t

~~ ling in the country,

. On February 21,

DORISE NIELSEN

DVICE is cheap. I wish food
were too.

the Toronto

Star carried some pictures and

an article in which the Heatlh

League of Canada and doctors of-
fered some sound advice to peo-
ple who wished to avoid the flu.
“Mat a, good -breakfast,’ we
were advised, “and then you won't
be so. susceptible to bugs or flu
Wonderful! :

germs.”

“Who
like to,be sur
that their fam-|
ily was protect-|

wouldn't}

ed from these!
recurring win-
ter colds and
days off from
work and school
because of flu?

Well, here’s the Health League's
breakfast: ;

Juice of an orange, whole wheat

cereal with two tablespoonfuls of |

cream, one of sugar. To follow
this, some bacon and egg, whole-

~ wheat bread with two tablespoons

of butter, and a glass of milk.
Another doctor suggested that
the juice of two or three oranges
should precede the meal, and then
a couple of eggs, after the cereal,
eC. ‘
Sounds wonderful, doesn’t. it?
Only one piece of advice they
didn’t give: how the great major-
ity of families would find the

money to provide such a break- :

fast. That’s the catch, and what
a catch it is. ‘ :
Here we are living in one of:
the richest agricultural lands, in
the world. There isn't a province
in Canada that can’t provide an
over-abundance of milk, cream,
eggs and bacon, while the rolling
prairies produce the finest wheat
in the world. :
“Let’s be quite clear about this.

“It is not because our farmers are

rolling in wealth, ‘and charging
exorbitant prices for their eggs,
butter and bacon, that we can't
afford to buy these necessities for
good health, and give them to our
families. :

‘Between the working people of

our country and the farming pop-—

ulation there stand those who sys-
tematically and with the protec-
tion of the law, rob both workers

' and farmers, aa
Five milling companies alone
control nearly all the wheat mil-
They, to-
gether with the. few great baker-
ies, are responsible for the soggy
stuff called bread which the great
* majority of households must use.
The flour is milled so that the
most nutritious parts of the wheat
are removed ‘in the process simp-

ly to ensure the flour keepS, al- «

most indefinitely. The bread is
then made up with certain added
acids which keep it soggy. Many

| people mistake this sogginess for |

freshness in bread, but the harm-
ful acids are added to make it
possible for stores to sell bread
two and three days old to custom-

ers who believe that if it is soft
‘it must be freshly baked. Of
course, you can get more nutri- |

tious rye bread, but if you do,
you pay even more than the price
of the soggy white bread. = y

As for cream or milk, it’s the
Same story. ®Between the farmers.
and the rest of us stand the few
great milk distributors who com-
plain that the small extra wage
they pay their men necessitates a
doubling of the price of milk in
the last few years. The thing they
don’t tell us is that the’ extra
wages are but a ‘drop in their
bueket of profits, and that the

_ Yeason they increase the price of —

milk and steal it from the chil-

,

_ Advice is cheap-- _
food could be too

dren.of our nation is so that their
already tremendous profits shall
goon increasing.

With bacon and eggs, it’s Can-
ada Packers, Swifts and one or
two like them who to keep their
huge profits ever growing: contin-
ually jack up prices till they are
beyond the average purse.

Why should we not cal', these
great companies the thieves?
And isn’t it time we pufé a stop to
their thieving?

‘The women, who spend almost
85 cents out of every’ consumer-
spent dollar, can certainly do
something about thts terrible
racket. These tremendous war-

“inflated profits can be taxed. We

must demand that parliament
make Jaws to tax the profits of
these thieving companies. If the
government can declare a “na-

tional emergency” -to give it al-

most dictatorial powers over the
country, then it can order a 100
percent excess profits tax.

Tax the profits first: Then with
that money the government could
pay subsidies where necessary to
pring down the prices of the very
commodities the health authori-
ties tell us are essential to health.

Such tax money could also be

used to raise family allowances
and pensions.

