LPP Continues To Fight For Liberty |

|CF Rejects B.C. Fe

leration’s (

Jnity Proposals -

lhe People Of The Province Will Pay

lavily”
5 4 e
*. Jolliffe, following Tory victory in On-

¥ elections, as a consequence of CCF “go
Will Harold Winch say the

“he B.C. Federation of Labor has asked
“omittee to enter into conversations with
‘sof the Federation and of the Labor-

W essive Party, with a view to the divi-

®.oming elections. . i

1! 'o B.C. Federation of Labor is affiliated
“the Canadian Congress of Labor, which
4943 national convention: and at its
-nnual national convention, adopted reso-
s referring to the CCF asthe “‘political
f£ labor.2 Ihe proposal advanced by the
+ federation of Labor has. not been sup-
| by a referendum vote of a single union
in this province, and indeed the only
+. referendums on political policy in this
jyce have resulted in union affiliations
she CCF.
‘ie adoption of the B.C. Federation pro-
. 4¢ ib avere to: result in the formation of
' -eynment, could-only lead to a .CCF-LPP
jon government. .Such a. coalition of
-»s, divided by fundamental differences of
+ could only result in the chaos‘and be-
“1 of the interests of the working people
= province, which the CCF avoided when
scted the invitation of the Liberals and
rvative parties to enter into a coalition

'of seats between the two parties at the

The Communist Party and its. successor,
Labor-Progressive- Party, have from time
to time during the last twelve years advanced
similar proposals, and the consideration which
the CCF hes given to them convinces us that
their acceptance can only militate against the
development of a political party which faith-
fully advances and protects the rightful im-
terests of the working people arid: leads the
way forward to a democratic, socialist Canada,
by democratic means. aa

The results of the recent federal . election
prove beyond dispute that the LPP is incap-
able- of attracting the support-of enough
voters to elect a candidate, and even if given
a free field. Therefore if LPP~supporters
really wish to bring about the downfall of the
capitalist coalition government, they must
support CCF candidates.

The present election brings forcefully. to
the attention of labox-the need for labor-unity.
At the polls the-electors must vote for a
Coalition -government, or-a CCF government.
We believe that-a CCE “government: will be
a truly labor government...It is for those
who deny this to show that the CCF in its
personnel does) not represent the workers. of
the field, office, and factory. It is for them
to show wherein CCF policies betray the in-
terests of the working people and wherein by
its acts the CCF has failed to serve those
interests faithfully and well. The political
ynity of labor will be achieved in this province

y the organized participation of labor in

. gard the main issues facing the people of our province.

ament in 1941.

the formation of a CCF government.

-7ONS and ANSWERS
i MAURICE RUSH

' -alY Organizer and LPP
se’ in Vancouver-Centre

| interest in the Oct. 25°
© 1 election is rising rap-

he last few days a num-

Suestions have been ask-

-orkers, farmers and mid-

people about the posi-

'. the Labor Progressive

-tere are some of the

-ertinent questions and

~ swers:

BP TION: pets Ss
‘should thei working peo-
f ose the election of the
-2eral Coalition?
/ VER:
ry-Liberal coalition rep-
a combination of old-
‘arties to prevent the
Sive sections of our pop-
i from attaining represen-
‘n Victoria. The Tory wing
coalition, represented by
d, is the main spokesman
business interests in the
e. Through them speaks
k, the manufacturers as-
s ns, the big logging and
“interests. The Liberal
of the coalition, under
leadership, carried
aa shotgun wedding with
ries and thus betrayed the
voters of ‘the province,
them on the spot and

them to accept Tory
sates,

vy us

‘© at the Coalition govern-
' achievements. They claim
nd for industrial progress.
he fact is that the ship-
Hg industry which former-
«ployed about 20 thousand
& in Vancouver is expect-
g have only 4,000. by Febru-
-he aircraft industry which

to. thousands of citizens is now
completely shut down. With the
end or the war it becomes very.
clear that Messrs. Hart and Mait-
land have no plans for reconver-
sion ‘from war to peacetime jobs.

What about homes?

Here, too, the reactionary co-
altion -has achieved nothing.
Thousands of working people and
returned veterans are without
adequate shelter.

The people of B.C. who want
progressive postwar government
cannot support the Tory-Liberal
Coalition. That unholy alliance
must be defeated in the coming
elections if we are to have pro-
gress in the postwar years.

QUESTION 2:
What alternative is there to
the Tory-Liberal coalition?

ANSWER:

We would be. blinding our-
selves to reality if we though the
Tory-Liberal coalition could eas-
ily be defeated. The combination
of reactionary parties can only
"be defeated by a combination of
all progressive parties and
groups. Only such unity can at-
tract to its support large blocks
of progressive liberal voters and
have a fighting chance to win.

The CCF leaders claim that
they alone are the alternative
to the coalition. This- claim
should be seriously studied. It
should not be accepted merely
because they say so. The CCF
claimed that they would lead in
the Ontario and Alberta provin-
cial elections and in the federal
elections. We know now what
happened. By claiming they
would win, and that they were
the only alternative, the CCF
leadership blocked the way to
unit of the people and opened

precks ago gave employment
FIC ADVOCATE—PAGE 3
;

the door to Tory gains.

WHAT ARE THE. ISSUES?

What is the actual situation
in B.C.?

Does the voting strength of
the CCF justify the claim that
they can “go it alone” and de-
feat the coalition?

In the last provincial election
the CCF elected, with an over-
all majority, only in one seat,
Vancouver East. In every other
seat where they elected it was
the result of a split vote between
Liberal and Conservative parties.
This time the CCF is faced by
a combination of both parties.
The overall vote in B.C. shows
that the Tory-Liberal parties
polled 254,280-votes as compared
to the 148,900 of the CCF.

