aos we have “sprung a leak’’. Scarcely a day passes now without news about some “‘leak”’ or otheremanating from Ottawa. For a long time we have held to the Lincolnisque idea that ‘‘government is by consent of the governed’’. Not any more. Government is now by “‘consent”’ of the most powerful monopolies, hence the compelling urge for ‘secrecy’ in Administrative affairs, and of course, hence the recent spate of ‘‘leaks’’, building up towards a veritable deluge; We recall the very-late U.S. president Woodrow Wilson, who used to talk charmingly and convincingly about ‘‘open covenants openly arrived at’, a cliche bandied about the old League of Nations (World War I era) quite a lot. But it didn’t slow up international imperialist conspiricies against the Soviet Union or other non-conforming states one iota. It merely increased their capacity to ‘‘leak’’, to ‘‘fly-a-kite’’, to ascertain how this or that conspiracy (or deal) against the people would be accepted? Today's multiple ‘leaks’ are symptomatic of the times. To all intents and purposes, Parliament has ceased to exist. Only the most inocuous legislation comes before it for debate, which perhaps explains (in part) why half or more of our MP’s are never in the House half the time. The real executive and administrative power is in the hands of the government, the “‘cabinet’’ with its hordes of lackies, understrappers, janisarries, etc. This body more and more governs by the issue of secret documents, diktats, ukases, call them what you like. Based upon an inherent instinct that the public should always know was is being cooked up, some ministerial pundit or lesser . satrap “leaks” the contents to a vulturous media — and the “fat (so to speak) is in the fire”’. Such ;‘leaks”’ serve a number of purposes; a temporary, very temporary source of *‘embarassment”’ to the party-in-- power: a rich source of grist to his or her Majesty's Loyal Opposition; to right wing Social democrats an opportunity to spout on how much “better” they would run the government in keeping with the status quo, but above all a highly specialized method of *. . . fooling most of the people most of the time”’. All accomplished by the simple formula of having or promoting a ‘leak’? In our time we have seen some dramatic crises emerge from such “leaking”. There was the Profumo British cabinet -affair, in which the Hon(?) minister got tangled up with a lady called Christine and other ladies of dubious virtue. From there of course this particular “‘leak”’ goteinto anti/Soviet circles and no end of a how-de-do erupted. Now however, all is well with M. Profumo. The Queen has just recently ‘accepted’ him back into London’s **social circles” and all is forgiven. Then we had our own top-level ‘leak’ when Tory cabinet minister. Gorgeous George Hees fell under the spell of glamorous Gerda Munsinger (not the only Tory minister to succumb to Gerda’s charms), and there was hell to pay in the Tory hencoop, much as though a weasel had got in among the chickens. On that oceasion, Dief (like King in an earlier episode when one of his Liberal senators got entangled in the famous Beauharnois Power scandals) found himself journeying ‘through the valley of humiliation” as the author of Pilgrim’s Progress, John Bunyan put it. (No relation of the immortal Paul Bunyan). Under the bumbling administration of Liberal Mike Pearson we also managed a few ‘‘leaks™’, but Mike, with a flair for the “‘diplomatic’’ invariably managed to get his finger in the hole before the “leak” became a shower. Coincident with executive “secrecy” in government, primarily to cover up its actions from the people, such “leaks” are literally inspired and encouraged, but that is not all. Such secrecy’: also breeds within itself the sinister potential of a police state — to silence the people whom it seeks to hoodwink — and intimidate. This neo-fascist process is already well advanced in the U.S.. and it would appear Canada is following suite in this alarming development also? That fact requires to be driven home to Tory, Liberal and Socred alike. perhaps in B.C. with greater emphasis on the latter, since Socredia thrives best on double-talk, “leaks” and one-man gobbledegook. 7th ANNUAL CANADA-CUBA WINTER CARNIVAL Departs Vancouver Dec. 26/71 Only $659.00 Contact: GLOBE TOURS 2679 E.. Hastings St., 253-1221 Vancouver 6, B.C. 254-2313 PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1971—PAGE 2 One sure road to victory— of all Labor forces | the unity By ALD. HARRY RANKIN The convention of the 155,000 member B.C. Federation of Labor held in Vancouver in mid- November made a number of decisions that should have a healthy influence on municipal politics in this province. The convention adopted a municipal program including the following much needed reforms: . A ward system for large metropolitan areas. . Endorsation of the major recommendations ‘of the “Plunket Report’’, which advocated that the provincial government take over the entire cost of welfare and pay a larger share of education costs. . An immediate start ona rapid transit system for the Lower Mainland. . Adoption of a natural resources policy which will prevent the export of jobs by developing secondary industries in B.C. . Expansion of the Vancouver Police Commission to ensure that it represents a much broader cross section of the community. . Increased taxes on natural resources to provide a substantial share of education costs. In addition to adopting a municipal program, the convention also stressed the need for ‘‘working people to run for municipal office’. And in increasing numbers (but in still all too. few instances), labor is doing just that. Trade