CKNW Editorial
for September 8, 1999

Questions raised by Jeremy Dalton, Liberal MLA for West Vancouver, go to the root of the obligations of a politician. He has written me a blistering letter which gives rise to today’s discourse. Jeremy is badly upset at the boat people but before I go further let me make this wild political forecast – he will change places with John Reynolds who sees life on the opposition back-benches as somewhat unfulfilling and not suitable to his talents and wants Mr Dalton’s safe seat – gadfrey daniel, it has to be safe for Dalton to win. In exchange, Mr Dalton gets Reynold’s relatively safe federal seat it being obvious to all, even Dalton that he’ll never be in the BC cabinet … indeed, at the backbench he shows clear signs of reaching his level of incompetence.

In any event, Dalton berates me for defending the rule of law and due process then asks me if I’ve not read the letters to the editor.

The answer is that unlike Mr Dalton, my views are not driven by public opinion but by thought process, convictions and conscience.

But what, now that Mr Dalton raised the issue, is the obligation of the MLA or MP?

Edmund Burke had no doubts when he said, in 1774, “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” The obverse side of that coin is, I suppose, some sort of computer in the hands of all electors, probably conveniently placed in pubs and lounges, where the question is posed to the voter and he immediately answers.

I’d be the first to admit that Burke is a bit out of date. In those days it was a hard three days ride from his riding of Bristol to Westminster and the MPs judgment had to be preferred to the opinion of the voter for practical reasons. But are we to discard this representative theory entirely just because the day is not far off that every issue could be put to every voter instantly?

I think not. Now I must concede that Mr Dalton may well be the sort of representative whose talent for following the mob vastly exceeds his ability to think, debate, and make up his mind. But I don’t think Canadians are voting for ciphers. If we were, why would we care who we select?

No, we elect people – actually under our lame system it’s the party – because we believe it stands for certain concepts. To the extent we care about the individual we do because of that person’s qualities. Now if all that representative is to do is read the letters to the editor, his own email and the latest public opinion poll, we need only require about a Grade IV education of the candidate.

Am I saying, then, that we want our representatives to ignore public opinion? It’s a very big factor but at the end of the day he has to stand before the electorate and say – I did things which pleased some of you and annoyed others. I couldn’t possibly be all things to all people at all times. I just ask you to ask yourself if, on balance, I was a good representative.

Moreover, a representative is there for all people. I daresay that by the end of a parliamentary term all the people in a riding have, at one time, or another been both for and against him. If a representative decides not to ever get the majority mad at him it’s inevitable that by the end of four years he’ll have every single voter pissed off at him.

I remember very well an issue where I had to face down the multitude. It was in 1979 and you must remember that I represented Kamloops, a place where sports fishing is very important. Most tourists who come to stay, come to fish. I was Minister of Environment and had the Fish and Wildlife Branch under me and they wished to reduce the limit from 8 down to four and in some places two. I looked at their arguments and it was clear to me that this had to be done so I did it. There was a hell of a row. Mr Dalton no doubt would have backed off – hell, he probably would have raised the limit to 12. But I was content to do the hugely unpopular thing and face the people – which, a few months later I did, successfully I might add.

I have no doubt that there are many issues which are suitable for referendum and I have long supported this process. There are other things, however, that require the judgment of the elected person. And there is a hell of a lot in between.

I admire the Reform Party, for example, for regularly consulting with it’s constituents. But the Reform Party is not now and likely never will be the government. They cannot be held accountable for mere words across the house to the government.

I have long talked about the disconnection between government and the voter and especially between representatives and the voter. By that I do not mean that the connection should be such that the representative does what he’s told every time his chain is yanked. On some issues – uncomplicated ones – he should. On others, I will have to accept his judgment until election time. What I want is a government made up of representatives who themselves have power and dignity not a government made up of precisely what Dalton wants – mere ciphers doing as they are told. I want a system where there is real accountability between those who run the province or the country and the people I elect.

I have often spoken of needing representatives with the courage of their convictions – and I can tell you, that courage is never better tested than when you face the mob and tell them you disagree and that you would like time to let your arguments be tested.

I have never said that the public is always right. What I have said is that a public well informed (which often takes time) is usually right and, if they’re wrong, in a democracy, that’s their privilege.

Very few questions are capable of a yes-no approach. My colleague Peter Warren proved that last week when in a straight question the majority wanted the boat people put back to sea and sent whence they came – some preferred to torpedo the boat. Is that where you’re at, Jeremy? Ignore the law of the land? Send people to a certain death or if I go to far, to terrible perils they are utterly unable to deal with? Is that the kind of Cabinet Minister you would, God forbid, be? Make the law up as you go along?

I’ve spoken for change in refugee laws from the outset but in the meantime stand for due process. You and Reynolds prefer to call people asking for refuge criminals before a word of evidence is heard and to fan the flames of esasily aroused passions. That’s what separates us.

So no, Jeremy, I don’t read the letters to the editor or consult my listeners as a condition precedent to forming an opinion. I just hope that listeners will listen to me, think about what I’ve had to say and decide that when I’m wrong in my head I was still right in my heart.