votes. In York, independent reformer Carol © Schwarts running in the ward in which Oscar Kogan used to represent as alderman would have been elected if NDPer Jacquie Chic had not entered the field at the last minute. The less-than-wholehearted support of Sewell (‘‘if he is not in the NDP by 1982 we will run against him’’) played no small part in his defeat. This ambivalence showed itself in Ward campaigns where signs were not put up for Sewell (Wards 4 and 9 forexample). Itis_ reported that in Ward 6, had the NDP’s campaign been more strongly linked to the Sewell campaign, a victory for Sewell could have been achieved on the basis of that ward alone. The NDP may feel it has achieved a victory having increased its seats on City Council from 6 to 8, but the working people of Toronto have been deprived of a reform majority which could have had a significant impact on the quality of life and politics in Metro Toronto. The people deserve better than this narrow sectarianism from the New Democratic Party which claims to have their best interests at heart. In stark contrast to the defeats suffered in Toronto — are the gains made in Vancouver (see page 8). In Metro Toronto, the result of ignoring the neces- sity of unity, the people are faced with two years of city council, Metro Council and school boards domi- nated by status quo politicians. To paraphrase John Sewell, the issues haven't gone away, the people haven’t gone away, but the task of bringing about the necessary reforms has been made that much harder by the results of the election. The next two years will require greater mobilization and an all-out effort to achieve unity. Reform Metro, the closest thing to Vancouver's COPE that exists in Metro Toronto, is going to re- quire strengthening. Labor and NDPers must be won to co-operation with Reform Metro. Not just for the 1982 elections but for the struggle around all those - issues which will confront us between now and then. Luc Se ae the top of 10 to be elected. votes and Michael McLister polled 1,067 for school trustee in Ward 2. Five incumbents were defeated in the city’s aldermanic race, three progressive candidates were elected. In St. Catharines, Eric Blair ran fifth out of six candidates for alderman in St. George’s ward picking up 667 votes. Sharon Lawler _ was elected as school trustee running near Bill Powell, ex-steelworker, unexpectedly x won 50,097 votes to win the mayorality race in Hamilton. In Ward 3, Larry Wheaton re- © ceived 1,116 votes in his aldermanic bid. In Ward 4, Bob Mann ran fifth out of six with 1,207 votes. In Ward 5, Andy Gillis garnered 3,224 votes in his unsuccessful bid for an aldermanic seat. John Bruce in Ward 6 won 1,383 votes placing fifth out of six. Elizabeth Rowley in Ward 7 received 753 votes placing fourth out of six. ning for alderman in Ward 1 received 928 What about Reagan? A faithful reader of this column asked us the other day ‘‘What do you think about Reagan? Do you think he will be any different than Carter?’’ Our reply ‘Was “‘not much”. We happened to be talking about U.S. foreign policy and how this affects Canada and the world in general. * * * This is not just a rhetorical question as Sometimes is the case when people are Shooting the breeze. For U.S. presidents hold a lot of power in their hands which is hot always the right kind of power for Working people. And, it so happens that the power Reagan holds in his hands, like Jimmy Carter before him, is the power of aggressive U.S. imperialism which sees whole world as its oyster. Last summer Carter proclaimed that the U.S. military stood ready to defend American interests anywhere in the : World. In addition to this, he issued fective 59 which authorized a first- Strike nuclear policy in defence of such Interests. Mind you, the interests Carter in mind were not those of the Ameri- Can people but those of the giant U.S. multi-nationals. On the assumption that What’s good for the multi-nationals is 800d for the USA. * * * Compare Carter’s doctrine with that of k Ronald Reagan’s. His national security _ Advisors have advised him that ‘‘no area Marxism-Leninism in Today’s World of the world is beyond the scope of American interest’ and that the United States needs ‘“‘sufficient military stand- ing to cope with any level of violence’. These national security advisors went on to ‘tadvise’’ Reagan that while U.S. al- lies ‘play a central role” the U.S. must be able to use force unilaterally. ; In respect to relations with its allies Reagan’s security advisers say Washington should seek the help ofallied governments in protecting Western in-. terests (read U.S. interests) in “volatile regions, such as the Persian Gulf’. But, as if to emphasize that “Western inter- ests’ mean ‘U.S. interests” the security advisers say that the “availability of al- lied support should not constrain Ameri- can action in defence of its interests. * * * What cover did Carter and now Reagan use to mask such military and ; jingoistic posturing? None other than the land of living socialism — the Soviet Union. But there are no U.S. multi- nationals in the Soviet Union. Those multi-nationals are to be found in Canada whipping up separationist senti- ments in Alberta to protect the profit interests of the U.S. oil buccaneers. They are to be found in the Persian Gulf area and the Midd’ “ast, Africa, Latin speak of U.S. interests. ~ * bd America, the Caribbean, Asia and west- ern Europe. So why did Reagan’s advisers counsel that in respect to U.S. military needs, the U.S. strategic nuclear forces must be capable of surviving any Soviet nuclear attack? And to do so, even against the - likelihood of opposition by their allies who might find it difficult to play the part of sacrificial lambs in a possible nuclear holocaust? * * Such reasoning reminds one of the thief who has just robbed the church’s alms box and runs down the street shout- ing ‘‘stop thief, stop thief!’? And, in this manner escapes the vengeance of the by- standers, and with the loot. In this man- ner, the U.S. multi-naitonals are, with the help of their accomplices in Canada, robbing Canada blind of her natural re- sources, while directing.our attention to a non-existent enemy — the Soviet Union. This is not only the case with Canada. It is the case in all areas of the world where U.S. imperialists snatch the bulk of the wealth created by the labor of other peoples in other countries. This is what is meant when U.S. presidents * This, however, is but a by-product ofa much. bigger concern of the giant U.S. multi-nationals and monopolies, whose aggressive imperialist ambitions are represented by the man who now oc- cupies the White House and the man who will soon succeed him. That concern is the daddy of them all. It is the fear that their robber regime will inevitably be re- placed with the regime of the working people — socialism. _ That is why they cry ‘‘thief’” at the Soviet Union, the first land of socialism, the land that stands as a living monument to the genuis, talent and creative labor of a people, who were the first to prove that the world could live quite well, thank you, without capitalism and capitalists. And whose proven example is being taken up by the working people of more and more countries. Pe eae That is why the servile rulers of other capitalist lands, many of whom are im- perialists in their own right, bow the knee to the dictat of American imperialism. This is so, even though they compete with their dictator in the scramble for maximum profits. Such is the case with their ilk in Canada. And in service to their imperialist master, they squander the wealth created by the workers of their countries in a dangerously in- flammable arms race which, unless stop- ped, will claim the lives of the working people as a final payment. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—NOV. 28, 1980—Page 9