EDITORIAL PAGE

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert
McNamara bluntly said last week
that Canada’s Bomarc_installa-
tions at North Bay, Ontario and
La Macaza, Quebec are of little
use other than to “draw enemy
fire” as a target?

According to McNamara’s reck-
oning, the presence of these wea-
pons on Canadian territory would
“cause the Soviets to target mis-
siles against them . . . which
- would otherwise be available for
other targets”. Put simply, the
missiles which the Soviets would
allegedly use up shooting at target
Canada, would lessen the danger
for U.S.-based targets?

That is precisely what the Com-
munist and progressive people of
Canada have been and are saying,
ever since the Tory decision (with
Liberal approval) to install wea-
pons of nuclear delivery in Canada.
That such weapons provide no
“defense” for Canada, but on the
contrary make Canada a U.S. “ex-
_ pendable” target. ae

- Having “pulled the rug” out
from under Liberal leader Lester
B. Pearson’s salesmanship for U.S.
nuckear warheads for these wea-
pons, Pearson now resorts to
“blaming” the Diefenbaker gov-
ernment for having the Bomarcs
in the first place, meantime insist-
ing as per Washingtor’s_ orders,
to have them equipped with these
werheads? Pearson, probably echo-
ing McNamara on the $95-million
for installation, plus a $2-million
annual maintenance, hopes these
targets won’t be a “dead loss”.

There is only one way to avoid
a “dead” loss for Canada, now
and in the future, whether such

weapons are obsolete or not; crate
uP ee Bomarcs and sh

Associate Editor—MAURICE .RUSH
Business Mgr.—OXANA Se rgaeat <5

Published weekly at
Room 8 — ° 28 Maix Street

mm ioe countries: $5.00 one year.
Authorized as second class raail by
: Ottawa

the Post Post Office - Ott
ae postage ‘in éash

his shem back

back to where they came from, and
accept the “loss” as a national
gain for Canad&’s peace and sur-
vival.

And no less important, the’ need
to give McNamara’s Liberal ‘band’
a resounding defeat on April 8,
by electing Members of Parlia-
ment dedicated to NO NUCLEAR
ARMS in Canada and an end to
U.S. meddling in Canadian af-
fairs. —

That is vitally essential to the
speedy removal of McNamara’s
Canadian Bomarc “targets”.

Day of decision

anday, April 8 is Canada’s

“Moment of Decision”. How
the people vote in this vitally im-
portant election, could well deter-
mine the fate of, Canada for gen-
erations to come. A sovereign and
independent Canada, rejecting the
horror of nuclear weapons on her
soil and U.S. interference in her
internal affairs; or a Canada pres-
sured into acceptance of these
horror weapons by Washington,
and reduced to a subservient sat-
ellite of U.S. imperialism? :

A Canada standing out as a
leader and spokesman in a world
earnestly seeking peace and the
ways of peace, or a Canada led
by the forked tongue of a Liberal
“majority”, which sounds off for
“peace” and advocates nuclear
weapons in the same breath?

That is the prime issue and
choice facing Canadans on April
8th.

For Canada as a mighty tribune
for peace and progress, the first
choice should be the election of
a majority of M.P.’s_ rejecting
nuclear arms and U.S. interference

in their country’s affairs.

Second, the election of all NDP —
candidates whose party and
spokesmen have taken a_forth-
right stand against nuclear wea-
pons, now or ever, with the object-
ive of that party becoming the

official Opposition, or wielding the — 7

“balance of power” in the 26th
-*arliament of Canada.

A universal rejection of the pro-
American Liberal party of Lester ©
B. Pearson, the open and avowed
salesman for U.S. “Nuclear Club” -
extension, and under the guise
of “friendship” with the U.S. a
growing continuance of U.S. inter-
ference in Canadian affairs. And
an equal rejection of Social Credit
which echoes the Pearson “line”, ©
but plays upon the “no nuclear
arms” sentiment of Quebec in ord-
er to win votes. .

Let the predominating thought
be carried into every ballot box,
“No Nuclear Arms”,
restoration of nage indepen-
dence.

A victory on these two counts
will be a signal victory for Canada.

Socred ‘about face’

he March of 1961 in the closing nuclear weapons. It poses a question

hours of the Legislative session,
the government of Premier Ben-
nett approved a CCF-sponsored,
motion, urging the federal govern-
ment to “oppose” the testing, pro-
duction and “introduction of nuc-
lear weapons to any other coun-
tries, including. Canada”.

