Page Six THE ADVOCATE THE ADVOCATE Published Weekly by the Advocate Publishing Association, Room 20 163 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C. Phone TRinity 2019 EDITOR - HAL GRIFFIN One Year $2.00 Three Months —_ $ .60 Half Year $1.00 Single Copy —.——______$ .05 Make All Cheques Payable to: The People’s Advocate Vancouver, B.C., Friday, March 1, 1940 Contusing The Issue IE} most recent edict of President William Green, ultra- reactionary head of the American Federation of Labor, calling for expulsion of all Communists and sympathizers from labor councils and union affiliated to the AFIL exposes for all to see the community of interests of the AFI top leadership and monopoly capital. The obvious relish with which the chief proponents of the policy of class collaboration welcomed the opportunity to dis- pose of the opposition to their reactionary policies, followed by the vicious red-baiting campaign in the unions under their domination and through the columns of the current issue of the Labor Statesman is proof of their determination to achieve their aims. Unfortunately the significance and real aim of the drive to “expel all Communists and active sympathizers” is not under- stood by the ranlx-and-file members of the unions themselves. The excuse given is that the Communists constitute a disrup- tive influence, “accept orders from a foreign power,” and similar balderdash. He would be naive indeed who could not see that those who are pressing for the expulsions are them- selves accepting instructions originating in a foreign country, namely the United States. But the basic aims of the anti- Communist drive is not confined to any one country. ape real purpose of the anti-Communist campaign in the trade unions can be explained only against the backsround of the imperialist war. Why the inclusion of sympathizers? Who is to determine who is a sympathizer? This would mean that any trade union member who opposes the policies of the leadership can be branded as a Communist sympathizer and expelled from the union, thus effectively re- moving any and all opposition. What then is the real purpose of the anti-Communist drive? It is to prevent any attempt on the part of the rank-and-file of organized labor to secure increased wages and offset soaring living costs brought about by the war. Such attempts could and would be termed a Communist plot to disrupt war pro- duction. It would mean paralyzing any effective action on the part of the trade unions to defend living standards pre- cisely during the period when such efforts are most necessary. UCH action strikes at the very foundation of democracy and can be compared only to the heresy-hunting of the middle ages or the barbarism of modern fascism. Not only would hundreds of workers be deprived of trade union mem- bership, but also of the opportunity to earn a livelihood. It would mean the adoption of fascist measures of suppression to the membership of the very organizations which should be the main defenders of democracy. It is the beginning of the attack on the trade union movement in order to transform it into a subservient appendage of big business. Se Organized labor as never before must retain its inner democracy, its unity and solidarity. The attempt to disrupt and weaken the labor movement must be defeated. The reac- tionary tools of the profiteering big business interests who are leading the red-baiting campaign must be exposed. moe inicd Van Rarty, fg HE issues today are same as in 1935.” This is what Angus MacInnis, CCF candidate in Vancouver East, told his audience at the €CE’s opening campaign rally in the city this week. And it epitomised the speeches made by other candidates present. To hear MacInnis, one would not know that a change of world-shaking importance has taken place, one that trans- poses values and presents the people of Canada with a new situation. And that difference which distinguishes 1940 from 1935, is that today Canada is in the vortex of imperialist war. The speakers demanded social legislation, defended civil liberties, railed against conscription—all very good, but only what any vote-catcher puts forward in an election campaign; and, while good and necessary at all times, in peace or in war, and conceding that, if elected, the CCF would fight for them, nevertheless not enough in this situation. The war, and the dragging of Canada in the wake of British reaction to war against the Soviet Union, was little more than referred to, and then only in acceptance as an accomplished fact, and, being such, acquiesced in and even supported. To conceal this unity with imperialism the speakers sought to divert attention from the real issue to idealistic discussion of an ideal peace—atter