B.C. Disclosure Act ‘sound legislation’ By ALD. HARRY RANKIN The Public Officials and Em- ployees Disclosure Act recently passed by the — provincial legislature is a sound piece of legislation. The NDP government is to be congratulated on enacting it. The Act requires public officials such as MLA’s, mayors, aldermen’ and school trustees, as well as certain public employees designated by the cabinet, to disclose their business interests. In the case of public officials these disclosures are open for public inspection. : The purpose of the Act is to protect the public against public officials who would use their public office to bring about actions or decisions that would benefit them financially. Those found guilty of an offence under the Act are liable on sum- mary conviction to a fine of not more than $10,000. That is not severe, considering that many times that amount could be in- volved in immoral and_ shady dealings by public officials who cd TOM McEWEN pre 29th Parliament is-dead. Its demise followed a common procedure, spluttering. away its last days debating the merits of football while an all-powerful monopoly was busily playing football with the people’s livelihood — and most assuredly winning! Space in this valuable workingman’s paper does not permit a full listing of these exorbitant “winnings” but they can be found (by those interested) in the financial pages of our equally monopolized news media. For the first quarter of 1974, anywhere from fifty to five hundred percent increase was on the scoreboard. In fact many are so enormous that one Babbit, the big ~ poohbah of Gulf Oil Company, complains via the media, PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, MAY 17, 1974—PAGE 2 “could use their position to fill their own pockets. Opposition MLA’s, some elected municipal officials and some newspapers (speaking, of course, for business interests) bitterly opposed the Act. They called it Gestapo (police state) legislation and an invasion of privacy. They piously asserted that honestly can’t. be. legislated. And _ they claimed that many good men and women would now resign from their elected positions or refuse to be candidates for public office in the future. To call such an Act ‘“‘Gestapo’’- legislation is just too ludicrous for words. This charge comes from people who look upon the public purse as something to be milked for the benefit of vested interests . and who would themselves be the first to use the powers of the state to stamp out opposition. To claim that the Act is an in- vasion of privacy is to ignore the fundamental fact that the public has a right to know what business interests its public officials have and to judge them accordingly. Now we ‘monopoly that it is becoming terribly In the first four months of pn Re ree above the 1973 quarter, at shouldn’t be so hard as an i would quickly affirm. If a Saeed elites which used to retail at five cents modest profit) now retails at fifty or somebody is makin legislative proposals was a Bill aimed at discovering what (if anything) to do about edition of a “$40,000-a-year-Mrs. similar results which would be exa rein for another del will it be? which — will everything . . . exce their backs? Or entity may exercise a balance-of- perchance may squeeze out a few Search warrants’ are also an in-’ vasion of “privacy but they sometimes become necessary in the war against crime. And of course it isn’t possible to legislate honesty, but it is possible to protect the public against dishonest »people. That’s why we have laws against crime. The laws ; themselves don’t make honest. : people but the deterrents involved in punishment give society some protection. It may be that some public of- ficials will resign once the new legislation comes into effect which will be on May 31. If some do have some secret business dealings that can’t bear public scrutiny that’s their problem. They shouldn’t hold their own conclusions. This Act should now be followed up with legislation that will require disclosure of the source of election funds for anyone running for public office. It should also place limitations on the amount of money that may be spent on behalf of any candidate or party. That would ensure that election publicity isn’t reserved only for the candidates and parties backed by big money. promise the people “hard to explain such profits.” 