» Pd) fe 1B Vol. Vancouver, B.C., Friday, April 30, 1948 geo DAY EDITION Five Cents Coalition provoking unrest ‘UNIONS WON'T STAND FOR DESTRUCTION BY LAW’ Un I ty for world peace \ WINCH--- TURNER VICTORIA, B.C. — “The trade unions of this province are determined that their unions shall not be destroyed —law or no law. They won’t just sit down and let their unions be put out of busi- ness.” This is how Arthur Turner, (CCF, Vancouver East) sum- med up the attitude of the labor movement to Bill 87 as the CCF opposition and Tom Uphill (Labor, Fernie) battled point by point in the legislature Tuesday to defeat the Coalition government’s vicious amendments to the ICA Act—the notorious Bill 39 ‘of last year. “This bill is dictated by the Canadian Manufacturers As- sociation and the B.C. Bar Association. It is not con- cerned with the interests of the trade unions,” Harold Winch, CCF leader, charged. Winch’s charge was effec- tively substantiated in com- mittee by Herbert Gargrave (CCF, Mackenzie) when he read CMA representations to the government and showed that they were little different from the amendments pro- posed by the government jn Bill 87. With Labor Minister Gor- CCF battles against anti-labor Bill 87 don S. Wismer still clinging to the fiction that Bill 87 would protect labor’s inter- ests and Coalitionists Alan MacDonell (Vancouver Cen- tre) and A. R. MacDougall (Point Grey) furnishing the red-baiting lie to his claims, the government rammed the bill through the House. Other Coalitionists displayed their concern for labor’s in- terests by disruptive heckling and voting down all the 27 amendments proposed by the CCF. E. E. Winch (CCF, Burna- by) answered MacDougall’s assertion that the - amend- ments would “protect the unions t self-avowed communists” by stating: “This talk about avowed communists reminds me of my younger days when I was very undesirable to .employ- ers who broke our unions and. blacklisted me and others who were avowed so- cialists. “You’d blacklist me and others in this House if you could,” he declared. “You can’t bring the red bogey in here and get away with it,” Arthur Turner told red - baiting Coalitionists. Continued on page 4 See BILL 87 By MARK FRANK OTTAWA.—Are you one of the 709,573 people who signed the Housewives’ Consumer Associa- tion brief calling on the King Sovernment to restore price con- trols at 1946 levels? If you are, you’re probably pret- ty indignant at the government’s arrogant refusal to receive the petition—it was finally delivered to Prime Minister King’s Laurier House residence — and you want to know why. This account of the interview forced on Finance Minister Doug- las Abbott by Mrs. Rae Lucock, president. of the new Housewives and Consumers Federation of Canada, as related by her to a meeting of consumer delegates ‘in Lisgar Collegiate here, reveals the government’s desperate ef- forts to evade general public pro- test against high prices by using the red smear technique. Semebody had tipped Mrs. Lu- cock off on the whereabouts of the finance minister. He was in the cafeteria sipping coffee. “Ef found him in the lunch room,” Mrs. Lucock told dele- gates. “Taking my courage into my hands, I walked up to his table, bowed a little stiffly, and said: ‘How do you do? I’m Mrs. Lucock . of the Housewives Consumer As- _sociation.’ ‘ “I held out my hand and he shook it. Then he said hé would be glad to speak to me personally, but not as a member of the dele- gation. Well, that was all right. ‘Abbott threw press brief back at me’ “‘Rightly or wrongly you're be- ing used as a’ communist front,’ the minister told me. Well, I showed him our constitution. He said he was quite sure I was a sincere woman. I told him the group was not formed for politi- cal purposes’ but to take care of prices. It had been formed 11 years ago. “What could I do with the pet- itions, I asked. Where could I take them? ‘Nothing to offer,’ said the minister. ‘Suggest you write a letter to A. D. P. Heeney, secret- ary of the cabinet and ask him to receive them.’ “But I will not even examine them or look at them, he said. “Then some time during the in- terview, I showed him our brief. ‘I won’t accept a brief,’ said the minister, ‘send it to me by mail. “I asked him not to be so rude to us. The minister relented, took hold of the brief, then suddenly threw it back on the desk at me. ‘No. I won’t receive it either, he declared. “He didn’t give it back to me, he threw it back at me.”