union candidates are involved in many of the municipal election campaigns being carried on at this time. (Vancouver is the only municipality that doesn’t have an election this year.) But of course labor is not yet exerting its full strength. If it were, we would have labor majorities on scores of municipal councils and school boards. The B.C. Federation of Labor convention left unanswered, however, the key question of how labor can most effectively participate in municipal politics. Should labor candidates run as labor candidates or under some other banner? Should labor try to ‘‘go it alone”’ or align itself with other groups? Should labor limit itself to supporting NDP candidates? Or should labor join in with other progressive groups to form broad electoral coalitions? At the present time the forces of big business, the forces of the right, are usually united when it comes to municipal affairs under some form of so-called non- partisan groups (like the NPA in Vancouver). But the progressive forces are not. In my opinion the greatest contribution that labor could make in-civic affairs would be to act as a unifying force to bring together in each municipality all the forces representing healthy democratic reform, and to help bring about one united slate of candidates on which labor would be well represented. i That’s the only way we'll ever Regional transit report falls short of public need “The report of the Greater Vancouver Regional District on public transit announced November 17 fails to come up with the answers needed to ~ tackle the pressing problem of a planned public transportation system,’ said William Turner, Vancouver secretary of the Communist Party last week. Turner said the report prepared by the transportation committee, of the Regional District, “shelves the urgency for a rapid transit system servicing. the downtown Vancouver area, labelling it as being ‘premature.’ It chooses to ignore the priority for rapid transit in any master plan for public transportation.” He said: ‘The report leans heavily on its general plans for improving bus services in Vancouver and the muni- cipalities, but postpones any action on a commuter type of light rapid transit system for ‘five years. It lacks any proposals on the question of the Burrard Inlet third crossing and the effects of freeways on future plans involving rapid transit. ' While the report does propose a Regional Transit Authority its recommendations on makeup of such a public body are undemocratic. It proposes the Authority should comprise four members from the GVRD. two provincial government officials. and four civic servants. , ‘‘What is needed is not a rubber-stamp Authority subject to political considerations but a democratically-elected body that would be representative of the member-municipalities that form the GVRD. ‘The report in dealing with the methods to finance public transit, plans to seek Regional approval to levy a one mill property tax rate for operating costs which is estimated to raise $3 million annually. “There is no doubt the weakness of the report stems from its failure to come to grips with the need for a master plan for public transportation, which can only be undertaken by a greater share of the capital costs being borne by the provincial and federal governments. The decision of the GVRD to shelve any plan for a rapid transit subway system in downtown Vancouver for 15 to 20 years indicates its failure to press for action by the senior governments to finance the cortstruction of this $300 million project. “Government aid would place the question of public transit as a key priority in plans for urban development. ‘What can be said for this report on public transit is that it skirts around the issue without committing the GVRD to spelling out the priorities of any master-plan now.’ concluded Turner. be able to beat the real estate developers, the freemae promoters, the busine - interests who are lining pa own pockets at the expense © homeowners and tenants © a who stand in the way of any one planning that will benefit people. Think how effective We ot be in Vancouver if lab succeeded in bringing tose COPE, the NDP, the wd unions, ratepayer ¢ community groups, environmental groups, transit supporters, etc. 4 reached agreement program and one slate candidates! Isn’t that what we § thinking of as we approach }* It would inspire all prog forces and send a ch} apprehension down the spin the real estate people. if Can we do it? We Gam enough people wantit. i ‘Ban’ too lale for Vietnam A story in the Los Angee Times of November 21 say® ing Nixon administration is shipP! more than one million 84 the toxic herbicide Agent from Vietnam back to the U ‘ory us In what appears to be a VIC whorl for progressive scientists 4 ot have exposed and protest’ use of such chemicals | Vietnam, the item SaY® J 45 Nixon Administration? i decided to ban thems Vietnam of any che considered too poisonous in the United States.” offs Agent Orange is made oh T.. half 2,4,5-T and half 2." Scientists say it is an ie Its hazard to human healt med contains another «worris? ‘ chemical, dioxin, which was present in the herbicide We, was introduced, accordin t Times story. - Critics say the ban came at : too late for Vietnam. Te 1969, the American milll® sprayed 5.5 million acres ov, Agent Orange and a ae White th orange vt to use toc herbicide called Whi and another herbicide Blue are still being Us® Vietnam. pr Last week in Vancouve Bert Pfeiffer of the U.5- the criminal results ° herbicides in Vietnam ané © nif for Canadian citizens to J the protests against thelr US ae What I'd really like ' see is a few choice cul® in. prices!