Some people may say that was
in 1941 and that the shift in
support among the electorate has
changed the -picture. Well, let
us look at figures:

The recent federal election
gives us a good indication how
the B.C. people vote. The com-
bined Tory-Liberal vote was 205,-
000. The CCF vote was 99,200
Where is the CCF claim that
they alone are the alternative to
the reactionary coalition? Where
is their claim that only they
represent labor on the political
arena? . ;

Is it not obvious that the only
way labor can possibly hope to
defeat, the coalition of big busi-
ness is by a coalition of its own
which would embrace all pro-
gressive groups, including CCF,
LPP, Peoples CCF and labor or-
ganizations?

The old-line parties had enough
sense to unite to keep progres-

sive representation from -Vic-
toria. :
Let us hope that the CCF

leadership will show the same
common sense and unite with all
progressives to send peoples rep-
resentatives to Victoria.

Only Progressive Unity
Can Defeat The Hart-
Maitiand Coalition

(Statement of the Provincial Executive, Labor-Progressive Party)

Pressed by the rising demand of Labor Unions for electoral
unity of all progressive people, the CCF executive issued a
statement on September 30;. A careful analysis of the state-_|
ment. makes clear that.the CCF leadership. continues to disre4

The statement of theiCCF indicates that it intends to con |
tinue the attitude. which places the partisan aspirations of a
party above the needs of the people. ee a

The CCF statement studiously avoids a realistic examina;
tion of the, present poitical situation in the province. It fails
to take note of the fact that the-total vote supporting the Tories .
and the Liberals; as shown in the recent Federal elections, is
larger than the combined vote of ths CCF and LPP. The CCF

‘igniores the need, to create a united alternative’ which) alone |

ean attract tens of thousands of votes from’ the Liberal camip.*
Without this; victory against the Coalition :is impossible. e

Instead of dealing with the issues at stake the CCF*re-~°? ?

peats a string of arguments’ which cannot stand up under™
-serutiny. The CCF claims that the Canadian Congress’ of

Labor; of which the BCFederation of Labor is 2 part,

adopted: a resolution referring to the CCF as the political

arm of labor’ The facts known to all show that at the last
Convention of the Congress, held in Quebec, a great num-

ber of delegates refused to reaffirm the previously adopted

resolution. Only after many amendments and after as-

surances by the Congress leadership that each union shail

be free to decide its attitude to the CCF was a much

amended version of the resolution referred to, adopted by
a narrow margin.

The CCF leadership obscures the fact that the major unions
affiliated to the Canadian Congress of Labor repeatedly refused
to affiliate to the CCF. This is so in the case of the powerful
United: Auto Workers Union, the International Woodworkers
Union, the United Electrical Workers Union, the International
Mine, Mill & ,Smelter Workers Union and many others. The
CCF ignores the fact that the Congress of the American Feder-
ation of Labor unions refused to consider any endorsation of
the CCF. ,

Only twe local unions in B.C. affiliated te the CCF.

The statement of the CCF tries to discredit the efforts
of, the BCFederation of Labor by declaring that the pro-
poSals it advanced for unity were not adopted by a referen-
dum vote. The statement of the CCF makes capital of a
resolution adopted by Congress witheut a referendum vote.
The CCF statement obscured the fact that in every local
union in- B.C. where the issue of unity was so far discussed
the position of the B.C. Federation was endorsed by over-
whelming majorities of the membership.

It should also be remembered that at the BCFederation
Convention the resolution for unity was adopted by a majority
of 95 to 22 with many prominent CCF Trade Unionists voting
in favor of it.

The Labor-Progresive Party draws to the attention of all
people obvious distortions of fact contained im the CCF’s state-
ment. They declare “results of the recent Federal elections
prove beyond dispute that the LPP is unable to aittract the
support of enough voters, even if given a free field.”

This is utterly untrue.

In Montreal-Cartier the LPP standard bearer, Fred

Rose, MP, won for the second time a seat for labor.

The CCF failed to win a single seat in that province.

- Im the Ontaric ridings of Trinity and Spadina the
LPP candidates received four times the vote received by
the CCF candidates who by standing in the field helped
to-elect a Tory and a Liberal. In the Ontario provincial
elections the CCF lost evefy seat in the city of Toronto
whereas the LPP standard bearers, J. B. Salsberg, MLA,
and A. A. McLeod. MLA, were re-elected with larger votes
‘in spite of the presence of CCF spite candidates in the
contest. .

In the B.C. Federal riding of Comox-Alberni the present
leader of the Labor-Progressive Party, Nigel Morgan, would have
without doubt won the seat for labor which went to a boss
logger because of the CCF policy. In the Yukon Territory,
Tom McEwen, the provincial chairman of the LPP standing as
a eandidate of Labor, missed defeating the Tory, Black, by
150 votes. This was caused by a last minute spite nomination
of a CCF candidate. :

The CCF statement falsifies history when it claims thiat
that party always refused to participate in coalition govern-
ments. ;

The CCF should tell the electorate that the Manitoba
CCF entered a coalition under the leadership of John
Bracken, the present Federal Tory leader.

The appeal of the CCF that LPP voters wishing to defeat
the Tory Liberal ¢oalition should vote CCF, is utterly erroneous
and is based on the continued presumption by the CCF that
they have a monopoly on the Labor vote and can “go it alone.”

This policy resulted in disaster in the Alberta, Quebec

Continued on page 7—See PROGRESSIVE UNITY

SATURDAY, OCT. 6, 1945

hl aes pate