THE NATION By TIM BUCK Drew defeat in Carleton byelection will be rebuff to warmongers E outcome of the byelection in Carleton constituency on December 20 will exert a profound influence on the political situation in Canada as a whole. Defeat of the Tory candidate will administer a rebuke to re- action, to tie warmongers, and to the unscrupulous Manipulation of the old party politics by the big financial interests. Election of the Tory candidate would stimu- late a concentration of reactionary forces. The Progressive-Conservative candidate, Col. George Drew, has been exposed as a brazen political spokesman. of the gold mining, lumbering, and private hydro- ‘electric power barons, the stock market and the finance- Capitalist interests in Canada. “Blackout” Col. Drew’s Sacrifice of the interests of the publicly owned Ontario hydro system to the advantage of the privately owned power trusts is now so well known that it would be Superfluous to describe it. Col. Drew is the most notorious saboteur of national of Dominion-Provincial relationships. Col. Drew is the Outstanding opponent of governmental action to protect the interests of consumers and farmers against the Monopolies, and the arrogant opponent of advanced Social legislation. He champions foreign policies which, if put into operation, would plunge Canada into war across the sea to prevent other nations from having the governments and social systems of their own choice. Col. Drew, who sang the praises of Hitler’s Germany in 1939, aspires now to play the'role of a Canadian “fuehrer.” His official title is “National Leader of the Progressive-Conservative Party,’ but his “behind the barn” relationship with Maurice Duplessis, the Social Credit Party, and the extreme reactionary circles of the catholic hierachy constitute, already, the beginning of a national concentration of pro-fascist forces. Col, Drew is the saboteur.of Canada’s national in- dependence. In spite of the traditional attitude of the party he leads, he is now one of the most energetic champions of Louis St. Laurent’s policies aimed to make Canada economically and politically dependent upon the United States. Col. Drew is the No. 1 political enemy of Canadian democracy and its forward-looking people. His election to the House of Commons would strengthen opposition to democratic progress, would further undermine Cana- dian independence, would be used as an excuse by the St. Laurent government to swing still further to the right, In the interests of the constituency, in the in- terests of Canada, the Labor-Progressive Party urges all democratic, forward-looking men and women in Carleton County to unite at the polls on December 20- to defeat Drew! \ ‘ While urging forward4ooking voters to unite at the | polls and defeat Drew, the Labor-Progressive Party considers it necessary and in the interest of politi understanding to emphasize that it cannot endorse, all the policies of the CCF and its candidate, Eugene Forsey, a As research director of the Canadian Congress of tbo he early months ro ae : cooutibered wage movement on the Pretense that his research showed that Canadian ine dustry would not be making enough profits to ae it to pay higher wages than the Jevels then prev: ae He provided the argument that Mosher, Conroy am Millard used to “justify” their break-up of the wage Coordinating committee of the CCL. — er of that group 4 : emb Today, Forsey is an active m Sere ee nina de of CCFers in the Canadian Congress 0 disrupting the trade union movemen Caiding of other unions—sometimes, as ‘ndustry, in connivance with the bosses. Forsey advocates more liberal domestic ese ca does Col. Drew and he will probably base ahh ae 2 zampaign upon that fact. The LPP gupperts e ant for progressive action to stop the skyrockett ne ee . of prices of the people’s food and other yecest a Curb the monopolies, to achieve readjustment of me a lon-Provincial relations, to secure @ democratic Cena - Bill of Rights, old age pensions of $60 per mon in the textile © age of 65 without any means test, to nationalize reform; the man who blocked an orderly readjustment. cal. of 1947, Forsey opposed t by systematic banking and credit and the basic industries, and so on. The LPP fights for a full program of such reform _ legislation every day of the year as well as during election campaigns. The LPP has fought consistently for democratic unity of the farmer-labor forces, includ- ing the CCF’, to achieve such a program of reforms in the shortest possible time. But the Labor-Progressive Party must condemn the CCF support for the St. Laurent-Pearson scheme to integrate Canada in Wall Street’s plan for war. © The LPP condemns the CCF support of the Marshall war plan, by which Wall Street has: divided Europe, setting sixteen “Marshall Plan” governments against the rest of Europe, denying any aid to or trade with those nations which refuse to “bend the knee” to Washington, rebuilding the steel and allied industries of western Germany under U.S. control, to the detriment of the economic prospects of both Britain and France— destroying their chances for recovery. ¢ Support cf those policies by the CCF leaders contra- dicts their professed aim of socialism—those policies are aimed at war against socialism. Their support of those policies contradicts their avowals of Canadianism —they are the policies by which internaticnal finance- capital and its monopolies are planning to make secure their domination of Canada, by making Canada an economic and political dependency of the United States. The leaders of the CCF have committeed them- selves completely to St. Laurent’s plan to involve Can- ada in war. They boast about the unity of the CCF with the Liberals and Tories on this issue, their “three- party unity on foreign policy.” In his comment upon the CCF candidate’s opening official statement on the Carleton byelection, the Ottawa correspondent of the Toronto Daily Star wrote: . “He (Forsey) claimed that Canada’s three-party “unity on foreign policy had been broken by a week-end that ful! well. statement by Ivan Sabourin, Quebec Conservative lead- er... .” It should be added