Vancouver Courier
for May 13, 1998

On April 19th I told you the story of Nunavut, the immense new outrageously expensive "almost" province being created in the North for about 25,000 people and how most MPs went home for an early weekend rather than stay behind and debate the matter. After all, the fix was in, everybody was told how to vote, so why stay?

Then we had the famous ersatz Amending Formula passed by the Chretien government in December 1995. You'll recall that at first this was a four regions veto formula leaving B.C. as part of "the west." Chretien was forced by the howls of outrage from British Columbians to add B.C. as a region but according to John Nunziata, then in the Liberal caucus, there was nary a peep from the B.C. Liberals and it took Brian Tobin from Newfoundland to stand up for this province.

There was the infamous Clifford Olson case where, thanks to the bungling of Allan Rock supported by his B.C. colleagues, Olson got his "faint hope" hearing enabling him to taunt the families of his victims.

Now there's Hepatitis "C", an issue again quarterbacked by Mr Rock who every day reminds me more of Gary Hart, the former American Senator who saw his presidential chances disappear as he waved from the stern of the good ship "Monkey Business", where, surrounded by a bevy of ill clad lovelies, he gave photo opportunities to the cameras on the dock. Both have the raw good lucks of a winning politicians - both are fatally judgment challenged.

There are two issues with Hep "C" - one is the overall question of compensation, the other, "what the hell's the matter with this picture?" The latter is on my mind today though the first one sets the stage for it.

It's a gut issue. Do you compensate before ordered to do so by a court? If you are to settle, what offer do you make? And to whom do you make it - only the victims who have the best legal case of negligence or to everyone?

Most Canadians, I daresay, would think that these questions ought to be settled by our Members of Parliament. Isn't that what we send them there for?

Well the fact is that Parliament would have had nothing to say on the matter had not the Reform Party brought forth a motion to change the government's position. The matter was not only never before Parliament, it had never even been put for consideration to the Liberal caucus! This entire affair, the Liberals hoped, was settled when Jean Chretien ordered the partial settlement. So much for your influence, much less control over your own public affairs!

But, as we know, the matter did come in its roundabout way to the floor of the Commons and rather than have Parliament decide the issue, Jean Chretien decided it for them ordering his submissive acolytes on all the penalties which go with disobedience, to vote against the Reform motion.

Let's look more closely at the process. Here was, without question, a very important issue across the country which affected people of every age and from every walk of life. Yet MPs, in British Columbia at any rate, refused to listen. One victim, Darlene Nicolaas, tried for weeks to contact her MP, Hedy Fry and was finally given an appointment for three days after the Commons vote had been taken.

I suppose you can't blame the MPs - after all it must be pretty hard to face folks under a death sentence and admit you're going to publicly tell them to go to hell.

But the problem isn't the seven Liberal toadies from British Columbia, it's the system. Why should those we elect to express our views be forced, on penalty of losing their jobs, toe to the Prime Minister's line? The fact that no one ever bucks the boss - minor exceptions like John Nunziata and Pat Nowlan notwithstanding - tells us something about how it all works. Surely some of those who let Nunavut, Chretien's amending formula fraud, Olson's "faint hope" and the Hep "C" matter slide through were men and women of decency and honour. It tears the gut out to vote against your conscience or deliberately be derelict in your duty. Either these people have undergone a massive exercise in rationalization or they anguish over deliberately taking what they conscientiously believe to be wrong decisions.

When you think on it, is it any wonder that the country is so anal retentive when there is no safety valve of real dissent (as distinguished from the knee jerk dissent traditional to opposition parties)? Look back to Charlottetown where every government in the nation ordered its members to support the Accord yet in six provinces the people rejected it - in B.C., massively.

How long can we endure as a nation when the will of the people is

persistently - some would say maliciously - thwarted by the people they elect?