B.C. COMMUNISTS SEND APPEAL TO NDP PARLEY

ae letter to the NDP

W°e Communists feel compel-
led to address this open
letter to your convention because
of the common interest that ex-
ists between our two parties.

Our views are that the New
Democratic Party . convention
must not avoid a basic assess-
ment of its policies and activi- =
ties in the light of the provin-
cial election results.

Some leaders of the NDP have —

erroneously criticized the work-
ing class and other sections ofthe
people for their support of the
Social Credit party. They char-
acterized such support as back-
wardness in a kind of fatalistic
sense,

We suggest that this approach
is putting the matter upside
down. It would be more construc-
tive for the NDP leadership to
examine why it failed to win
the majority of voters and
particularly, the workers in the
last provincial election.

Surely it was not the Socreds’
correct policies that won them
re-election. In fact, the Bennett
government has proved to be the
‘most corrupt, anti-labor anti-
Canadian government in the his-
tory of British Columbia. This
was noted by the B.C. Federation
of Labor and the New Demo-
cratic Party, both of which adopt-
ed alternative programs and poli-
Cies aimed at the preservation
of peace, the preservation of our
resources and of labor’s rights.

* * *

The Social Credit govern-
Ment’s economic policy has
been to systematically alienate
British Columbia’a natural re-
Sources from its people; to
five these resources to the U.S.
Monopolies at the expense of Can-
adian development. Tommy
Douglas was quoted as saying
that 74 per cent of our resources
had fallen under the control of
these U.S, interests.

On the issues of peace or war
the Socreds supported the Liberal
government’s cold war policies

_ simply by remaining silent on the

nuclear dump at Comox. In re-
spect to labor’s rights, nowhere
‘in Canada is there the restric-
tive legislation that exists in
British Columbia; anti-labor leg-
islation that violates not only
trade union bargaining rights but
also their democratic right to

' participate as an entity in parti-

san political action - a privilege
big business is constantly exer-
cising.
eo oka aks

The undemocratic character of
the election, which denied tens
of thousands the right to vote,
was part of the conspiracy org-
anized by the Socred government
against the people of B.C. The
NDP _leadership’s sharp criti-
cism of such undemocratic prac-
tises is necessary and timely.

Nevertheless, we cannot agree
with the NDP leadership that
this was the reason for their de-
feat in the election. The overall
trend of the election across the
province showed that the elec-
tion was not favorable for the
NDP, therefore the answer must
lie elsewhere.

The NDP leadership is correct
when it says that the working

people generally do not suffici- }

ently understand the essence of
Socred policies, their anti-demo-~
cratic and anti-Canadian fea-

tures, But this does not justify:

the NDP remaining quiet on these
key issues outside conventions
and most particularly at electioa
time when the interest of the
people is focussed on the politi-)
cal issues,

On the contrary, it is all the
more reason for theNDP, which
presents itself as the alterna-
tive, to be precisely that, It must
be not just a party with an alterna-
tive program, but a party that
fights for that program.

This, the NDP leadership re-
fused to do in the last provin-
cial election. Instead consider-

able effort was made to make the ©

NDP acceptable to all the people,
not excepting big business, Evid-
ently the NDP leadership has not
learned that it cannot serve two
masters at the same tome.

The result of this political
approach was that the key issues
of the election were studiously
avoided. Robert Strachan said
next to nothing on the re-estab-
lishment of Canadian control of
our natural resources (whichisa
necessity if we are to create
secondary industries).

At the beginning of the strug-
gle to save the Columbia’s hy-
dro power for Canada, Strachan
advocated, *‘Let us go on with
the job’, instead of fighting
against ratification of the treaty.
And again in the Columbia con-
stituency by-election he placed
the emphasis not on opposing the
treaty but on compensation for the
flooded area in the event that the
project went through.

Still another example of the
failure of theNDP to takea forth-
right position was on the issue
of the Comox base, The major-

ity of the NDP candidates did
not raise this vital issue on the
hustings. When questioned on it,
some of them dismissed it as a

federal matter.
* * *

And if we review their work
on the anti-labor legislation, we
must say that very little attention
was given to this matter, either
in the Legislature or in the el-
ection. It is indeed regrettable
to note that Strachan did a dis-
service to the workers struggle
against that legislation. Atatime
when the workers were -fighting‘
the combined force of employers,
the government, the courts and
yes, police dogs, on the Allied
Engineering picket line, Mr.
Strachan saw fit to attack some
of the leaders of that struggle.

Obviously a wiser course for
the NDP is to give its utmost
assistance to labor struggles and
initiative for political action. It
is wrong, and unrealistic for the
NDP to think they can become the
government of this province with
a program and policy on sec-
ondary reforms that are merely a
replica of those of the parties
of monopoly capital. The elec-
tion shows that the Socreds were

in a stronger position with such
policies than the NDP. Voters
were encouraged to follow the old
axiom, ‘‘A bird in the hand is
worth two in the bush,’’

The NDP talked of reforms
while the Socreds had initiated
a whole number of measures
which the people regard as re-
forms, such as the homeown-
er’s grant, the elimination oftolls
and extensive road construction.

