CKNW Editorial
for February 9, 2001

The secondary, yet extremely important issue arising out of the Carrier case – and other incidents during the NDP rule – is the question of the duty of cabinet ministers when they find themselves under a cloud.

My remarks today are not directed at the NDP for there is no hope for them. They have very high standards indeed for other people but none at all for themselves. I will only deal with a couple of matters arising out of their terms of governance to illustrate the points I wish to make to Gordon Campbell.

It’s important to understand what the duty of a minister is if he comes under a cloud.

First off, just because a minister brings in unpopular legislation or does unpopular things is no reason for him to resign. What we’re talking about is when the minister is fairly under a cloud because of wrongs done or reasonably perceived to have been done. And what is of paramount importance to understand is that this has nothing whatever to do with the presumption of innocence. When a minister steps down it is not an admission of any guilt nor is the standard for him resigning got anything to do with guilt or innocence. It has to do with the prima facie case and nothing to do with the proof of that case.

Let’s look at some examples from the past. The British standard has been exemplified as recently as a couple of weeks ago when a powerful minister, Peter Mandleson, resigned because, on the face of it, he made a phone call to a junior minister pressuring him to grant a passport to an unsavoury yet generous supporter of his. As the evidence now comes in it would seem that Mr Mandleson is innocent but the point is he stood down while the facts were gathered.

Back in the Attlee postwar Labour government the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the powerful Hugh Dalton, accidentally let slip an inconsequential fact of his forthcoming budget and resigned. In the second Churchill government Thomas Dugdale, the Agriculture Minister, resigned because underlings had deal improperly and unfairly with farmers who had given up land for wartime airports, He did so even though there was no suggestion that he had any personal involvement.

In British Columbia in 1977 Jack Davis was accused of cashing in first class airline tickets bought for him by the ministry, flying economy and pocketing the difference. He was immediately forced to resign even though he believed he had a valid defence and that he would be cleared. In the event, he wasn’t.

During the Vander Zalm days, Attorney-General Bud Smith, in a conversation he thought was private, bad mouthed a lawyer who was dealing with his ministry and promptly resigned. He was later cleared of all wrongdoing. Tourism Minister Bill Reid directed some lottery funds, which he was entitled to direct for certain purposes, to a political pal. Even though there was no wrongdoing and the funds were used for the proper purpose, Reid resigned while this was being established.

Stan Hagen, through an oversight, remained on the shareholder record of a company dealing with the government and he resigned. So did two other Socred cabinet ministers whose RRSP portfolios contained shares in large companies who were subject to regulation by the ministries in question. Peter Dueck, then health minister and a very able one, learned that his deputy, quite outside Mr Dueck’s knowledge, had done some improper things relative to expenses. Mr Dueck promptly resigned and though thoroughly cleared, never did get back into cabinet.

With the exception of Mr Davis, in each case the NDP of the day screamed for their scalps. In Mr Davis’ case, the resignation was in advance of any public knowledge of his questionable conduct.

During the Socred days some of the best speeches on the tradition that a minister under a cloud must resign were given by the NDP opposition. Yet we have seen a NDP Attorney-General … the attorney-general for God’s sake – swear a false affidavit and not resign while his conduct was under investigation. We saw a cabinet minister order an underling to call a judge in a case involving the government and not step down while the investigation proceeded. In the worst of all examples we saw a Premier who was under an intensive investigation for possible criminal activity stay in office until forced out and an attorney-general who, contrary to his duty, refrained from advising Premier Clark of his duty to step aside whilst under a cloud. .

There was a resignation – Dan Miller, who had some residual interest in a forest company when he was minister, was suspended by then Premier Harcourt for six months. The NDP made much of that, yet if they had read their own speeches while in opposition they would have known that it is not the premier who is supposed to suspend but ministers who are supposed to stand down, unconditionally, until their name is cleared.

I suppose the standards that Hugh Dalton and Thomas Dugdale imposed upon themselves are too severe for this day and age. Especially in the case of Mr Dugdale, the implementation of government policy is often so far removed from the minister’s office that it would be unfair to hold him responsible for every ill in the field.

But what is certain is that the standards the Bill Bennett and Vander Zalm governments imposed upon ministers, which clearly met the demands of the NDP of that day, are modern standards and ones which should govern now as they did then.

What Mr Campbell must do, ironically, is make it clear that he will demand of his ministers those standards set down by the NDP when they were in opposition.

In fairness to Mr Campbell he has made this commitment on this show and we must, I think, take his word. Moreover, to Mr Campbell’s credit, he has dealt forcefully with members of his caucus when their conduct was in serious question.

What we must do, however, is be ready to hold him to that commitment when, sure as God made little green apples, he is faced with a cabinet minister in trouble. No better examples of how to behave come from the NDP in opposition – no better examples of how not to behave once in power, come from the NDP government of the past 9 ½ years.

Mr Campbell would do well to constantly assure us that in power he will impose those standards so easy to bleat about from the opposition benches, yet so hard to impose from the government front bench.