GEORGE DREW ’

It will be remembered he put
forward a 22-point program

which among other things includ-.

ed the promise that “every On-
tario child would be given the
opportunity to face life with a
healthy body and mind.”

What about the performance?

On August 9, 1944, Drew took
to the airwaves and said:

“J assure you that the govern-
ment of Ontario intends to do
everything in its power to make
sure that this iniquitous (Family
Allowance) Bill does not go in-
to effect.”

Thus Drew sought to deprive
Ontario’s children of between
$75. and a $100 million annually
in Family Allowances.

(in passing it may be said that
that speech not only eventually
cost Drew the premiership of
Ontario, it also gave rise to the
rumor that he had been born with
a silver foot in his mouth).

He thinks so little of Canadian
schools that he sent his own chil-
dren to Switzerland for their edu-
cation.

Drew also promised a' great
housing program and flooded
Canada and Europe with a
pamphlet which held out this
glittering prospect for “the aver-
age Ontario workman”:

“A five room bungalow of brick
or frame construction standing
on its own grounds, with a lawn
in front and a garden in the
rear. There will be central heat-
ing and a three piece bathroom.
A telephone and an electrical re-
frigerator can be put in at small
added cost. A garage in the
rear will house his car and there
will be municipal transportation
within easy reach. The cost will
be approximately $3,000 pay-
able at 10 percent down and the
balance over a period of twenty
years. This will amount to.a
total of about $25 a month.”

Such was the promise — what
about the performance?

During the five years - that
Drew held the premiership of
Ontario, not a single house was
built by the Ontario government.

A LABOR-PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE ASKS:

JOHN BRACKEN

"Nor has a single house been built
by the Tory government in the

ten years since it took office.
Only recently a conference spon-
sored by the Canadian Legion
(Ontario Section) noted that at
least one-third of all families
cannot afford to purchase homes
in 1953. _

Drew also promised that medi-
cal, dental and other health pro-
tection would be “available to
all.’ What about the perform-
ance!

He scuttled the 1945 Dominion-
Provincial Conference and gave
the Liberals the convenient ex-

. workers.”

cuse they were looking for to
shelve the health plan which had
been completed for postwar
adoption. Had it been proceed-
ed with in 1945 the people of
Ontario would today be receiv-
ing a minimum of $50 million an-
nually in federal health grants.
Drew also promised tax reduc-
tion — but his government and
its successor have been over-tax-
ing the people of Ontario to the
tune’ of $25 million annually

. since 1943. .,

Col. Drew promised to develop
and process Ontario’s vast forest
resources “to create employment
for hundreds of thousands of new
Instead he permitted
a giant U.S.-controlled pulp and
paper monopoly to tighten its
grip on 90 percent of Ontario ac-
cessible timber so that for every
job provided for an Ontario work-
man three to five jobs are pro-

. vided in U.S. mills across the bor-

der processing our pulpwood and
wood pulp.

Drew promised ‘the finest labor
legislation in the world” but re-

fused even to appoint a select’

committee of the legislature to
implement the pledge. He re-
mains today as he was in 1937,
the implacable enemy of labor.

It was Drew who in those days
made CIO spell “Communism in
Ontario,” and there need be no
doubt as to the scope and pur-
pose of the anti-Communist law
promised in his new program.

Finally, Drew promised ‘an im-
mediate increase in old-age pen-
sions in keeping with the increas-
ed cost of living.”

Instead, he resisted every ef-
fort to increase the pension for
our senior citizens. By wrecking
the 1945 Dominion - Provincial
Conference he delayed for sev-
eral years the benefits that would
have come to the aged people of
Ontario. Even today the pen-
sion is $10 less monthly in Tory-
governed Ontario that in at least
two other Canadian provinces. ©
@

* Such is the black record of
Canada’s “Mister Evil.”

And now once again, Colonel
Drew — the disaster looking for

a place to happen — comes be
fore the people of Canada with”
a new set of promises — this
time 16 instead of 22. And once
again in order to divert public at-
tention from his own sordid re
cord of betrayal the Colonel re

- vives the “Communist bogey.”

His hatred of the Labor-Pro-
gressive party is, of course, Ui
derstandable. For to it belongs
the main credit for exposing his
evil machinations and eventually
driving him into exile. He cat
hardly be expected to forgive oF
forget.

But if Drew seriously believes
he can ride back to office by Te
viving the “red bogey” he would
do well to harken to these words
addressed by an English com

_mentator to the red-baiters ©

his country:,

“For over 30 years this trick
has been successfully worked
upon us. First you paint a dread

ful picture of the ‘Reds.’ The? -

you have only to-shout ‘The
Reds!’ to put an end to any
policy that might make your
gang uncomfortable. With the
result that the biggest politi
crooks in the-world have bee®
busy protecting us all agaims
‘the Reds’ for years now.

“Nearly every worthwhile
move has been blocked by this
‘Red’ signal. But you cannot
fool all the people all the time
Except among stupids, the trick
‘is played out. Most people noW
would like to see decent atl
successful action taken for its
own sake and never mind the
colored labels. The people ar@
rapidly becoming realistic ™
their outlook. This is well,
cause the gang that everywher?
wishes to fool the people has 4”
ways been realistic. They man
facture legends, but they do not
believe them.” ; .

Drew will find that he cat
no longer fool the people of Cal
ada.
him — indeed, far too much °
him, and on* August 10 they will
be ready to consign this uncol

scionable warmonger and: arch-.

saboteur of national progress
political oblivion.

Whose vote am

By GEORGE
MacEACHERN
T sometimes looks as if I am

“Mr. In-Between” in this elec-
tion. :

On the one hand CCF spokes-.

men will tell you that I will only
help the old-line parties by run-
ning.

