CKNW Editorial
for November 24, 2000

I have already voted Alliance … I firmly held my two nostrils and made my ‘x’. Let me share with you my reasons.

I had no trouble eliminating the NDP and the Tories. The NDP have nothing to offer but tired nostrums and the Tories are a spent force which at its best doesn’t represent my view of this nation.

The Liberals are also pretty easy to rule out – you can see that I used a process of elimination – for a number of reasons, the major one of which is they’ve not only become what I call a "soft" dictatorship in this country they seem quite pleased that this should be so. The country is run by a petty tyrant who wishes to perpetuate his reign.

Moreover, if Nixon was no crook, then neither is Chretien. That’s the best I can give him. Quite apart from all other considerations I don’t see how anyone can support a Chretien toady – all Liberal candidates are that – given his actions over the Business Development Bank. Here we have a Prime Minister leaning on a bank manager he appointed to be the head of the crown corporation,to loan $615,000 to a crook and crony of Chretien’s to bale out a hotel in which Mr Chretien once had an interest and in which he may still have an indirect interest. This man hid his serious criminal record from the bank which rejected his proposed loan as being too risky. Now remember, this is a tax funded bank that is a bank of last resort … they make risky loans all the time but this one was too much for even them. Not only did Chretien put the arm wrestle on the poor president, Francois Beaudoin, he summoned him to the Prime Minister’s mansion at 24 Sussex Drive to do so. Not a single payment was made on the loan, it is being foreclosed and the bank manager has taken the fall.

The second reason is Mr Chretien’s remarkable admission that he can’t deal with Western Canada. This is something Western Canadians have been trying, without success, to get Liberals to confess to for a long time. There is, it is now quite obvious, a very good reason why Mr Chretien avoids this audience like the plague. He doesn’t understand you and doesn’t have any idea of, much less sympathy with where you’re coming from. In 7 years in office Mr Chretien has refused to speak to the largest audience he could possibly hope to reach in this province because he doesn’t understand us. Can you imagine that – here is a chance, as often as he likes, for the prime minister to speak to all of you and he refuses.

Because I might be rude to him? What kind of a gutless leader would hide behind that excuse. No, the Prime Minister of Canada, who would have another four year in the dictator’s chair, thinks that he discharges his obligation to the third largest province in Canada by attending occasional $500 dollar a plate Liberal fundraisers. It is for his loyal footsloggers the Liberals would have you vote.

Let me tell you this – the eminent Stephen Owen is no better a candidate than the unsavoury Lou Sekora – they are both running for the privilege of doing what Jean Chretien tells them to do.

But why then vote for Stockwell Day?

I have a lot of reservations about Mr Day and his party but they have got two things going for them – apart from not being Chretien and the Liberals that is.

First, they represent what for many British Columbians is their vision of the country, namely not some amalgamation of "two founding nations", which is historic nonsense, but a federation of ten provinces equal before the law. This is pretty basic stuff but of all four parties the Alliance is the only one that stands for equality of the provinces.

Second, they stand for reform of our outdated parliamentary system which has brought us the "soft" dictatorship I speak of. Mr Day doesn’t go nearly as deeply into the root of the rot as I would like to see but he, again, represents the only party that is even talking about reform.

I think there is a third reason that could be added – by and large Alliance MPs have done good work for their constituencies. It’s true they’ve been able to operate free from the ironclad discipline binding the Liberal lickspittles and it might be different if they were in government. But my question is this – why should I give a second chance to the Liberals who showed no independence from their master at all rather than give a first chance to the Alliance who at least stand for MPs who put their constituencies before the comfort of their leader?

No one will ever like all things about all parties or have any politicians or parties that don’t create misgivings. Perhaps it’s all down to Mair’s Axiom II which says, "you don’t have to be a ten in politics – you can be a three if everyone else is a two." At the very least Stockwell Day and the Alliance Party are threes in a sea of twos.