CKNW Editorial
for October 19, 2000

Today an open letter to Stephen Owen – and any other Liberal MP hopefuls who might feel moved to answer.

Dear Stephen, I would congratulate you on your victory except there isn’t one. You’ve been appointed by Jean Chretien to run in perhaps the safest Liberal seat in BC – perhaps the party’s only safe seat. You’ve been selected by the Prime Minister and under your party rules democracy is not a necessary ingredient to being a candidate. But it does raise this question – do you not feel just a little bit queasy that you were appointed? I know that you’ve never had to be elected to the other jobs you’ve done but don’t you think it says something about your character that you would accept this laying on of hands? This prime ministerial arrogance which surely could only be accepted by an arrogant person.

Now, Stephen, what are your promises going to be? To represent Vancouver Quadra well? Or to represent the Liberal government in Quadra. There is, I’m sure you’ll appreciate, quite a difference. To be more specific, what will you do when what the government proposes to do is contrary to what most people in Quadra see as their interest?

Perhaps it would be easiest if we use an example of how your predecessor, Dr Edward McWhinney, handled such matters. When then Indian Affairs Minister Jane Stewart tabled Bill C49 in the House which gave powers of expropriation to Indian Bands, the people in Quadra were concerned – especially women living on reserves. Dr McWhinney was dead set against the bill and said so – publicly. When it came time to vote in the House he did as he was told and voted for the legislation. Is this how you see your role – simply do what you’re told? If so, what distinguishes you from a fence-post with hair?

Or will you be telling us that no matter what – even if, as I deem a certainty, you’ve been promised a cabinet post – you’ll speak up for us behind closed doors?

The trouble is, many won’t believe you. Most will believe that behind closed doors in a Liberal caucus is how John Nunziata found it before he was booted out for following the Liberal Red Book and voting against the GST … he told my audience on many occasions that any discussion not in line with party policy is dealt with summarily and that the famous behind closed door talk was always deferential in the extreme. The other problem, of course, is a philosophical one. In a true democracy – which Canada clearly is not – politicians speak their minds publicly so constituents know what they have said and where they stand not in the safe confines of the caucus chamber.

You see, Stephen, the moment you say you are going to do something I can with a clear conscience say you’re not telling the truth – just as Hedy Fry fibbed to us back in 1993 when she said she would put her constituency and he province ahead of the party line. You won’t … and you know it. You will do precisely what you’re told.

Let’s talk of one thing that’s on everybody but the Liberal Party’s mind these days – reform. Reform of the system from stem to gudgeon. And no, Stephen, this is not just an Alliance Party matter and it’s not just Rafe Mair’s favourite theme song. Political scientists and thinkers across the country have seen the evils of our present system and have cried out for reform. The people want reform. The two national newspapers have editorialized in favour of bold reforms and their op-ed pages have had many thought provoking articles on the subject. Where do you stand, Stephen?

Do you favour fixed election dates? Do you favour removing from the leader the power to kill a nomination – sorry, we already know your answer to that one, don’t we? Are you in favour of electoral reform such as the proportional representation your leader promised in the 1993 campaign, which words have never fallen from his lips since? Do you favour members of parliamentary committees being appointed by the caucus, not the prime minister? And do you favour the chairman being selected by caucus without interference from the prime minister? With the committees following an agenda that holds the prime minister and cabinet’s feet to the fire … and setting the agenda they, not the Prime Minister, thinks important? And how about free votes on matters other than fiscal … hell, free votes, period? Are you in favour of curtailing the power of the Prime Minister’s Office and returning it to MPs and thence to the public?

Come to think of it, Stephen, I don’t really care what you think. For if you favour those reforms you’ll never say a peep about them again in public after you’re elected. You’ll quickly become a political whore –just like the rest of them … and there’s one place you’ll never go – this show where both the host and the audience, especially the latter – ask tough questions and demand answers.

I can’t say I’m disappointed in you Stephen since you’re the man who advised Ujjal Dosanjh not to demand Glen Clark’s resignation after he became subject to a police investigation. You’re a good bureaucrat with the bureaucrat’s limited affection for democracy – perfect for a Liberal MP.

Either you know all this – that you will become bound to the party like a leech to raw flesh, that you’ll do precisely what you’re told, that you will support the Fuhrer Principle that grips the Liberal Party, that you will deal with reform like the reactionary your leader is … or you’re a damned fool. As for me, who has watched your career with interest, if I have to choose between cupidity or stupidity I’ll chose the former.

If you have an answer and would like to put it out to my listeners with our questions to follow just call Shiral or Ali who will be delighted to make time available to you on the very shortest of notice.