t is getting to the point now where it is fruitless, frus-

i trating and almost useless for the people to appeal
to the Scored Bennett government on any issue whatsoever.
Big Business monopoly receives an attentive ear, but to the
people and their multiple organizations the excerise is one of
~ frustration, but nothing else.

There is an old adage which reads that ‘‘when thieves fall
out. honest men have a chance,”’ which probably gave rise to
that other, as a safety precaution, that the same thieves prefer
to ‘chang together’ to avoid the risk of ‘‘hanging separately.”
There’s the potential of an ‘‘Achilles Heel”’ in either choice.

Over the years this ‘‘hanging together’’ would seem to be a
guiding principle, highly approved and diligently followed by
the Bennett Socred government of B.C—some 18-years of it.

It first found expression in the Sommers case in which a
Cabinet member was caught red-handed accepting bribes, gifts
and other forms of bribery from sundry lumber tycoons, in
return for forest licenses which would permit them a con-
tinuance of the rape of B.C. forest resources.

Premier Bennett and his ‘‘Man Friday,’ ex-attorney general
Robert Bonner, (now a vice-chairman of the MacMillan-
Bloedel timber octopus) both expressed the utmost ‘‘confi-
dence” in their petty grafting minister, with Bonner in his
capacity of attorney-gereral shielding this small-time grafter
from court action for nearly two years. The famed Bill Sykes of
Old Blighty never had it so good.

Then the case celebre of another minister of the Bennett
cabinet, ‘‘Flying *’ Phil Gaglardi. Endowed with the dual
characteristics of an old-time buccaneer and a bible-thumping
Elmer Gantry, the offspring of this Socred minister are
alleged to have done inordinately well with real estate deals
along some of Papa’s new blacktop highways; properties most
likely to sell for a goodly chunk of boodle.

Then there was the era of the famed Gaglardi jet plane,
(government owned and maintained, perhaps one should say
publicly owned and maintained) in which members of the
Gaglardi family were wont to ride, again at the public expense.

When the bubble exploded Phil lost his highways job and his
jet, but not the ‘‘confidence”’ of the ‘“‘Prime Minister”’ nor his
payroll in the Socred cabinet. Bennett literally sobbed as he
lauded this ‘‘man of God’’ and bewailed the ingrates who -
sought to justly rid B.C. of his presence in government:.. ‘o!nu

Now his back im the Socred ‘thieves kitchen, minister:of
“bums” ‘‘deadbeats’”” and kindred other ‘less-fortunate
humans.

The latest scandal to erupt is Minister of Health of some such
function, Monsewer Loffmark, charged with lying to the
Legislature on matters of his “‘hospital’’ stewardship, his
resignation demanded by Members of the Legislative
Assembly, supported by most hospital administration in
British Columbia who resent his dictatorial blurbs just as they
recognize his total incapacity for the post, he holds—and, lying
aside, determined to hang onto it. f

Moreover, and despite this cardinal principle of
parliamentary democracy that a Minister of the Crown may.
not lie or prevaricate in reporting on his stewardship, ‘‘Prime
Minister’? Bennett announces-he will not ask Loffmark for his
“resignation”? and again peddles-his ‘‘full confidence’ in
Loffmark. That ‘‘hanging together’’ would seem to be a
cardinal principle. in Socred circles, with all avenues barred
against honesty and integrity.

Then, of course, there is WAC’s own problem: the public
knowledge that his own sons, following the Gaglardi pattern,
have been doing very well in recent times picking up large
chunks of valuable real-estate. All which (of course) is
emphatically denied by the principles, even if verified by the
record.

Considering all the vital issues facing the people of B.C. in
which dubious deals with home and foreign monopoly for the
complete sell-out of B.C. is not the least of these, we not only
marvel as to how this Socred excuse for a government gets
away with it so long. What is most astounding is why do people
keep swallowing it so long—and, cursing the Socreds up and
down—come back for more at each succeeding election,

instead of ridding ‘‘Beautiful B.C.’’ of this political incubus.
The time is now ripe, rotten ripe in fact.

PUBLIC MEETING

MADAM JEANETTE WALSH
Speaks On

"QUEBEC"

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10th at 8 PM
UKRAINIAN HALL — 805 E. Pender St.

Ausp: Vancouver Regional C’ttee, CPC

__, “But the economy might suffer.”

Following is the full text of a
letter sent to Vancouver's two
daily newspapers on the
Columbia River sellout by BRUCE
YORKE, former secretary of the
“Columbia River for Canada

Committee.”
ee ee

The. revelation by the Premier
of British Columbia that the
taxpayers of this province are
going to heavily subsidize the
large industrial users of power
in the United States as a result of
the Columbia River Treaty, is
precisely what the opponents of
the Treaty said would happen —
at the time.

Not that it took any great
foresight considering the
incredible financial arrange-
ments entered into. The B.C.
Government agreed to a fixed
lump sum of money in return for
building three storage dams,
without. any firm idea of what
they would cost. A pig in the
poke deal. As we pointed out at
the time even a 15% under-
estimation of costs would result
in a deficit position.

As usual there is deliberate
confusion about figures, but at
least it is now generally recog-
nized that the cost to B.C.
taxpayers, despite all the ration-
-alizations that accompany the
government’s statements, will

~* be in the order of $200 million.

