EGGE 6 — Saturday, February 24, 1945 ae

The Story Of Grey North —

By MEL ‘COLBY

‘Canadian Tribune Staff Reporter

N the short time that has

passed since the Grey North
by-election the CCF leaders have
been busy issuing press state-
ments in an attempt to justify
the role they played — a role
which culminated in the election
of a Tory.

One of the most desperate at-

- tempts to. cover up their role and
to prevent the spread of the re-
vulsion of feeling that is sweep-
ing CCE supporters, was the
statement of J. W. Noseworthy,
CCE member for York South in

_the federal house, and the
“brains” behind their campaign
in Grey North.

Mr. Noseworthy realizes that
labor. and the majority of CCE
supporters have no intention of
being put behind a political
eight-ball. regardless of whether
it is a C@E’er or a Tory who is
Handling the cue.

But in his attempt to cover

. up, Mr. Noseworthy just adds
to the evidence that-his par-
tys tactics aided the Teries.
Noseworthy stated that had the
CCE not entered the Grey North
by-election “there is no doubt
that the Progressive-Conserva-
tive Party majority over the

_ Liberals would have been much

- larger than it was.” In other
words, Mr. Noseworthy ‘would
fiave expected the voters -who
Supported Mr. Godfrey to have
east their ballots for Mr. Gase
if the CCF had withdrawn its
nominee. This can only be con-
strued as Mr. Noeseworthy’s per-
senal endorsation of the Tory
campaign against the Minister
of National Defence, General A.
G. LL. McNaughton—a campaign
that took full advantage of trea-
son. jingoism and anti-Semitism.
€ wasn’t necessary for them to
indulge in red-baiting—that was
taken care of by Mr. Godfrey’s
campaign managers.

ow closely knit together was

~ the Tory-CCF campaign of
Slander. treason. villification and
outright lies? But first some-
thing about the riding that
focussed the attention of the
world on February 5.

Grey North represents Old
Gntario perhaps more clearly
than any other riding in the

province; it is a truly represen-
tative Canadian riding. Situated
on the south shores of Georgian
Bay. Grey North, as the name
implies, contains the - northern
half of Grey County. On its east-
.ern side it runs further south
than it does on the west. And
on the west, because of the con-
tour of the bay, it cuts into what
ig commonly known as Bruce
‘Peninsula:

The urban area of the riding
‘ineludes the city of Owen Sound
and the towns of Meaford and
Thornbury, all on Georgian Bay.
This urban area makes up,
roughly. about 45 per cent of
the pov-ulation, the remaining
5b per cent being rural, includ-
ing smell vilages which dot the
constituency:

Of the estimated 20,000 vot-
ers im Grey North there are
about 11.000 rural votes to 9,000
urban with Owen Sound as the
Major urban center having a
population of 14,000. And of
these 14,000 citizens, as an in-!
tepral pert and hard core of the

1,200

unionists —almost one-
tenth of the total population.

It was on these unionists in
this predominantly English-
speaking, predominantly  Pro-
testant riding, that the CCF con-
centrated its main barrage of
disunity propaganda.

\

(pete CGF campaign which be-

gan with trickery, spread un-
til it met, joined, and became
part of the Tory campaign. The
trickery began with the CCF
claim that “it spoke for labor”;
that it “represented” the Owen
Sound labor movement; that the
Owen Sound trade unions, in-
dividually and through a meet-
ing of the Labor Council, had
“endorsed” the CCF candidate.
This was definitely untrue!

O what extent was the CCF

claim that they had the back-
ing of Owen Scund labor move-
ment true? Here is the record.
Of the local unions in that area
it is doubtful if one representa-
tive meeting went on record as
endorsing Godfrey! One of the
largest unions, local No. 1,
Canadian Woodworkers, over-
whelmingly refused endorsation
en two occasions. Members of
steel locals stated that their
unions, as locals, had never un-
animously endorsed the CCF
nominee.

As far as steel was concerned
the workers in that ‘industry
were more concerned in getting
action from Millard and Park
regarding union problems than
they were with Godfrey. They
made it clear that they resented
the influx of paid steel organiz-
ers into the district to handle a
political campaign—when it had
been impossible for the unions
to get assistance for more than
iwelve months!

One of the outright falsehoods
of the CCF was their paid ad-
yertisement in the Owen Sound-
Times stating that the labor
Council had endorsed Godfrey.
According to the recording-secre-
tary no meeting of the Labor
Council was ever held where such
endorsement was given, nor is
there any record of such endorse-
ment in the minutes of the re-
cording-secretary.