the imperialist group they are support- ing has, presumably, won. This was the very method adopted in 1914-18 when labor ‘leaders’ called for a declaration of peace aims (which Presi- dent Wilson obligingly gave them) to appease the workers. But the Versailles treaty demonstrated how such declarations were linked to imperialist aims and proved what influence could be, or was, exerted by Social Democracy. As a matter of historical fact, powerful Social Democratic leaders, at the behest of a weakened imperialism fulfilling the shameful task of preventing the workers from advaneing towards socialism, actually signed the Versailles treaty. All such talk of influencing the peace imposed by a vic- torious imperialism is therefore sheer deception of the workers. Similarly, W. W. Lefeaux, CCF candidate in Vancouver Center, dealing with problems arising out of the war, advocated a ‘pay as we go’ policy. He does not believe that any of the cost should be passed on to future generations. There might be some merit in this if the rich could be made to pay. But we know that in the present situation it would mean further burdens upon the overburdened workers. Advocacy of a ‘pay-as-we-go’ policy on the pretext of try- ing to prevent payment of interest to bondholders—hbad as that is—betrays a lack of faith in the workers to achieve socialism, although the advocates of such a policy declare that the immediate issue is capitalism versus socialism. Unable to learn from history, or prefering to ignore his- tory’s lessons, the CCF leadership seems determined to follow the opportunist path which leads to complete betrayal of the workers. It forgets that the workers do learn from history. CORSCRIDTION IN TWO WARS By HAL GRIFFIN F CONSCRIPTION coming in Canada? Those who choose to believe the glib promises of Prime Minister King and On sition Leader R. J. Manion may not think so, but those who recall the same facile pledges against conscription made Prime Minister Sir Robert Bor to defeat it. The record is there for those who care to read it. And those who read cannot but observe the Ominous similarity between the general approach to conscription in the last imperialist war and in this. All the political weather- vanes indicate that once this election is past, once this formal tribute has been paid to demo- cracy, the drive to impose con- scription on the Canadian people will begin, regardless of which Party is elected to office. And, as in 1916-17, the propaganda ma- chines now mechanically repeat- ing “No conscription,” will go in- to reverse. What is the record? On Sept. 8, 1939, Prime Minister King stated in the House of Gom- mons: “I wish to repeat the under- taking I gave in parliament on behalf of the government on March 30 last. The present gevernment believes that con- scription of men for overseas service will not be a necessary or an effective step. No such measures will be introduced by the presént administration.” The prime minister's statement Was underscored a month later by Justice Minister Ernest La- pointe, Public Works Minister P. J. A. Cardin and Postmaster-Gen- eral ©. G. Power, carrying the federal government’s banner into the Quebec provincial elections. With the war and conscription the central issue of the campaign, all three ministers added their indelible statements to the rec- ord, Declaring that he had opposed conscription in 1917, Justce Min- ister Lapointe said in a broad- cast from Ottawa on Oct. 9, 1939: “I am opposed to conscription today just as I was then. TI stat- ed in the House of Commons that I would not be a member of any government which imposed con- Scription and that I would never support such an admiunistraton. The prime minister has stated that the present government will never resort to conscription.” And in a speech at St. Denis Sur Richelieu, Que., on Oct. 8, Public Works Minister Cardin, reiterating the government’s pledge not to introduce conscrip- tion, declared: “You mothers of families need not become alarmed or spill unnecessary tears. Your children can stay home as long as they like. Those who do not want to go, won't.” Defense Minister Norman Mc- Larty, then minister of labor, al- So committed his statements to the record when, on Oci. 18, 1939, replying to Premier Maurice Du- plessis’ charge that the govern- ment ‘was secretly preparing for conscription,” he said: “He( Premier Duplessis) nows full well that this gov- ernment is not planning to in- troduce conscription. That has time and time again be made abundantly clear.” @ HE Conservative party has been no less anxious to assure a justly suspicious people that, if elected, it has no intention of bringing in conscription. Opposition Leader R. J. Man- ion has already introduced the question of conscription into the campaign in the hope that it will win his party votes, particularly in the West. “Conscription would be beat- en on a yote in Western Cana- da, as in some other places,” he told an audence at Kalabeka Falls, Ont., on Feb. 27 of this year, adding that he was op- posed to conscription as “un- necessary and ineffective.” It would seem, then, to read the record superficially, that no party intends to introduce con- scription. But the record is not complete without adding the the statements which have re- ceived little or no publicity or considering those developments the real significance of which is not readily discernible. 