This is of course a very
considerable sum, one which
would go a long way to building
the thousands of homes so
desperately needed in this pro-
vince, or schools, or social
services, or what have you.

It should be recalled that of the
three storage dams in Canada
only the Mica Creek develop-
ment will eventually produce
any power in this country. Not a
single kilowatt hour of energy
has yet been turned out.

And what about Mica? The
first and most important fact is
that the Treaty, by authorizing
the U.S. to build the Libby Dam
in the United States, robs the
Mica site of 40% of its energy
potential, as well as all other

sites on the Columbia in Canada

north of the confluence with the
Kootenay.

The government talks about a
2 million kilowatt installation
at Mica. However, this is
capacity only, to be utilized one

Industry's Smokescreen

a

THR)

wT

z only ‘a

AUpsErd ree 2.
2

on Columbia: River treat

would expect for ‘‘peaking”’
purposes..only. There. is simply
no way that 2 million kilowatt

_ hours of electricity can be pro-

duced annually at Mica. Because
of the Treaty theré just isn’t

‘ enough water available to turn

out that muchenergy, only about
60% of that figure.

Moreover, there is the
monstrosity which originally
went by the name of the High
Arrow Dam, now called the
Keenlyside Dam. This dam was
originally to cost $60 million, but
it actually ended up costing $193
millions. It was the key dam in
the sellout to U.S. interests,
since it will never produce a
kilowatt hour of electricity at
site, not a single kilowatt hour.

Putting these two facts in their
true light, is it any wonder that °
we are facing a power shortage
in this Province?

As far as the Premier’s cont-
ention goes that there will be
additional financial returns in
the second 30 years of the
Treaty, this has to be the sickest
joke of all.

In the first place this is no con-

solation to us TAXPAYERS Wo!
are being called upon NOW™
foot the bill.

In the second place, the
called returns have never ?
agreed to by the U.S. (ore
can be assured Mr. Bel
would be trumpeting ©
amount), and even undef jo
most favourable interprely
possible these so-ca
“returns’’ would not even
the operating costs of |
storage dams in Canada.

WHAT CAN BE DOM.
Unfortunately with the #0 an
Dam and the Libby Dam ®
there is not too much that
done now to rectify Ca
interests with regard !
generation of electr!
However, some things cou!
be done. a
e Firstly, the stringent,
trol’ features of the
which give the U-S. abs?
control of the flow of wal
and out of the Canadian
must be renegotiated. . - 7

See COLUMBIA, pg: !

c!

‘By ALD: HARRY RANKIN

About four months ago, City
Council decided to place a small
tax on hotel rooms. Revenues
would amount to some $500,000 a
year. Our action brought an
angry letter from municipal
affairs minister Dan Campbell.
He threatened to cut off the $1.00
per capita grant the city gets for

. tourist promotion. The minister,

and Premier Bennett also,
alleged that the-tax would hurt
the tourist industry.

Now the real reason for their
opposition to our hotel tax is
out. In his budget address on
Feb. 5, Premier Bennett, who is
also minister of finance,
announced that effective April
1, 1971, a hotel and motel tax of
five percent would go into effect.

Apparently a small hotel tax
by Vancouver would hurt
tourism but not a larger tax by
the provincial government!
How would you describe the
action of the government?
Duplicity? I'll leave it to you to
find a suitable term.

Premier Bennett’s budget had
a few more similar gems.

He told us-that effective
immediately cigarettes would
go up 5 cents on a package of 25,
and gasoline would be upped by 2
cents:a: gallon. Is that a tax
increase?’ Not at all. Premier

‘Bennett explained that this was:
“modest: ‘tax adjust:

ment!”’

The Premier made one other

adjustment. The municipal
share of social assistance costs
was reduced from 20 to 15 per-
cent. (This time he used the
word ‘‘reduced”’.)

Three years ago it was 10
percent. At that time Premier
Bennett doubled it to 20 percent,
despite the strenuous protests of
municipal governments. On the

vq Serface it would appear that

aes

Bennett budget doesn
lift city welfare load

EI) ay Es

vi € reTAPaTh
municipalities are.n0
back half of what they 10
is not the case, howeve
In the meantime, ums
ment has developed 0”:
scale and welfare C05!
risen enormously as thou
destitute people hav
forced to seek social ass!
What it all adds up
even with our municl
of welfare costs noW
percent instead of 20, Vv
and other municipal
still be spending sever
more on welfare that
when our share was 10 p@,
As for the $25 millio®
Alcohol and. Cié
Education, Preventl® i
Rehabilitation Fund
lished by Premier Benm
this year’s budget, I
should be put up by te
and cigarette interests: “_
creating the proble
shouldn’t they pay the ¢%
victims? 3

Finally there is the $%
set aside in the premier
for “accelerated park ©
ment to create addition
It’s a pitifully smal in
when compared to tte ‘
problem as well as thé -
budget. $15 millio?
budget of $1,300,000 an all
only 1 percent, And
will only provide.a fe
few months when W
officially listed as We
and with the actual fig®
closer.to 100,000.

I still think that the P&
tackle the problem % ee
ment would be for Wg
ment to establish 5”,
industries to proces?
resources instead oa
them all to Japan 2%) ai
That would provide tho
permanent jobs.

si¥o TH el

44> Vo Roos