LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Re. Supreme Court set to hear Métis rights case in fall session, Sept. 29. Though I haven’t done a poll myself, I strongly suspect we cannot fairly say that the estimated 350,000 to 400,000 Métis and non-status Indians in Canada want the Supreme Court of Canada to rule as those who launched this case are asking. That is akin to attributing the views of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the federal Conservative government to all Canadians.
We can avoid the fiction that the ambitions of the political classes and their lawyers necessarily represent the interests or wishes of their constituencies. I neither need nor wish for another political body to (profess to) represent my interests. Or to interpose itself in my relations with our common governments. We have enough, and invest enough, in politicians of all stripes as is.
As a Métis, I do not share the aspirations or goals of the late Harry Daniels or the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. I am content, rather — indeed prefer — to find my place and future in Canada, and my rights and obligations as a citizen, in common with and as part of a broad multicultural multi-ethnic society. After all, it is not “all about me,” or my particular ancestral group. Better our attentions be directed to those in need, of whatever origin or status, or those which might benefit all. It would be different of course if we were talking about protection from discrimination of the kind that the vast majority of Canadians find intolerable. This case is not that. Paul Collier, Ottawa Re: Harper promises to protect dairy industry in TPP talks, Sept. 30. One of the biggest complaints by the opposition parties, and followed up by many in the media, is that Canadians don’t know what is going on because, as the statement goes, the negotiations are behind closed doors. The implication of course is obvious, somehow we are being duped because negotiations aren’t conducted for all to see. The position, of course, is disingenuous by the opposition leaders and media as well, as everyone knows that negotiations on trade deals are never held in public. Pick a sector, private or public, where parties enter into negotiations, most often on salary, but it could be any number of issues. The parties agree at the outset that they will not negotiate through the media, as this has the effect of jeopardizing the negotiations. Once all the participants have reached an agreement, only then are the details released. This is standard practice. When the media releases speculation of certain aspects of the deal, this is usually the result of someone who has access to the private discussions, and has breached the confidentiality of the negotiations. Often these breaches of information, have the effect of jeopardizing the negotiations. Of course when an election campaign is on, the line between what is real and what is fiction are often blurred, in order to attract votes. Jeff Spooner, Kinburn