Both workers and farmers
would benefit by taxing profits
and paying subsidies. Only one
group would “suffer.” - 3
“The profiteers might have to
get along with only three cars
and two country estates: But yo
may be sure they'll still be able
to follow the doctor’s orders and
eat plenty of orange juice, bacon
and eggs, cereal and cream for
breakfast.

this Big Lie, w

United States
Britain ~
France
Yugoslavia

Here's what they are spending on arms

69 cents
30 cents
29 cents
18 cents

Poland
Bulgaria

Soviet Union
(Czechoslovakia

19 cents
9 cents
8 cents
7 cents

LESLIE MORRIS

Who is spending what for war _
and who is spending for peace? | “)

ie DOLLARS “vere victories Gen-
eral MacArthur would be in Pe-
king, Chiang Kai-shek would be
dictator of China, Hisenhower
would be in Moscow and Hitler’s
successor would be boss in Ber-
lin. - *

That’s the story behind the
Western war budgets, because,
dollar for dollar, the U.S., Britain,
Canada, France, Yugoslavia are
spending more: than the socialist
countries on arms.

Do you doubt
it? Perhaps yo
read the opposite
in the daily pa
pers.- ‘They lie,
and because 0

are. expected to.
die to save our
countries from mn

wars of aggression launched by

“Russia. We are told, night and

day, that the masses of the so-*
cialist countries are kept in ig-
norance, are ground down, . are

armed to the teeth, while we are
arming only in ‘self-defense. They
lie. :

What are the North Atlantic
Pact states and their Yugoslav
lackey, Tito, spending for war?
The U.S. budget allots 69 percent
of the money to be spent in 1951-
52, for armaments, with another
10 percent to increase the war po-
tential—almost 80 cents out of
every dollar.

Last year the Soviet Union
spent 19 cents out of every dollar
on defense. :

Bankrupt Britain, which can’t
feed its own people and keeps mil-
lions under arms and out of fac-
tories, spends 30 cents out of
every tax dollar for war. :

France, at the orders of the U.S.
government, is spending only
slightly less than Britain. Yugo-
-slavia, with Yankee help, despite
the crisis and actual starvation
within its satellite economy, is
spending 18 cents of every dollar
for war against the Soviet Union,
as the fascist Tito declares.

J. B. SALSBERG

.

“

-

HIS IS the season for presentation of “labor’s
legislative programs” to the House of Com-
mons and to provincial legiglatures. Across the

country delegations, in the main restricted to top

leaders and to leave behind written briefs.

This 48 often referred to cynically as “the
annual pilgrimage.” It is also spoken of as the
period when “labor goes cap in hand, begging
for better labor laws.” eens

The cynicism is not unwar-
ranted: Throughout the years
the masses have learned that
this annual, cap in hand pil-
grimage to cabinet ministers of
big business brings mighty little.

The scanty labor and social
legislation on the statute books (aay :
is not the product of such pil- ===

grimages but the accomplishment of powerful,
mass pressure and mass action, which developed
from time to time on one or another. issue.

Sometimes it would be a wave of strikes made

disputes for the shorter work week; or ‘sweeping
minded groups for workmen’s compensation, min-
imum wages; ee

It is usually such circumstances which compel
pig business governments to enact the limited
labor and social legislation which we now have.
Tt was never accomplished by the annual pilgrim-
ages alone. Any conceited labor bureaucrat who
thinks that he and the handful like him who

head as the latter was crossing the bridge and

poastfully said to another fly: “We are certainly

shaking the bridge, aren't we!” |
qt need not, of course, be that way. There is

“What about new labor laws
to benefit trade unions?

icials, troop alon to interview government  _
siete 5 r “> and the countless numbers of its supporters for

effective mass action on a given day ‘in every

-Royal Commission recommended.