1974 he pocketed $200-million (and still showed a more cents a crack, € a pile of boodle. Among the that died with the 29th Parliament who was profiteering, and it. A sort of an enlarged Plumptre’’, with largely ctly nothing. uge of election cackle. What An old-line majority partisan government anything pt take the monopoly gougers off a minority government upon which a third power pressure which more crumbs from the banquet table to the people down below, but ‘PAY UP OR GET OUT' Tenants fighting ne attack by landlords By E. F. CRIST Landlords in North Vancouver are stepping up their attacks against tenants. It is evident that what they have in mind is not only to challenge the provincial government but also to discourage tenants from fighting for their rights. The landlords are taking full advantage of the fact that the proposed security of tenure legislation is not yet in effect. They also encourage in their activities by the stand-off policy of many local government when it comes to tenants’ rights. As a result, harassment, in- timidation, and provocations against tenants, as well as out and out violations of the existing Act are on the upswing. ; Landlords, it seems, are determined to prove that the new Act won’t work. But, despite this tenants are organizing to fight back. Following eviction notices handed to some tenants without giving just cause, tenants from the Riverside Mews in Maplewood, North Vancouver organized a rent strike. In a press statement, the Riverside Mews Tenants’ Association states that “in our opinion, these eviction notices are in violation of the proposed provincial legislation and they are completely unjustified.” In a letter to management, they stated ‘‘that the tenants of Riverside Mews withhold rent payments until such time as the question of unjustified eviction notices has been resolved.” - In another development, tenants from’ the Fraser Apartments in North Vancouver, after forming a Tenants’ Committee, urged the landlord to rescind all illegal rent increases and to withdraw all notices of eviction without delay. Their letter goes on to say, ‘“‘In the event that these matters are not .Monday night as Port resolved, the Tenants Comm has been advised to take action.” : In several other apart blocks, tenants by fight unison have been able improved standards ol commodation as well a other improvements. No to B.C. | PORT COQUITLAM a Telephone, seeking endorsé its application for isha uff creases, received a ge aa vil! imo city aldermen unaniml rejected the request. ets The motion came after & three questioning of representatives of who admitted that B.‘ enjoyed a monopoly 10 City councillors also V take action immediate request to seek exemption Residential Premisies ont Rent Stabilization Ach further study of the legis the com! p.c. TeleP provides for municipa ie councils to apply for ‘nol and landlords throue™ province have alrea y considerable pressure © councils to take advan loophole. Port Coquitlam ia decision was in respons. io ‘ and personal presenta wner’ ef two small apartment 0” | in @ argued that’ rent increase yet iy ie sts: needed to offset rising © me 8 : nt cess of the eight perce delay on the request : something of a surprisé Campbell — a adm! landlord — had told “no business should bé by controls.” - Tenants-call for emergen®y sh ati D The Bill — stipulatine gs ceiling on annual rent inet f a i the UM ote arr avd as? a at! ancl! ot e ° ° e [ H anti-eviction legislatio" : 3 rth Eleven tenants associations and committees 17 Nae ing couver has sent a joint resolution to attorney gener peing ° at donald charging that tenants on the North Shore | = on ofte! jected by many landlords to harassment and intimida entl defending their rights under the new law which limits r to 8 percent and for forming tenant associations. peing ei ion neg pl CIS ara The resolution says that tenants live in fear of nds. IEF se and are being threatened with eviction on unjust grou d the new Landlord and Tenants Act, which includes ® tenure, is not yet law. ey 8° The North Shore tenant organizations call on ate 9 tet Alex Macdonald to enact emergency legislation to pr : ly 4 such emergency legislation is needed until the recent Landlord and Tenants Act becomes law. \ vient does little or nothing to end the monopoly ofits pl bery, which not even its most devoted “ben® ocala) explain. This is the greatest illusion of al ntti condemns the ripoff in words and condones t our eft y (any commodity) It is well and widely known of course pe aA arte ihe politicians, already sounding off for the being nl) political footballers. With the peoples’ We esp ball, the game would seem to have edi 4 designed for those pseudo acrobats. the ol 4 “A freeze on prices and wages,” Ye!PS. “the d cheer leader as he cavorts across the ie derwear groaning at every stitch. His ibe 5 | : be real, but applied to profits will end UP nett’s ‘‘cure’’ for unemployment. “The land is good”’ intoned PET P the last talkathon for the now defunct 29th away. cl? was, before he and his kind gave most of it e and us has the problem, accentuated by experiential association with monopoly, that the e put theY ind “don’t only want an election at this time ajad want him either, with or without charism@ : ‘ erals eu for the Lib jal 7 out notices of eviction can only be given by the Jandlor prity from being evicted except for just cause. The resolution Ue spl