that the statement by Sabourin which Forsey denounced as a breach of their three-party unity was a suggestion that, in the event of war, Canads, might remain neutral. The CCF leaders’ support of St. Laurent’s plain to commit Canada in advance to participation in an ag- ' gressive war across the seas is a calculated attempt to draw the labor movement into the war camp. Their support of such policies, and their consequent © support of St. Laurent’s program of war preparations to cost five hundred million dollars per year, cancel out CCF advocacy of advanced social reforms. Capitalist Canada is not going to finance a program of advanced social reform while increasing war expenditures in geo- metrical progression and the leaders of the CCF know \ The real national interests of Canada and her people require today, policies; based squarely upon defense of peace and our national independence. Such policies would involve, along with forward-looking do- mestie legislation, repudiation of the Marshall war plan, aid to all the nations of Europe through the United Nations in proportion to the urgency of their need, and a return to great power unity in the United Nations. : At the same time, while we cannot endorse all the policies of the CCF and its candidate, Eugene Forsey, the special significance of this byelection demands a special attitude towards it. Its outcome will not de- termine which party leader heads the government but it will exert a profound influence upon the prospects of tory reaction in Canada—upon the whole future of the tories as a force in our national political life. The LPP emphasizes that every vote cast for Drew will be a vote to strengthen pro-fascist reaction—a vote for war. Defeat of Col. Drew will be a body blow at warmongering reaction. In the existing circumstances the only méans by which forward-looking voters can defeat Drew is by voting for his opponent, the CCF candidate. For these reasons the Labér-Progressive Party urges the voters in Carleton County to “vote Forsey to defeat Drew!” : ~Council. LABOR FOCUS Strange case of © Wilkinson, Strange By BRUCE MICKLEBURGH “BE sure your crime will find you out,” is an old motto that could well be studied by any union official tempted by the boss. Nothing can stop workers from organizing to combat the ruthless exploitation of the mono- polies. The class struggle submits all unionists to the ruthless test expressed in the old miners’ song, “Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?” ee No man can hide from this test, but the ex- posure is particularly simple when a dirty deed is performed in the open. @ Take the strange case of Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Strange. In 1947—remember?—united labor actjon against Bill 39 had the Coalition on the ropes. The government saved its neck by false promises that the act would be amended in line with labor’s wishes. the penalty clauses wofild not be invoked, and that labor could nominate repre- sentatives to the labor board. This—while big business launched a propaganda counter-offensive against a lulled labor movement. Shock of betrayal came in January 1948 when the government appointed, out of all those nominated by labor to the board, the two in- dividuals least representative of labor: Mr. George Wilkinson, secretary ‘of the Victoria Trades and Labor Council and a member of the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Harry Strange, an unknown-member of a small CBRE local. The ICA Act was amended all right,—Bill 87 was piled on top of Bill 39 to make it éven worse. Labor Minister Wismer boasted to the Legis- lature that Bill 87 was drafted with the full participation of Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Strange. This exposed these two individuals as willing participants in legislative union-busting. Their jobs were made permanent at $5,000 a year. (Mr. Wilkirson was already reported to be raking in that amount from the number of business _ agents’ jobs he had cornered in Victoria.) has So, what is strange about this case? Not — that two men sold out labor. That has happened before and will happen again. "No, the strange thing is that the bodies which had nominated these individuals did not withdraw that endorsa- tion, namely the B.C. executive of the Trades Congress in the case of Mr. Wilkinson, and the © Canadian Congress of Labor in the case of Mr. Strange. Seven months ago the Vancouver Labor Council (CCL) demanded that the CCL “with- draw” the unrepentant Mr. Strange. This pro- voked Wismer to say that Wilkinson and Strange did not “represent” labor on the board, they “represented” the public. The CCL, stalled, sought more information, and had to be again requested_to act_last week. Dr. Patrick Conroy, CCL secretary-treasurer, thundered against “communism” on his way through Vancouver, but did not explain the condoning of Strange. (Strange’s chief function at that mcment is said to be a sort of office boy to Fred Smeits, the BCElectric man who dominates the Board.) Wilkinson is the number one red-baiter in the AFL, a fitting qualification for a proponent of such an act. He’s a possible successor to Dr. John Wart as Liberal MLA from Victoria, defies Trades Congress policy on Canadian autonomy, -and is widely regarded as a Liberal big business — agent in labor. The other night he took a beat- ing on the act in the Victoria Trades Council, when his. longtime ‘stronghold had sufficient decency to be no longer able to stomach this straightjacket measure. Any time now Mr. | Wismer can be expected to suggest that Mr. Wilkinson cut off his job in the Victoria Trades Life is shattering the illusions of some unionists who had thought the act was aimed at _ somebody. else, not them. Labor is demanding that the act be suspended, then replaced by a real labor act at the next session. ie But the question is being asked, what is holding back their nominees from repudiating Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Strange as “labor” men _ on the board? Labor cannot properly fight an act it is offcially, involved in administering. ~ ~~ = PACIFIC TRIBUNE — DECEMBER 3, 1948 — PAGE 9