The alleged endorsement
which the CCE claimed for their
candidate was actually worth no
more than Eamon Park’s state-
ment that the “endorsement” of
the National Political Action
Committee of the Canadian Con-
gress of Labor spoke in the name
of all affiliated CCL unions.

The “endorsement” Godfrey
yveeceived is stated to have been
delivered by the Park-Millard
team at a local PAC meeting
held in the Community Hall at
Owen Sound. Supposedly repre-
sentative of all Owen Sound

CCL locals, only those who were
considered “safe” were invited
to the meeting. [It was not until
this “endorsement” had been de-
livered and advertised im the
Jocal press that many members
of local PAC’s discovered that
the meeting had been held!

One thine is true; as a result
of the barrage of CCF  half-
truths, outright lies, and “or
else” attitude, plus the delivery
of the national PAC “endorse-
city, there are a little more than
ment” by Millard and Park, the

Owen Sound labor movement
found itself confused and fear-

stricken. Over 50 per cent of the
unionists opposed the CCF pol-
icy yet did nothing about — it
epenly through fear! That large
section which was opposed to the
harrow, partisan, unity-splittine
policy of the CCF lacked cohesion
and leadership; it lived in fear
of an open fight which would
wreck their organizations; it un-
derestimated its own strength
and overestimated that of the
Millard-Park group; it contented
itself with silent resentment in-
stead of bringing the issues out
into the open and thereby expos-
ing the vote-hungry opportunism
of the CCF leadership.

It is interesting to note that
from the beginning of the cam-
paign the CCF leadership found
it necessary to import into Grey
North not only a candidate but
also the bulk of its party work-
ers. QOne thing is definite: the
CCF leadership in Owen Sound
itself did not play a leading role
in the campaign to elect Godfrey.
The facts are that the Owen
Sound executive oposed the en-
tering of a candidate against
General McNaughton—and was
overruled by the national leader-
ship.

And it was the imported CCF
“leadership”? — the Parks, Mil-
lards and Noseworthys who
pressed the “we speak for labor”
eampaign for four weeks with-

out being challenged.
@
HiS ‘was the situation two
weeks before February 5,

when the Canadian labor move-
ment as a whole stepped into
the picture. Sceres of unions,
AFL and CCL came forward to
state their policy to the elector-
ate; it was a clear policy; sup-
port of the Minister of WNa-
tional Defence in the interests of
winning the war quickly; defeat
of Tory reaction. To these ends
the labor movement appealed to
the CCF to withdraw their can-
didate and prevent a split in the
democratic camp.

Seores of wires and resolu-
tions pledging support to Gen-
eral McNaughton and appealing
to the CCE to withdraw God-
frey came from all over the
country. They came from coast
to coast and represented the in-
dividual voices of trade union
leaders as well as the collective
voices of the membership of
Canada’s most powerful unions.

Auto, steel, electric, ship-
builders, seamen, fur’ workers,
leather workers, chemical work-
ers, ship yard workers, the Ham-
ilton Labor Council (CCL) and
the Port Arthur Trades and La-
bor Council (AFL) were among
those who came forward in a

spontaneous body in support “of

McNaughton.

Every day for two weeks there
appeared in the Owen Sound
press messages from all sections
of the labor movement appealing
to the CCF to withdraw their
candidate in the interests’ of .na-
tional unity.

Twenty-four union leaders re-
presenting AFL and CCl unions,
in a full page advertisement,
backed up the expressions of
epinion of their membership and
appealed to the. CCF to put
“Patriotism before Partyism.”

Both, the United HElectrical
Workers and the Canadian Sea-
men’s Wnion sent leaders of their

respective unions to Owen Sound
to deliver radio broadcasts in
support of the Minister of Na-
tional Defence. Soldiers, men
who had just returned from over-
seas, appealed to the voters of
Grey North (and to the CCF) to
put aside party politics in the in-
terests of the war.

What was the CCF answer?
They were unable to provide one
resolution from any union back-
ing their candidate; they could
not provide one union leader
(ether than CCF officials Park
and Millard) to speak for God-
frey from the public platform;
they could not produce one mem-
ber of the armed forces to come
forward on behalf ef CCF. policy!

the

@
§° overwhelmingly was

CGF claim that it “spoke for
labor” refuted that the leader-
ship of that party fell back on
the old “Hitler method of red-
baiting for their answer to the
labor movement. In this they
were aided and abetted by the
Tory press which printed in ful]
all the gory details of the Jol-
liffe - Coldwell-Noseworthy “ex-
pose” of the “Communist” plot.

