Vancouver Province
for May 28, 1999

"It is the duty of an opposition to oppose." This succinct declaration of one of the basic premises of parliamentary democracy was uttered by Lord Randolph Churchill 120 years ago and it's as apt today as it was then. "The government proposes and the opposition opposes" is another definition of parliamentary government in a nutshell.

We don't operate on government by negotiation basis. Nor should we. As with all rules, there are exceptions. There are bills which, occasionally but very occasionally, are passed by parliament unopposed. Perhaps for a statue for a fallen hero or help to places ravaged by a great calamity. But even in the most innocent of bills there is something which can only be discovered and properly thrashed out in the crucible of debate.

It's instructive to note that during the worst days of World War II, during the blitz and threat of Nazi invasion, the House of Commons sat as usual and debated as usual. In fact one MP, Emanuel Shinwell, was a constant and very well informed critic of Churchill's leadership with the uncanny ability to have facts and figures which caused much squirming on the government front benches. Shinwell was certainly considered a minumental pain in the ass by Churchill but not for one second was his patriotism called into question simply because he was doing his duty as a member of parliament. Churchill, who bore the cares of the entire world on his shoulders for much the war was subjected to two motions of non confidence which he successfully fought. Again, no one suggests that the proposers or supporters of those motions were unpatriotic.

I shudder to think what would happen if we embarked upon a practice of consensus government as they apparently have in the new "near province" of Nunuvut. Politicians are worry enough but when they all agree with one another it is indeed time to count the silverware.

A proposition vigorously tested by the opposition has a very healthy aura to it. If nothing else, it often exposes unintended consequences. Those who propose legislation - and here I speak from considerable personal experience - are notoriously bad at noting these unintended consequences just as a writer can edit, re-edit and edit again and not spot a clanger which is quickly spotted by an editor who has no pride of authorship.

Moreover, it's a rare bill that doesn't have parts of it which are highly offensive to some. In a democracy, those contrary have a right to see their case put before the bill becomes law.

What's this all in aid of? A serious criticism of the opposition parties in Ottawa and especially the Reform Party which is, after all, the Official Opposition. From the outset Preston Manning ought to have been on the Prime Minister's case about the NATO action in Kosovo. This wasn't a question of national security where we must all rally 'round the flag - this was Canada getting into an undeclared war.

Questions abounded. How could Canada, not just a member of the United Nations but a member of the Security Council, sidestep that organization and help President Clinton and Tony Blair turn NATO from a purely defensive organization into a highly offensive one? How much say did Canada have in all this? Did she take steps to try to live up to her duties as a member of the Security Council and persuade members of NATO to reconsider? Did Canada canvass the views of Russia and China and find out not only why they opposed the NATO war but what alternatives they proposed? What sort of commitments were we really in for? What were the objectives and what was the 'exit strategy". These and countless other questions should have been asked and still should be. And here is the point - it doesn't matter whether Mr Manning and all his MPs think that the Kosovo war is a marvelous idea, he has the duty to oppose it so that all possible considerations are aired and debated.

The argument that once "our boys" are fighting we should support them is a laudable one but it became pretty shopworn in the latter years of the Viet Nam war when more and more people saw the conflict as immoral and unworthy of their country. "Our boys" would be far better served if the Opposition back home was doing its duty and asking whether or not they should be risking their lives in the first place.