CANADA’S RADICALS

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 May 1936, Page 3

CANADA’S RADICALS

"INFLUENCE ON POLITICS Furthest away froip the Speaker, in the south-east ' corijer of the House, sits a group of members whose opinions are listened to with indifference, amusement, or contempt, and whose voting strength is negligible in altering the course of legislation, writes Lloyd Roberts, from Ottawa to the “Christian Science Monitor.” The unprecedentedly large “right” and the much smaller but none the less solid “left” (the official Opposition) tolerate this oddity, hoping that it will eventually be absorbed and the old two-party system be again in evidence. Minority groups have come to stay, or at lesat to stay until their excuse for being no longer exists. It is a fortunate tiling for Parliament. They represent the voice of social and industrial protest against every existing problem, the voice of the underprivileged, the voice of radicals

and idealists whose “advanced” ideas even when rilore fanciful than advanced have the ability to stir thought. ' | It is difficult to estimate the amount | of progressive legislation in the last ■ tw.enty-five years that has had its I conception or at least its inspiration I in the south-east corner, but it has | certainly been large. The corner may! never reap the credit, its component' pprts may be reshuffled and cast out at every General Election, but it continues to supply the vision without 1 which a people perish. ! From the time of Confederation (1867) up to 1921 the Federal Parliament held only Conservatives and./ Liberals. Then there arose out*ofj post-war conditions a third party of. sixty-four membpKk. known as Progres- 1 gives to challenge the. somewhat smug complacency of the old order. Their | leader, Thomas Crerar (now Minister ’of Mutes and lipmigration), was a very i mild reformer indeed and eventually resigned his leadership for a more lucrative field. In the 1925 elections this third party had shrunk, to twentyfour, but as they held the balance of power over the nearly equally divided old parties their power was immense, and after a few months they fopreed the Conservatives to resign. Wlieh 'the smoke of another election had cl.eared it was seen that half the Progressives had ’ been w.eaned oyer into’ the Liberal' fold' as Liberal-Pro-gresslv.es. and the orthodox were jubilant

Unfortunately for the latter, however, a new element had sprung up in Alberta, calling themselves United Farmers, whose numbers were small (eleven) but whose ardour for reform was great. When they joined forces with the' thirteen'. Progressives and the three Labour members they had to be reckoned with. Economics and labour problems were their chief hobby and day and night they dinned their strange new doctrines' into the unwilling ears of their opponents on both sides of the House. THE HARVEST In 1930 the Progressives were reduced to two, but United Farmers and, Labour held their ground. But now| the depression was on the world and j 'policies preached for the past twenty years began to stir the country and ■ rally followers as never before. For a time Premier Bennett ignored

the increasing clathour, or sought to discredit it as vicious and revolutionary, then suddenly turned reformer him.self and incorporated many of its socialistic features in his “New Deal" prograinpie. Despite its suffering, however, the country as a whole was not. receptive to such advanced ideas, as last October’s election strikingly proved. In the present Parliament the southeast corner is numerically back to its 1926 standing. The United Farmers have disappeared, their place being taken by Social Credit members. Socialists and Labour haye combined as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation under J. S. Woodsworth and form a group of eight. H. H. Stevens, representing the Reconstruction Party, and Miss .Macphail, Ontario Farmer Labour, bring the corner up to twenty-six. Although as previously there is little co-ordination between its several groups in their political philosophy, they remain as one in their impulsive, challenging of orthodoxy, whether social, business, or eco-

nomic. They insist upon the Government listening to harrowing accounts of the results of mismanagement and itsexperimenting with new methods of preventing them. They would try anything once, it seems, no matter how fantastic, rather than try nothing. Perhaps because .they are not burdened with responsibility of government their confidence and courage are superb, they thrive on rebuffs, they are convinced that they alone can lead the people out of bondage and into the promised land. However much they may be ridiculed, they cannot be ignored? and less now under present conditions than ever. Even now as always thpir pieaching is based on (ruth, the truth that poverty can and must be abolished and that it is only ignorance apd selIfishness that retain it. Therefore people listen in spite of themselv.es and the south-east corner plays a vital part in the moulding of Canada s destiny.