* * *

NDP policies need to becomea
genuine alternative to the parties
of monopoly capital; policies that,
include a program for the re-
patriation of Canadian resources
for the development of secondary
industries in B.C.; policies that
call for the removal of nuclear
arms from B.C.

A policy that would repeal
B.C, anti-labor legislation and
provide labor with a Bill of
Rights.

A policy that would also in-
clude many of the good reforms
advanced by the NDP in the last
provincial election.

To the measure that Commun-
ists, the NDP and the unions
fight for such a program, to that
measure only will we succeed
in bringing clarity to the demo-
cratic forces inthis province, and
to that measure will we create the

. “possibility of electing an NDP

government.

Communists do not exempt
themselves from the responsi-
bility of achieving such an aim.
We are critical of many of our
shortcomings that retard the
work of exposing the real nature
of Social Credit policies to the
working people of this province,
We encourage constructive criti-
cism that can increase the ef-
fectiveness of our political work,

It is in such a spirit that we

address this open letter to the
NDP convention.

‘Time short to regain control of our destiny ..

JAMES G. RIPLEY, P. Eng., is editor of ‘Electrical
News and Engineering,” the influential Southam-Mc-
Lean’s publication in Canada. He is considered one of the
nation’s leading students of the Columbia Treaty.

In the September issue of the magazine he wrote an _
article entitled, “Surrender of the Columbia.” Below are
Some of the main extracts from that important article:

The Columbia River Treaty
is probably the most misunder-
Stood and mismanaged of any
Major engineering project in

- Canadian history. So confusing
has the situation become that
Most people have thrown uptheir
hands in helpless frustration,
leaving the final solution to a
very few politicians whose mo-
tives are frighteningly remote
from the best interests of Can-
ada,

The country now is witnessing
the sorry spectacle of a Liberal
Government in Ottawa joining
forces with a Social Credit ad-
Ministration in British Columbia
to ram through the present de-
fective treaty draft without the

adequate enquiry that was prom-

ised by the Liberals and that
is so urgently needed if the full
story of the Columbia mess is to
‘be understood bythe country.

Current discussions among
officials of B.C., the Federal
Government and the UnitedStates
are based entirely on this joint
Ottawa-B.C. policy of making no
major changes in the present
draft of the treaty. The only item
left to be settled, under this
“policy, is the price that the U.S.
will pay for the so-called down-
stream benefits.

* * *

The present treaty places three
of the four major dams (Higlt
Arrow, Libby, and Duncan) vir-
tually on the American border,

where they are absolutely useless
for any purpose except regulating
U.S. flows. As the value of this
regulation declines (and our in-
come declines correspondingly
as described above), we event-
ually are left with three useless
structures. We cannot produce a
kilowatt of at-site power for Can-
ada at any of these dams. The
fourth dam (Mica) will produce
some power but will always sac-
rifice part of its potential out-
put because the treaty says it

must be operated primarily for

U.S. regulation.

Lately there has even beentalk
from B.C. of dropping Mica, This
would represent the ultimate ab-
surdity—a treaty that forces us
to build three dams that will be-
come unproductive for us long
before the treaty expires. Yet it
is a logical development from the
present treaty and the thinking
that produced it.

McNaughton would develop the
Canadian half of the Columbia in
precisely the opposite way by

putting all major storages as high
in the mountains as possible.
(This is also the way the U.S.
would develop the river if there
were no international boundary).
He would eliminate High Arrow,
and Libby, and replace them with
dams at Bull River, Luxor and
Dorr. The net effect would be that
this water could be run through
1280 feet of Canadian head before
it reached the border. The Amer-
icans would get the same water,
but Canada would use it first and
would control the regulation.
* * *

Even more important, stora; =
of the water ‘at high elevation
retains for Canada a wide choice
of alternative uses for it. For
the first 20 or 30 years, the most
profitable use is to sell it as
controlled flow to the U.S. plants,
just as the present treaty does.
So there is no conflict of ob-
jectives between the plans at
first.

But when the Americans no
longer need our storages, Mc-

Columbia Treaty is one of our last chances

Naughton’s scheme would not
leave us with three of our four
dams unproducitive. Instead, we
would have several other highly
profitable uses for the water. We
could use it for maximum at-site
generation in Canada, through
the full Canadian head. Or we
could divert it into the Fraser
(when the salmon problem is
solved) where it would move
through a thousand feet or more
of additional head to the sea and
provide B.C. with an enormous
block of extemely cheap power.

Or some of the water could be
diverted onto the Prairies for
irrigation and industry. But none
of these alternatives will be open
to us unless we obtain a treaty
that protects our sovereign
control of the river and allows
us later to build such dams and
plants as we may need,

* * *

Canada has sold off so much
of her national resources and
industry for a fraction of their

See COLUMBIA, pg. 10

November 15, 1963—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 5 |