In the final hours of the 1963
session of the Legislature, the
same Socred government, with
the exception of three Socred
MLA’s voted down a similar NDP
motion, with the Liberals voting
with the government in favor of

‘the U.S.

for the people to ponder; to whom
are Social Credit-Liberal “‘com,
mitments” held to be most sacred,
the people of B.C. and Canada, or
thermonuclear trusts?
This ‘about-face’ of the B.C.
Socred Government in support of
nuclear arms exposes the specious
‘explanations’ of national leader

Robert Thompson and his Socred

followers.

We're ‘against’ them untill we
are ‘in’, but once in’, like the
Liberals ‘we'll do what Washing-
ton. orders’.

HAT grand old veteran of working-
cB class journalism ‘‘O]’’ Bill Bennett,
who left us many years ago, used to say
of his own weekly column that it
wouldn’t be worth reading were it not

for the inspiration, the hard-hitting
commentaries, and the ideas he got
from his wide circles of readers and
supporters.

That, we may say, goes for this
column too. Without such a reservoir

of inspiration it would soon be as flat .

as an old-line party pre-election
“promise.”

And speaking of elections, two letters
hit the desk this week with an explosive
bang. One from a firm of ‘Insurance
Brokers and Consultants’’. lamenting
“the welfare state,’’ and the sorry
plight of Canadians in such a state,
“hopelessly mortgaged to their second-
rate country.”’ ~

It was a doleful picture indeed, and
while it didn’t say so in So many words,
we gathered that these insurance sharks

were’ harboring the idea that all we.

needed to make Canada a first-rate
country was more ‘stable government.

Then we could keep OAP and all other —

pensions down, spend Jess on social

security handouts, keep medicare, farm
subsidies, educational costs and every-
thing else worthwhile, down, and our
chins up with “individual dignity and
enterprise?”’

The other letter from our old friend
Alf Bingham was on the subject of
“bait.”” Being an old trapper Alf is no
mean authority on “‘bait,’’ and included
in his letter a recipe for ‘a mixture
that has a smell like nothing on earth;"
a combination of. boiled skunk, fish,
goose and deer fat. With that, says Alf,
“you will get a fox for sure.”

Enclosed with Alf’s ‘‘bait’’ recipe was
a small and unappetizing looking bis-
cuit, neatly inserted in a “give-away”
Liberal envelope, and marked in bold
type “Food For Thougnt;” a gift of
the Liberal carpet-bagger Tom Kent to
the electorate of Burnaby-Coquitlam.

Alf mentioned that his own “‘bait”’
recipe could be kneaded into nice little
biscuits to tickle Brer Fox's appetite.
The Kent biscuit buasts the legend that
its promoter “is the onl: candidate
who can get things done at Ottawa.”

_ A look at the biscuit almost confirms
that assertion, but leaves the question
—what ‘“‘things?”’

We can take it from an old trapper
that the bait he used to catch foxes
smelled like “nothing on earth’’—but
that was before the Liberal
bait to catch votes became the mode
of hoodwinking Homo Sapiens?

Just as we were considering the ad-
visability of forwarding the Kent bis-
cuit to UBC for content analysis, an-

a plateful of Alf’s fox bait mixture as

* confuse the electorate; to seek to ob-
» Scure its accepted role as Washington’s —

biscuit- -

other of this colimn’s alumni dumped
another Liberal package on the desk;
this time a tea bag from Liberal Arthur
Laing, a candidate who wants to be
“kKnown’’ as the TV commercials say,
“by good tea alone?”

Since Mr. Laing says on his tea bag
envelope that there isn’t time ‘‘to have
a cup of tea with every constituent’,
all are graciously invited to have a
“tea-break,’’ utilizing the Liberal ““*pro-
gram” to butter ‘the Kent biscuit-bait?

After such a repast we ‘d almost risk

a chaser?

At the moment we won’t try to com-
pute how many thousands of dollars
the U.S. trusts in Canada put into this
“tea and biscuit” bait as part of their
gigantic financial investment to aid the
Liberal Party buy the electorate in this
election. That will get our close atten-
tion later. J

What is of prime concern to all Cana-
dians is the fact that an old and once
generally respected political party
should stoop to such contemptible
levels in its. attempt to hoodwink and

top nuclear salesman in Canada behind
a U.S.-subsidized tea bag and a crummy
Kent biscuit, both loaded with politica! —
Strontium 90. :

Compared with that Liberal diet, Alf’s -
recipe of good Canadian goose, deer, —
fish and skunk for fox bait, even if it
does get a bit “high,” rates with the
choicest fillet mignon by comparison, —

and the —