_ to violate every fundamental trade union right,

necessary by the refusal of big business to.

pens collectively; or wide-spread industrial well as the railroad’ unions, stood before the

public campaigns by labor and other socially-
(their own members and the people at large. They

have already called on the provincial governments.
visited cabinets, cap in hand, have brought into *
being even the inadequate labor legislation of ©
today is like the fly who settled on the elephant’s |

no reason why the annual presentations of labor’s ue ;

legislative demands should not be turned into
powerful, impressive and effective mass expres-
sions of labor and people’s opinions for long over-
due labor and social legislation. If that were
done, if labor were to so organize its ewn ranks

community of a province, or across the country,
_then the results would be far greater than they
are, ,

If, instead of a dozen or two union officials,
hundreds of thousands were to give voice to
labor’s legislative demand across the province,
then even the Ontario Conservative government
would not dare to reject amendments to the
Workmen’s (Compensation Act which its own
) s It would not
dare withhold further the $10 supplementary
allowance to old-age pensioners. It would not
dare postpone the amending of its labor code.

Even the neo-fascist Duplessis government would |

‘not dare to adopt phony provincial rent controls;
“it, would not dare to proceed recklessly as it does

For the first time, organized labor in this
country appeared before the Ottawa government
unitedly. All the three trade union centers, as,

cabinet at the same time in support of the same
minimum program. But how terribly divorced
that united deputation was from the masses of

came, they left a brief, and went away empty
handed. No call to the organized workers and
to the people at large to rally mass public support
for their program was issued by the labor brass
either before of after their “presentation.” The
same holds true for the groups of officials who

It is not too late, however, for the rank-and-
‘file of the unions to take action to compel the
provincial and federal governments to enact at
least some of the legislative proposals made to
them in the name of labor. Left-wing’ leadership.
particularly, should utilize the coming weeks to
stimulate much local union action in their
localities. : We ;

policy.

\€zechoslovakia, one of the
Yank-accused “aggressors,.” is so
“ardent” for war that she is
spending only 9 cents of every dol- -
lar on defense; Poland and Bul-
garia less than that.

You can’t have guns and butter,
unless you are an armaments

‘king. Other facts prove it. The

Soviet Union spends on education
alone 29 cents out of every dollar.
‘And how much does Truman
spend on housing, health, social
security and welfare combined? ©
A little over 3 cents!

Bulgaria, which spends 7 cents ee

out of every dollar on defense, —
spends 30 cents on education and
health, while’ Czechoslovakia
spends. even more—39 cents.

Canada is now speeding into
high gear, with an “emergency”
declared to compel the squeezing
of $5 billion out of the taxpayers
in the next three years — for
what? For war against China
and the Soviet Union. Out of
every dollar, Canada will spend
between 40 and 50 cents on arms
— higher than Britain, slightly
lower than the U.S. :

A few more figures, 7
you. angry. The U.S. has given
Japan, a former enemy, $2 billion
in gifts since the end of the war.
India, an ally who put 1,000,000
men into the field, has, had to
plead for 18 months to get a loan
of $26,000,000.

And to show how arms spend-

ing, preparation for war, affect a é
- country’s economic growth, the

Socialist Soviet Union, which had
to rebuild. thousands of factories
after the war, registers an indus- .

trial growth of 260 compared with _
1937 equalling 100, while Canada

and the U.S. have reached only
180. These are UN figures, broth-
er. But they don’t determine UN
e 2 *

‘Hiere’s a handy set of figures to
show your friends. They are all
taken from official reports.

‘How much, of the budget do
they spend on arms out of each
tax dollar? oo

US. BLOC
Ysa. + — 1951-52 68
France » ! 1951's 28
Yugoslavia 1951 * 18
SOCIALIST COUNTRIES
USSR 1950-51 19
Czechoslovakia 1950-51 9.
Poland 1950-51 Be
Bulgaria 1950-51 = 7e
HOW MUCH ON PEOPLE'S
an | WELFARE?
_ Czechoslovalia gee eee
(education, health, etc.) .. 39¢

Bulgaria
» (education, health, etc.) .. 30¢
USSR (education only) 290

Poland (health only) ...... 2c
Britain : (education F
-and health) ............ ie

. Yes, if dollars were victories, it —
would be almost hopeless for the
people. But they are not! It is

people, not dollars, which will de-

: cide the day. a =

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — MARCH 9, 1951 — PAGE 9

to ‘make ! “Ss