CKNW Editorial
for February 19, 2001

Vaughn Palmer’s article in the weekend National Post on Stephen Owen is devastating. It chronicles the corruption by the Liberal whips of a promising MP before he’s even found his seat in the House of Commons. I feel compelled to speak once more on the topic because, contrary to what Vaughn seems to imply, it was on my show that Owen first made his public commitment to a Commons appointed Ethics Counselor – or as we would call it in BC, a Conflicts of Interest Commissioner. But most of all, I feel Mr Owen’s letter to local newspapers cries out for a response.

In writing this letter Owen forgets a great Canadian principle – sometimes it’s third and ten and you should punt. Instead he whines that he’s been misunderstood. I overlook his sniveling that he was elected to be on the government side and not the opposition to get to the meat of his defence. He says - "The issue, as with most, is not as simple as the Opposition would suggest. While I support independent oversight, it is wrong to assume these parliamentary offices are always without difficulty. Independent investigation and reporting powers can be misused – to cause unjust harm to reputations and perhaps compromise criminal investigations. Therefore, independence of Parliamentary commissioner must be carefully balanced and this is more complex than simply making the ethics counselor’s role responsible to Parliament."

This statement is disingenuous in the extreme. It so badly distorts the issue that it could only have been written by a Liberal hack, not a man of integrity.

Of course a parliamentary watchdog could, if not properly constrained by proper legislation, do all these bad things.

But this wasn’t a piece of legislation Owen was called upon to vote on. The motion was a matter of the principle of having the Ethics Counselor report to Parliament, not the Prime Minister. And this is the key. For if this had been the actual bill to appoint a commissioner of ethics by the House of Commons Owen and all MPs would be duty bound to see that the legislation didn’t work the hardships Owen speculates about. In short, Stephen Owen is pulling a sort of bait and switch deal on his readers … unable and unwilling to defend his flip-flop from supporting a Commons appointed Ethics Counselor in principle to opposing it, he debates what such an office should look like. The question was not what should the terms of reference of a Commons appointed Ethics Counselor look like, but should we have one in the first place. It was the principle that was being debated. Here is the motion that was debated

That this House adopt the following policy from Liberal Redbook 1 and call for its implementation by the government: "A Liberal Government will appoint an independent Ethics Counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in the day-to-day application of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials. The Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament."

The plain fact of the matter is that Stephen Owen, on my show and in the National Post vigorously stated his support in principle of just such an Ethics Counselor being appointed by the House of Commons and reportable to it, instead of by and to the Prime Minister, then voted against this idea in principle within a few days of arriving in Ottawa. He simply has no answer to that charge. He was clearly told by the whips in no uncertain terms that he must abandon principle or else … and the ambitious Mr Owen, sights clearly set on a seat at the cabinet table or at the very least a parliamentary secretaryship, abandoned principle the very first time it was challenged.

But while we’re at it, let’s look at the notion of a Commons appointed Ethics Counselor and see what validity Mr Owen's irrelevant letter has.

He frets that "independent investigation and reporting powers can be misused" Of course they can. Just as he could have – but didn’t – have misused his independent investigation and reporting powers when he was BC’s Ombudsman. Anyone with power can abuse that power which is why, in BC, the selection of these officers of the legislature must have the unanimous approval of the special committee set up to recommend the appointment.

Mr Owen frets that such powers can cause unjust harm to reputations and perhaps compromise criminal investigations. Of course they can – all investigations can do that. Does Owen seriously suggest that an investigation by a Commons appointed Ethics Counselor would publicly bring more reputation harming revelations of Prime Minister Chretien’s conduct than the dirt that is being, day by day, raised in the House by Joe Clark? Quite the contrary. The Prime Minister would be able to deflect questions by saying that an officer of Parliament was looking into the matter. In fact Joe Clark and others would no doubt respect that position and take their inquiries to the Counselor himself.

Is it so that a Commons appointed counselor might compromise criminal investigations?

It hasn’t happened in BC where twice a Premier has been under investigation. In fact the Conflict of Interest Commissioner’s report on ex premier Clark has been sealed by the court. This a red herring which further tarnishes Owen’s lame argument.

Stephen Owen closes with a plea that "the independence of Parliamentary Commissioners has to be carefully balanced with accountability, and this is more complex than simply making the ethics counselor’s role responsible to parliament."

Nonsense. Simple barnyard droppings. Of course the counselor is accountable – the issue is to whom shall he account? By the Liberals Red Book of 1993 and the Alliance’s motion it should be to Parliament not the Prime Minister. Is Owen saying that his role as BC’s Ombudsman was not one replete with accountability. Or that Ted Hughes, the long time Conflicts of Interest Commissioner was not fully accountable to his masters, the Legislature as a whole?

But back to the main point. Mr Owen in his letter to the press may indeed answer a question but it’s not the question I and Vaughn Palmer and others have asked which is a simple one – how could you so emphatically and vigorously support the principle that an Ethics Counselor should be appointed by and accountable to the House of Commons then, within days of doing so, vote against precisely that principle?

I’m afraid, Mr Owen, there is but one answer. Like all of your colleagues from BC and all but six of your caucus who abstained or voted for the motion, you knuckled under to the whip. This can only mean one of two things – you did not believe in the principle of accountability to the Commons in the first place, that you did not agree with the role you played so effectively as a servant of the BC Legislature or you bowed to pressure. The six of your colleagues who abstained or voted yes will now be sent to Coventry … they will not be cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries or members of committees in which they have an interest … and they won’t be sent to conferences on tropical isles during the Ottawa winter. Faced with that prospect, unlike the six with courage, you folded. It’s just that simple.