2) i ee DEC. 1939, former Prirae Min- ister R. B. Bennett visited Canada on an undisclosed mis- Sion. We gave out brief public Statements, made only a few speeches to select audiences in which he dwelt lengthily on “the challenge to our Christian civil- ization,” and said nothing more than might be expected from the advocate of an ‘iron heel’ policy. But in a speech to a joint meet- ine of the Empire and Canadian clubs in Toronto on Dec. 21, 1939, he made the pregnant suggestion that Canada had laws on its stat- ute books which could be invok- ed to conscript manpower and said: “There might be a time when it might be necessary for us to Share equality of service.’ Perhaps he had forgotten that in 1917, when, as chairman of the National Service Board, he denied that the voluntary nation- al registration would be used to introduce conscription, he ‘was maling identical remarks about ‘equality of sacrifice’. A month later the London press Was speculating on the fact that there were an estimated 2,000,000 Canadians eligible for military service. Of all the parties contesting this election, only the New De- mocracy party headed by W. D. Herridge advocates conscription. And Herridge in a statement is- sued from Ottawa on Feb. 12 pre- dicted that conscription would be enforced in Canada before the end of 1940. Who is right, King and Man- ion who support the war and ostensibly oppose conscription, or Herridge, who supports the War and openly advocates con- scription because it is part of his party’s declared policy? @ HE answer may be found in the history of conscription in Canada during the last war. “Tt is not the intention of this government to propose compul- sory military service.” This statement was made in theHouse of Commons by Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden in Aug,., 1914 and reiterated in Jan., 1915. Other ministers were equally emphatic in their denial that conscription would be introduced. From Ottawa, on July 28, 1915, Postmaster-General Chase Gas- @rain issued a statement declar- ing: “You can state, in the most positive manner, that the ques- tion (of conscription) has ney- er come up, directly or indirect- ly. My colleagues are of the opinion that enrolment is being done in a way that is wholly Satisfactory ... Iam pretty ac- curate in my political predic- tions, and I can say that there will be no conscription.” Sir Wilfred Laurier, leader of the Liberal opposition, despite his determined opposition to con- scription, nevertheless assisted in lulling the fears of the Canadian people when, in a speech at St. Lin, Que, on Aug. 7 1915, he opined: “For my part, I do not be lieve there will ever be con- scription, either here or in Great Britam. England has mever forced conscription on any part of the empire. The British people have always ob- jected to forced service and the fear of conscription in Canada is groundless.” That the people’s fear was well founded, however, Acting-—Prime Minister Sir George Foster pro- ceeded to prove in a speech made at Brockville, Ont., on Sept. 20, 1915. In one sentence he revealed the government's entire policy: “I do not want to discuss conscription” he said, “but if a iree people will not save the empire it looks as if the day wil come when compulsion must assist persuasion.” @ ROM Jan. 1916 the whole trend towards conscription became increasingly apparent. A New Year’s statement issued by Prime Minister Borden in 1916 revealed that the authorized force of Canadians would be in- ereased from 250,000 to 500,000. Yet the government continued to cling to the pretense that con- Seription was not contemplated. “The Canadian scheme of re- eruiting on the straight volun- tary basis is at all odds the best and I don’t intend te sub- stitute any other scheme for the one which has brought Such fine results in the Do- minion and which continues to bring good results,’ he assert- ed in a press interview at Ot- tawa on Jan. 7, 1916. Recruit- ing he added, would be contin- ued “voluntarily and without compulsion or the semblance of compulsion.” Commenting on this, Sir Wil- fred Laurier on Jan. 17, declared: “We must repel at once the impression which has been sought to be created that this offer (of another 250,000 Cana- dian troops) is a preliminary step to conscription. There is to be no conscription in Can- ada.” But Brig.