On the other hand, the old-line
politicians so thoroughly dislike
the idea of my candidature that
they try to pretend that I don’t
exist.

But I am confident that I repre-
sent a large and growing body of
opinion, and one that must be re-
presented on the. ballot at this
time when the issues are so great.

Of course, some very sincere
progressives will say that I am
splitting the left-wing vote, and
it is this argument which I will
deal with here.

@

The main differences between
the parties now represented in
parliament is one of labels, party
names, “Liberals,” “Progressive
Conservatives,” “Social Credit-
ors” and “CCFers.” |

On issues, the difference, if
any, is in phraseology. For in-
stance, when Finance. Minister
Douglas Abbott, speaking for the
Liberals says: “Instead of using
labor in Canada to convert the
raw material into things our peo-
ple consume, we shall sell the
raw materials!” M. J. .Coldwell,
for the CCF, calls it “making
Canadian: industry complemen-

tary to that of the United States,”
and approves.

And the net results are the
same. Canadians stand to pay
with their future for this Liberal-
CCF agreement.

The Royal Bank of Canada
warns in its Monthly Letter for
June: Canada’s raw materials re-
sources are being depleted to a
“disastrous degree’ and that little
is being done “to avoid the disas-
trous consequences of mineral
depletion.”

My party, the Labor-Progres-
sive party, alone opposes the
stripping of our natural re-
sources by the. wasters of the
USA. No other party takés such
a position. What vote am I split-
ting here?

After three years, the Korean
war is coming to a close. The
Yankees have managed to hold,
in South Korea, “the cheapest
labor power in the world,” which
they boasted about shortly before
the outbreak, but they have not
been able to extend their slave
holdings to the*north:

Almost everyone in Canada,
including veterans of that war,
now recognize it as a senseless,
cruel and wasteful adventure;
yet the CCF through its leader,
Coldwell, was among the very
first to approve of Canadian boys
being sent to Korea. }

Of all the parties in Canada,
the Labor-Progressive partv was
the only one to consistently op-
pose Canada’s participation in
the Korean bloodbath. What
vote is being split here?

When Bill H-8 Gater to become

_ the infamous Bill 93) was first

proposed “on the urgent insist-
ence of the U.S.,” my party, the
LPP, was first to warn the Can-
adian people of this new threat
to their rights. But what of the
other parties?

A few (very few) individual
members of the “opposition” par-
ties, following the'lead of Liberal
Senator Arthur Roebuck, spoke

-against the Bill, but I’ll leave it

to Angus MacInnis, CCF MP for
the old Vancouver East riding
and now a candidate in Van-
couver Kingsway, to tell how the
parties in parliament acted in
committee. °

On April 27, 1953, (mind you,
this was after tens of thousands
of Canadians had protested
against the bill), MacInnis an-
nounced in the House of Com-
mons: “I must say that I was
never on a committee where poli-
tical lines were less drawn than
on this committee.
that is as it should be.”

In York South J. W. Nose-
worthy, CCF MP, said in a local
paper that the only reason Bill
93 was not passed was because
there was no time for discus-
sion. The “deluge of letters and
telegrams that have descended
on us .....has had no effect
whatever.” So public opinion
means nothing to the united par-
liamentarians.

Therefore on this issue I can
hardly be accused of “splitting
the vote.”

I believe .

splitting ?

Some months ago, Premier
Georgi Malenkov of the USSR
made proposals for world peace
and trade.

Here was an opportunity to
lift the burden of the arms race
from the bacfs of the Canadian
people and to find an outlet for
Canadian manufacture, thereby

_ providing work and wages for

our unemployed.

_My party immediately recog-
nized the potential benefits it of-
fered to our country and hasten-
ed to call for acceptance of the
offer as a basis for discussion.

The uniteq parliamentarians,
Liberals, Tory, Social Credit and
CCF spurned the offer. Claire
Gillis, CCF member for Cape
Breton South, representing what
bids fair, to become a depressed
area, contemptuously referred to
the Malenkov offer as a “Com-
munist tactic.”

What vote do I split in this
case?

e

My party has a policy for coal.
It is a policy to meet the immed-
iate needs of the miners to in-
sure the future of the occupation.

The Labor-Progressive party
demands:

@ No coal be imported from
the U.S. as long as Canadian min-
ers are idle.

@ Adequate subventions by
the federal government to en-
able Canadian coal to be sold on
the central Canadiah market.

@ Reorganization of the Coal
Board so as to include represen-

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — JULY 24, 1953 — PAGE fe :

tatives from Districts 18 and 26

They have had enough of |

of the UMWA to see that the

terests of the miners and
public are protected.

@ Increases in unemployment

insurance payments by 50 ee
cent and then continuation un!

jobs are again available.

@ The establishment of 1

dustries to extract the mam.
valuable by-products of ‘coal.

This policy stands out in shart
contrast to the shadow boxin&

the partners - in - parliament, the es

vague appeals for a “royal ©?
mission,” or “a national
policy.”

Here again we, of all the poll
tical parties in Canada, Ss”
alone. Can I be accused of SP
ting a vote on this issue?

And, after all, it is issues, {
labels, which count. We
for the progressive vote
crete issues and on evidence ©,
we alone have been carryins on
the fight for: Canadian IndePie
dence, Peace and Trade wit
world, with all the social

fits which the success of pete
i

program can bring to Canad

We ask you to vote Labor y

gressive on August 10 1t0 any
Canada First. We challen8© | ir
other party to show, bY “ote
record, that they deserve #
on such a basis. <4
@ George MacEachern is Leo

Progressive candidate for
Breton South.

jit