The most obyious answer of
the citizens to the CCE Red-
Baiting was given on election
day: Godfrey lost his deposit;
the total vote dropped consider-
ably under that polled by the CCE
Guring the provincial election
campaign; and in Owen Sound
itself the CCF yote took a sharp
drop in the face of an increased
total vote all over the riding.
The CCF vote in Owen Sound
dropped by. more than 30 per
cent; in Meaford by more than
20 per cent. Not only the citizens
ot: Grey North repudiated the
CCF, but the Jabor meyement for
whom it claimed “to speak” made
it clear in no uncertain terms
that the CCF had lost its “voice”
on February 5th.

The CCF went into the elec-
tion campaign backed by the
knowledge that Millard and Parl
had kidnapped the national
PAC and delivered its “‘endorse-
ment”’to Godfrey, but in Owen
Sound itself when Millard and
Park held widely advertised
“PAC meetings” only a hand-
ful of unionists turned out.

HROUGHOUT the campaign
the CCF followed the line of the
Tories. Putting aside the narrow
“conscription of wealth” line
which the CCF leadership played
up for all it was worth, both
parties might have had the same
press agent writing their speech-
es. The CCF only answered
weakly when the Tory candidate,

Garfield Case imyected anti-
Semitism into the campaign by
attacking David Lewis as “a

Russian-born Jewish refugee.’
But neither Mr. Coldwell or

‘Vi: Noseworthy hesitated to use
every slander against the Minis-'

ter of National Defence; neither
hesitated to make use of Brac-
Ken’s’ line. So closely akin were
the attacks that all sections of
the- Tory press devoted as much
space to what the CCE leaders
had to say as they did to Tory
speakers.

Neither the CCF or the Tories
discussed the fact that Canada
was at war except for its use as
a@ weapon against the Minister
of National Defence. ‘Both stu-

of MecNaughton’s ~ argume
when they referred to the
and the necessity of a quick
tory. The CCF, as a matte,
course, used the same argum
as the Tories did in suppori
Colonel Ralston’s position —
spite of the fact that they. ve
against it in the House of (e
mons—and in spite of the { ‘
that Ralston has become one’
the Tory stooges in that par
efforts to capture power.

One of the main points =
the CCF seemed to Have aga.
General McNaughton was <7
the General was of the opi
that volunteers fought m
more ably than conscripts. W
John Bracken made his treas
able statement that Canad
soldiers were throwing {|
guns overseas, the CCF did
decry this calumny. When
Tories demanded that Gola
Ralston be recalled as Mini
of National Defence, the €
echoed the cry. :

“There is no need for Geni
McNaughton to sit in the Ha
of Commons,” said Mr. Gase,

‘Just why dees Mr. McNau
ton . . . become so essentia’
asked Mr. Noseworthy.

eo y
[X their attempts to win ¥_
and prevent the Minister
Wational Defence from tak
his seat in the House of ©
mons the CCF did not over
such unscrupulous . promises
those made to farmers that t
would get their sons _defermi
from the army im exchange
Godfrey votes.

Nor_ did they hesitate to
bullying tactics on men
Flight-Lieutenant Don Morn
Morrison, who came to {(
North to appeal on behalf
General McNaughton, we.
overseas as a member of
ist Canadian Fighter Squaa
He rose from the ranks and
the DFM and the DSO for ~
exploits against Nazi alr
This young Canadian fig
had his lee shot off while’
gaged in. a dog fight +
France, but it didn’t pre
CCF leaders’ from telling |
that he had “no right” to sj__
on the public platform!

When Morrison ignored &
attempts to prevent him f
speaking he was approai
again and given a “last cha;
and ‘‘warned” that he wet
have to stop taking part inj
lic debate!

An ironie part of the ¢|
campaign was the fact tha:
was headed by a man who ¢
his seat in the House of ©
mons to the fact that he
elected by a coalition vote
York South—J. W. Nosewor |
Yet it was Noseworthy who

the: campaign that ended in |

election of a Tory; he cha
the course fer the rest to
low. :
e “
HE Tories didn’t hesitate
import anti-Catholicism,
ti-Semitism and anti-Quebet
into Grey North. Part of €:
election slogan was “Make ¢
bee Take Part In The War. ~

* | was played up for all it

worth, the cue being taken
the Drews and Brackens, ©
overlooked no opportunity
carry their anti-French-G

diously avoided \answering any

= —Continued on