Vancouver Courier
for November 4, 1998

Much of the political leadership in this country, past and present, is utterly disconnected from the public. In a recent letter to this paper former Premier Mike Harcourt, in a limp response to demands for a referendum on Nisga’a, demonstrated why he’s no longer premier. Leaving aside the assertion that I was part of the 1990 Socred government (I left government in January 1981) Harcourt proves beyond doubt that the present difficulties are mostly due to his lack of consultation with the public. The reason he didn’t ask people whether they approved of a form of aboriginal government which dramatically reduces provincial powers forever, whether they were happy with an aboriginal only commercial fishery or agreed with few if any rights for non aboriginals is that he feared the answer. Now that many British Columbians wish to express their opinions as they did with Charlottetown in October 1992, Mr Harcourt proves (as if proof were necessary) that he’s neither New nor Democratic. He disapproved of the Charlottetown process because he didn’t like the result and has no desire to see the elite thwarted once again over his baby, Nisga’a.

Harcourt, once a lawyer, baldly asserts that there is no constitutional question because the government has a legal opinion. I learned very early in my law practice that legal opinions aren’t worth a damn compared to judgments and that invariably there are two irrefutable legal opinions for every lawsuit.

The NDP hate popular democracy with a passion. One need only look at the delays they manufactured to avoid quick passage of the referendum and recall initiatives supported by over 80% of voters in the 1991 election.

Nisga’a goes to the very root of our social compact in B.C. – as Glen Clark openly agrees. As did Charlottetown. The real and only reason the NDP won’t permit a referendum is fear of the outcome.

Mr Harcourt’s heirs will likely avoid a referendum. But there will be a price to pay for pushing this through without the consent of the people. And it may well be a very high one.

Speaking of politicians out of touch, Joe Clark ranks right up there with Mike Harcourt, Dave Barrett (who now shills for Ken Georgetti in the Globe and Mail) and the one time king of local populists, Gordon Wilson.

During the leadership campaign, Joe avoided me like the plague though in other times, he loved to come on my show and bash Pierre Trudeau. The reason is not personal dislike – though that may be there too – but because he knows what the questions will be.

Joe, you see, has never accepted the Charlottetown result. He believes that the people didn’t understand. He devoutly believes they were confused. He actually believes that voters in B.C. and Alberta might overlook his tired, old, discredited position on national unity, cast out the Reform Party and flock back to the Tory blue.

Joe’s self delusion would be exposed after 30 seconds on air and even if I somehow didn’t raise the "unity" issue, he would be demolished by callers just as he was in October 1992 during Charlottetown.

Hugh Segal, on Don Newman’s Politics on CBC NewsWorld, laid it out for all of us last week. The Tories would concentrate on Canada east of the Lakehead. Mr Segal knows that you can’t be in favour of special treatment for Quebec in one half of the country and against it in the other so he picks the East destroying the "national" party concept in Canada in the bargain.

Which brings us to the United Alternative movement, which is holding a convention in February. What Preston Manning grasps is that what matters, post Charlottetown, is not the leadership of the Conservative Party but the people who used to vote for them. Joe Clark, Hugh Segal and the Conservative caucus can huff and puff all they like about how they will rebuff the United Alternative and boycott their convention but who cares? It’s the voter who matters.

Whether or not the United Alternative comes to anything is a big question, part of which will depend upon how it is perceived. If people see it as simply a "unite the right" notion to extend Reform’s political base into Ontario, it will be stillborn. The "right" represents only about half of the voter base required to beat the Liberals. Moreover, essential to appealing to Ontario voters, so critical to toppling the Liberals, is toning down the Art (off to Singapore to see how flogging works) Hanger image of Reform and demonstrating a policy which, while fiscally sound, is considerably gentler than that implied by Reform.

The Reform "national unity" policy of equality of provinces with readjustment of powers to suit Quebec and all other provinces, while perhaps fuzzy, has appeal to both sides of Thunder Bay and presumably will be approved by the Convention.

The United Alternative may not be the right alternative but Joe Clark and the Tories sure as hell isn’t either.