-Gen. James Mason believed conscription was inev- itable and told the Senate so in a defailed report on recruiting presented on March 14, 1916. Pointing out that up to Feb. 15, 1916, only 249,000 of an estimated 1,500,000 Canadians eligible for military service had enlisted, Brig.-Gen. Mason expressed the belief that it would be more diffi- eult to raise a second force of 250,000 and said: “Moreover, this large num- ber, if and when sent to the front, must be maintained and it has been estimated that the casualties will not be less than 5 percent monthly of the total force. This means that we shall have to provide each month, to maintain our army’s strength, at least 25,000 new men, or 300,000 a year. There can be no. question that the ad- ditional 250,000 to bring our quota up to 500,000 and the 300,- 000 if required annually to keep it at that figure, will not be ob- tained under the present sys- tem of enlistment.” Ignoring its pledge to consult parliament first, the Kins gov- ernment has already sent a Can- adian force overseas. How long will it be after the ‘spring offen- sive’ predicted by Prime Minister King before similar arguments for conscription will be voiced by those now claiming to be op- posed to it? @ HUS, in 1916, the stage was skilfully set for imposition of conscription upon the Canadian people. Qn April 12, 1916, the New Brunswick legislature, with its Overwhelming Conservative ma- jority, unanimously carried a res- olution reading in part: “That in the opinion of this House ,in order that 500,000 men promised by Canada to the em- pire may be speedily raised, par- liament should pass an act call- ing to the colors all men of suit- able military age.” Wot from the broad democratic organizations representative of the people, but from. Recruiting Leagues across the country came resolutions demanding registra- tion. In April the Canadian National Service League, with Chief Jus- tice T. G, Mathers of Winnipes as its president, was formed. Ad- yocating compulsory service, its stated purpose was promotion “of any form of national service which the need of the hour may demand.” Heading a delegation repre- senting 42 Recruiting Leagues, Chief Justice Mathers and S. FP. Washington, KC, of Hamilton, interviewed Prime Minister Bor- den. Aware of the rising storm in Quebec and the widespread op- position throughout the West, the prime minister still professed to regard conscription as unne- cessary. But behind the scenes the Bor- den government was preparing the elaborate union government strategy by which it hoped to Maintain itself in power and en- force conscription. Big business, deriving huge profits from the war, came out into the open and added its ‘pat- riotic’ yoice to the ‘popular’ clam- or. At the Hamilton conference of the Canadian Manufacturers’ As- sociation in June, 1916, a resolu- tion was approved that “the as- sociation will approve any scheme for complete and effec- tual mobilization of the entire re- sources of Canada in men and materials, which should be placed unreservedly at the disposal of the country,” while President J. HE. Sherrard opined that ‘the time has come for Canada to register her men, so that those who can be useful to the war by remain- ing at the work they are neces- Sary to, shall not be recruited, and so that the remaining avail- able men wil be induced to do their duty by enlistine.” With influential public figures like Gen. Sir Sam Hughes, Bi- shop Farthing of Montreal, Pres- ident J. W. Woods of Toronto board of trade, and H. H. Stev- ens, MP, echoing the demand for registration it became obvious that conscription was near. e Y order-in-Council of Oct. 5, 1916, the WNational Service Board was created. Headed by R. B. Bennett, it was designed to conduct a yoluntary registration of Canada’s manpower. Accompanied by Inland Revy- enue Minister BE. L. Patenaude and R. B. Bennett, Prime Minis- ter Borden made a trans-Canada tour in December to enlist public Support for this ‘voluntary res- istration, Both the prime minister and R. B. Bennett denied that the registration would be utilized to enforce conscription. But the people were not so easily deceiv- ed. In Montreal, the audience would not allow Patenaude to speak and vented its indignation on Borden and Bennett. In Que- bec, the audience called for La- vergne and Bourassa, the French Canadian nationalist leaders, while Postmaster-General Cas- STain was speaking and most of those