Vancouver Province
for November 5, 1999

Today is Guy Fawkes Day commemorating, for some inexplicable reason, a "papist" plot to blow Parliament to smithereens. And it got me thinking about Parliaments, especially the kind we have in Victoria and Ottawa.

There are two schools of thought on how parliaments ought to respond to electors. One follows Edmund Burke’s speech to the Bristol electors in 1774 where he said "Your representative owes you, not his industry alone, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." The other school, supported by the Reform Party of Canada, says that’s a lot of hooey and representatives ought, at all times, to reflect the opinions of voters.

Frankly I think most Canadians want a bit of both but since, under our rigid party system they get no say at all, the argument is an academic one.

Where I think the Reform Party is dead right is where the matter at hand goes to the root of the social compact – such as happened with Conscription in 1944 and Charlottetown in 1992. Where it’s proposed that the way we live and the system we live under will be dramatically altered, forevermore, surely the people must be consulted.

This all by way of leading up to Nisga’a.

Former Premier Clark openly agreed that this treaty would dramatically and permanently alter the way we all live. But he refused to permit the people to vote. He pretended that a government with a tiny majority elected by 39% of the people could make this dramatic change on its own. Now the matter is before the Parliament of Canada.

No one argues that the Nisga’a Treaty is all wrong. But it clearly is wrong on at least three points - it will shut out non Nisga’a from the democratic process; it creates a natives only, ie race-based, fishery; it creates a special form of government which reduces the powers of the federal government and the province and "constitutionalizes" the result. This means that for all intents and purposes this form of government cannot be changed. It also means that by reason of section 35 of the Constitution all other bands are entitled to it as well.

Now let’s test this country’s commitment to democracy. There are only seven MPs from B.C. who count in this exercise – Ted McWhinney, Herb Dhaliwal, Hedy Fry, Raymond Chan, Sophie Leung, David Anderson, and Lou Sekora. They are all members of the Liberal Caucus and, were they to oppose the Nisga’a Treaty as it stands, would defeat it. Dr McWhinney has already voiced some misgivings and I have it on very good authority that the Justice Minister, Anne McLelland, has been told by top Liberal people in B.C. that if local MPs support the deal they will lose all 7 seats.

What, then, do we do if we are against this treaty as it stands?

The logical thing would be to let all seven of these MPs know what we think. But more than that is needed – we must hear how they’re going to vote and why. We have a right to demand to know what their position is.

Of course we do, in fact, know what they’re going to do. One and all will do as they’re told lest the Prime Minister tosses them out of caucus and refuses to sign their nomination papers next time.

But isn’t there anyone who puts duty ahead of the party whip? What about Dr McWhinney, an eminent constitutional lawyer who knows full well the implications of "constitutionalizing" this road to apartheid. He is in his mid seventies and, having been passed over for cabinet (wrongly in my view) this past 6 years, can’t reasonably hope for advancement now. Moreover, he must surely be thinking enough about retirement to be uncaring if the Prime Minister threatens him with dire consequences.

Will no Liberal MP speak out? Are they all so blinded by our rotten system that they will pass, with minimum debate, a treaty that will create political enclaves where rights and privileges depend upon race, which treaty then becomes part of our Constitution?

Will we have demonstrated once more, as if it were necessary, that in Canada we have government by a five year dictator?

Sadly, the answer is yes - Edmund Burke will win and the sheep will once more meekly follow their shepherd. You can bet on it.