Georgia Straight
for November 1994, Article 3

Some weeks ago, a letter to the editor rightly stated that in assessing candidates for Mike Harcourt's job, should he lose the next election, I overlooked the obvious - Elizabeth Cull. He also called me a conservative.

I guess I am a "conservative", small "c" variety - at least by my definition.

I was once a member of the Progressive Conservative Party - I joined it at the time of October Crisis in 1970 when I left the Liberal party, enraged at what I saw as an arrogant Pierre Trudeau tromping on Canadians' rights by using a compliant Parliament to overkill the FLQ. I sort of drifted away from the P.C.s as I got into Provincial politics with the Social Credit Party which in those days, the 70s, had a wide enough political band to include everything to the right of the left wing of the NDP. Then, though not later under Bill Vander Zalm, while there were some definite rednecks in the party there were lots of middle of the roaders too, including Bill Bennett.

Today I'm all over the lot, depending on the issue and have trouble with feeling comfortable supporting any party.

I am a "conservative" in that I like to conserve what is good. I don't believe in casting things aside just because they have been around for awhile or because something new and exciting, though untested, has come along.

I certainly believe in the free market system but I also believe in the state's role as a policeman in that marketplace. A look at the legislation I brought in in the 1976-8 period while Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will, I believe, confirm that.

Let me tell you, however, where I am a "conservative" very much out of tune with the large "C" conservatives. I part company very dramatically with many on the "right" who would dam a horse peeing if they thought a watt of energy could be had. In practical terms that means I believe that the Fraser. 2. River has been abused quite enough without letting Alcan, of all people, have another whack at it with the Kemano Completion Project. .

In this regard I also part company with the so-called "left" who talk a very good game of conservation but, when it comes down to a contest between the tree and the woodsman, opt for the woodsman every time. The sad truth is that trees don't vote. Neither do fish. Or Rivers. Especially, the Fraser.

I look at a river like the Fraser and marvel at the abuse we have heaped upon it and how well it has continued to function. The trouble is, it's strength has been its undoing. The people who use and abuse it, think that it's power to resist is limitless. Well, its not.

I have no time for those who see short term construction of megaprojects as the cure for our economic ailments. Doubtless a recession can be softened for a few lucky people who get to work on a megaproject for a short period of time. And this brings short term political benefits to governments which activate the project because, after all, they have a short electoral lifespan and want the benefits of what they do to be seen immediately. The trouble is, the results are forever, as people who live on the Columbia or Peace well know.

Of course we will need more power. But it's so shortsighted to permit a Board of Trade mentality to drive the decision making process. It's not in that mentality to conserve - rather it is build! To hell with the consequences!

We have, for the past 30 years, given B.C. Hydro the obligation to estimate our power needs and provide for them. W.A.C. Bennett set the course for hydroelectric power with several dams. Built into the BC Hydro psyche is the notion that power needs must be overestimated so that no danger of shortage exists, and to provide those needs with mega projects.

You can't blame B.C. Hydro. No executive wants to risk being around for the Province's first brownout. Moreover, governments of all stripes, even

3. when they bitch about it a bit at the start, have loved mega projects. There is little or no incentive built into Hydro to conserve rather than build.

Oh, I know about cogeneration schemes and Power Smart programs and they are to be commended, But I stand by my overall observation that B.C. Hydro is programmed for huge hydroelectric projects.

In fact, we have more power than we can use for as far ahead as we can see, yet, sadly, Premier Harcourt seems to prefer the money to the energy benefits from the Columbia River Treaty. Money, after all, spent in the right places, wins elections. So, sadly, do megaprojects. Why shouldn't Mr Harcourt let Alcan put at risk the Fraser and its abundant riches? He likely won't be around when the end comes so why should he care?

As a "conservative", I say let's examine all our options from Columbia River power down through conservation and cogeneration of power by industry using it's own waste to create it, through to smaller private sources of energy.

As a conservative, I say leave the Fraser River alone except to rehabilitate it. It's indeed this Province's soul. Only short term stupidity would explain letting Alcan become a large private power company at the expense its large tributary, the Nechako, and the enormous salmon runs it can handle.
There is, I submit, some political "cross dressing" going on here when "conservative" Rafe Mair wants to keep Alcan from doing any more damage to our environment while both the Reform Party on the right and the NDP won the left would give it the go-ahead.

Come to think on it, it makes the Gordon Campbell led Liberals look "conservative" as hell too.

If that continues, despite my antipathy towards my former party going back 25 years, I may now have to say something nice about them once in awhile.