Dear Editor:
The level of anxiety of some citizens over the notion that the District Labour Council endorses and dedicates resources to local electoral candidates is reaching near hysteria. Yet the bogeyman of "union bosses" nefariously pulling strings is exactly that - a fabrication.
I attended the mayoral forum sponsored by the Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board and the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce, and I have to say that I couldn't discern a single element of policy espoused by Coun. Jonathan Cote that was at odds with, contrary to, or meant to harm the interests of the business community in New Westminster.
In fact, the chamber of commerce has itself invited its members and members of the community to consider the subsidization of Fraser River short-shipping as a component of a regional goods transportation plan, greater support for retail commercial activity within the city's borders, and the development of a model of sustainable economic growth to ensure New West attracts and retains employment. All of these things are policy prescriptions which Cote has espoused. In fact, an unbiased observer could not discern any credible reason why Cote's platform could not easily be endorsed by the local chamber of commerce itself - if it endorsed local candidates.
Our city is home to people who work in health care, education, transportation, retail, manufacturing, construction - in short, all of the sectors of the local economy. Their representative labour organizations choose to offer support to candidates who can demonstrate that they support policy which will enhance the lives of their members and their families, and by extension, all of our families.
It really is bordering on offensive for some to suggest that local candidates are "in the pocket" of some cabal of union "bosses." And it's especially simplistic to propose that a councillor who has received the support of labour unions is bound by a conflict of interest when it comes to their part in ratifying collective agreements with municipal employees.
Councillors with small business experience are rightly allowed to debate and decide business tax rates, and councillors who have received electoral donations from development firms are rightly entitled to participate in decision making on development. Where true conflicts of interest exist the law requires their declaration - it is literally illegal to be "in someone's pocket" so people should be more careful about casting that particular aspersion.
After moving here nearly a decade ago, it did not take long for me to recognize that there is an overt current in political opinion to tar people and their ideas by association. That's petty and misguided.
Good people and good ideas aren't made less so because they receive support from organizations which are dedicated to the interests of working families - I rather think they gain credibility from such support.
Michel Roy, New Westminster