present left the hall in a body when Bennett took the plat- form. Elsewhere in the country audiences gave the prime minis- ter no sympathetic welcome. e ieee labor too, took its stand in determined op- position to conscription. The Trades and Labor Con- gress at its 1915 convention in Vancouver had gone on record against Conscription. Subsequent- ly trades councils throughout the country reinforced this stand in various resolutions, In British Columbia, New Westminster Trades and Labor council on May 10, 1916, passed a resolution opposing conscription and pledgine its support to any measures, including aq general strike, decided upon to make that opposition effective. den in 1914-16 believe that con scription will come—and soon—unless the Canadian people u: On Dec. 6, 1916, Victoria Tr:" and labor council protested "| tional registration as leading |) conscription and on June 6, | the council yoted against 1) seription. Vanecouyer Trades and Lz council, headed by J. BH. Mcy On May 30, 1917, adopted a r lution declaring that conscrip }} ‘would not only sacrifice : without their cons but would also annul those i tective measures which org: ized labor has been able to f¢ from the employers.” British Columbia Federa, of Labor at its Jan., 1917, con ence also passed a resolution Mmandinge that “conseription — not put into effect before ip been submitted to a refereny | vote of the people of Cang | When 2,000,000 registra — cards were sent out by the tional Service Board, Winni Trades and Labor council ¢ | the lead in condemning the q. tionnaire. Organized labor ¢4 where followed, only Tor’ Prades and Labor council, kh narrow margin, failing to j{. a firm stand. Boycottinge of the questionn by thousands was reflected in turns announced in the Hous: } Commons by R. B. Bennett Aug., 1917, after conscription | § been announced. Of 2,000,000 cares sent oug 049;360 were returned, and these 206,605 were either bh or incomplete. i O* MAY 18, 1917, Prime i ister Borden, returning: the Imperial War Confere told the House of Commons: “Hitherto we have depend — upon yoluntary enlistment myself Stated to parliame that nothing but voluntary ¢ listment was proposed by t government .. . It is appare to me that the voluntary 5 tem will not yield further s_ stantial results . . . Therefo it is my duty to announce the House that early propos: will be made on the part | the government to provide, ‘ compulsory military enlistme | on a selective basis, such re ! forcements as may be neq ] sary to maintain the Canadi. | AXMY 3656507? =e oe ners In the month preceding act i: Presentation of the conscript measure to parliament the d . sion met with hostility throt ~ out the country. In Quebec tt 4 Was mass opposition. An & } Conscription Leasue formed | Vancouver in May obtained mediate support. WNeverthel’! the government proceeded to force conscription. Organized labor found itself - Serted by an influential sec | of its leadership. A special ; | ference of Trades and Ii Congress called in June to dis ~ the question declared aga . conscription in principle. at the annual Congress con -; tion in September the execu won endorsation of its report. Vvocating opposition, not to 2 | tary but only to industrial |. seription. ; That this did not represent views of delesates was sh P when, on a standing vote on { position to conscription hi | called, all but 20 delegates r } In British Columbia the ma ity sentiment among organ labor favored a general st against conscription. But at annual convention of the BG I eration of Labor in Septer the final decision was left in hands of the executive — the executive took no action. @ HAT was 20-odd years Today Prime Minister K speaks of sending tens of th: ands of young Canadians o seas. In Toronto the influer Globe and Mail, voice of mill] aire interests ,is campaigz for registration. The drive tiated by reactionary labor 1 ers to oust Communists £f trades councils shows that ar i( fluential section of the trade ion leadership is preparing tc act the ignominious role plz by many trade union lea during the last war. It toc Ca part of the drive towards seription. e The increasing severity of W tacks upon militant sections the labor movement likewis ¥. calculated to prevent labor f offering effective opposition the government’s policies —! cluding conscription. 5 Of all the parties supportine war the CCF is most vigorc opposing conscription. But ‘ supporting continuation of = # during which attempts to im conscription will inevitably § made. i Not trust in the promises iy. the opportunist politicians, ¥ only ‘awakening of the Gana §. People to a realization of /#., mearing threat, to the nece}® of uniting in resolute strujgp. against it, can defeat cons}e tion.