Guess I'm a Leftist Now

In this article, I'm going to use the "left/right" designations. I don't like them as they seem so outdated but since they are terms we nevertheless understand, I shall use them.

I am now, I'm told, a member of the "left" and a traitor to my former colleagues and my, ahem, "class." This because I have publicly stated that I will support the NDP next May 12 or earlier if the "autocrat" violates his own legislation and calls a snap election.

I will concede that my views have matured but my basic philosophy has not much changed. I was Consumer Affairs minister from December of 1975 to November of 1978. During that period, at first with Bill Neilson as my deputy and later with Tex Enemark, I set out to reform and expand consumer protection legislation that had been started by my NDP predecessor. We did so up against a hostile caucus but, the gods be praised, with a supportive Premier Bill Bennett.

We believed that the government had a place in the marketplace as a policeman, and we targeted the slime bags who discounted tax returns at horrendous profit, the crooks who sold things like chimney sweeping door to door. We went after the literal fly-by-nights who left elderly people stranded far from home, and we took on crooked car salesmen. We even licensed car dealers to the intense anger of six of my colleagues who were car dealers.

We helped people hammered by banks that wouldn't obey our laws. We forced the banks to do so. We cracked down on stock-market fraud. And just to show we were pro good business, worked with local orchardists in the Okanagan to start what is now a fabulous wine industry. We also brought in massive changes in the liquor portfolio, which, amongst other things, got rid of the ghastly beer parlours to be replaced by hotel pubs.

In my one year as Environment minister the slaughter of wolves was stopped, uranium mining went under a moratorium and the city of Seattle was induced to give up its treaty right to raise the Ross Dam and flood the lovely Skagit River.

Neufeld's name-calling

I'm not just singing my praises (although admittedly it's always fun to do so, especially in print). I'm merely demonstrating there is consistency in my present position against fish farms and private power projects buggering up (to use the technical term) hundreds of our rivers and streams while emasculating B.C. Hydro.

This is what Energy Minister Richard Neufeld says about my ilk, on his web page: "The connection between the B.C. Citizens for Public Power and the Carole James' NDP and the B.C. Federation of Labour runs deep -- there is no difference between these groups," says Neufeld. "And now it is clear they all share the same reckless ambition to ban independent power producers, drive out investment and jobs, and keep British Columbia reliant on expensive, imported power."

Well, Dick, I'm proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with that group and others like the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, COPE 378 president Andy Ross, and environmental groups right around the province fighting the privatization of our power. (I strongly suggest that you look at saveourrivers.ca, the organization for which I am a spokesperson. There you will find out just what this issue is all about.)

Is Mr. Neufeld saying that only "the left" cares about our rivers and our environment? It seems so! Are caring, well researched arguments to be dismissed by this government because of their source, not their content? If this is the case, what a sad excuse for a government we have!

The left got a few things right

What I want to talk about is this notion by the government and so many of its supporters that if the "left" suggests anything it must be bad. Business, left alone, it's said, will take care of the interests of its workers and the public at large.

Really? Was it business that encouraged workers to unite for better pay and working conditions? Was it industry that scanned its workplace and brought in proper safety and health rules? Was it industry that saw the need for better pay?

One must, in fairness, note the shop-worn argument that in January of 1914 Henry Ford turned the auto industry upside down and brought workmen by the tens of thousands storming for jobs by announcing that Ford's minimum wage would be five dollars for an eight-hour day when a good wage was two dollars and a half for a day of 10 hours. He reasoned that decently paid workers would be able to buy his cars and he was right. Unhappily, however, Ford wasn't always that enlightened as later bloody strikebreaking would demonstrate.

Where did workers' compensation and unemployment insurance come from? Or pensions to help those whose low wages gave no scope for saving? Who brought in fair labour practices legislation? Who brought in public health care and who put pressure on, and when they could, legislation for, decent environmental laws and proper forest practices? Who brought in protection for farmland?

Stuck in a time warp

The Richard Neufelds of the world don't try to make counter arguments to proposals and studies by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Instead, they simply dismiss them as "left wing" while accepting the words of the far right Fraser Institute as if they were heavenly endorsed.

Have we as a society not advanced past this sort of name-calling? Aren't we ready to look at ideas and judge them on their merits using common sense, not fear and prejudice? Statements like those of Richard Neufeld are stuck in a 30-year-old time warp.

Is it to be dismissed as "left wing" when people oppose giving our rivers, their power and the money they make over to interests of shareholders of private-sector companies? Are those of us who support the energy policy of W.A.C. Bennett lefties? Is it left wing to demonstrate that the government policy will mean, under NAFTA, that once Americans use our water for anything, they can use it for everything, such as exporting our water to the thirsty U.S.?

Let's get beyond the labels

Of course this cuts both ways. The NDP and people that support them at the ballot box or, perhaps, from time to time on policy, are often too ready to dismiss counter arguments not on merit but political cant. This, however, can be understood when you remember that the "left" is seldom in power and has seen their proposals only put in place by right-wing governments who are afraid of losing power.

I'm not against feistiness in politics. It's good to battle issues vigorously, and name-calling is part of a feisty debate on great issues. All I say is that people like Neufeld and other ideologues do no service to the public weal by rejecting ideas out of hand because they come from those you normally don't agree with.

Take on my colleagues and me in the fight against privatizing power on the merits of the argument. Deal with the issues we raise not by flatulent weasel words and phrases, but by reasoned and documented argument.

That might be a good idea, Mr. Neufeld, if only because this is what the public today is coming to expect if they don't expect it already.

Related Tyee stories:

• Private River Power Draws Diverse Foes
  'Green' claims disputed.
• Campbell's Power to Harm Rivers
  500 BC streams risked for private profit.
• Another Side to Private Power
  First Nations, municipalities explore controversial energy source.