CKNW Editorial
for February 20, 2001

The issue of Stephen Owen’s abandoning principles when put to the test is by no means unconnected to the question of citizen initiated referenda.

Under the Edmund Burke theory of representative government your MP should not vote as you might, at any particular moment, wish him to … but what his judgment tells him is correct. The theory is that the elected representative has the time and resources to investigate complicated issues and is thus better able to pass judgment on weighty matters than is the voter. The voter’s remedy, if displeased, is to throw the politician out at the next election – an election where, presumably, the decision in question will be judged along with all other things the politician has done. And there is some truth to that. Many issues are complicated and do require a great deal of research and thought.

The downside of this is that the politician gets to rely upon the notorious bad memory of the voter. Moreover, elections are scarcely much to do with the candidate but much more to do with the government the voter wants in power. What cannot be denied is that since all, and I mean all power rests with the Prime Minister or Premier, the voter across the land feels disconnected from power. The MP (and I will use federal nomenclature for convenience) must always, as Mr Owen demonstrated, always do as he is told. There is seldom any voter punishment of him because the issue at election time is not whether or not so-and-so has been a good MP … but which dictator will one vote for.

This is not to say that there aren’t MPs who consult with their constituents because many do. But you will note that they are all opposition MPs for whom party discipline is much milder than it is for government members whose adverse vote might bring down the government.

The Ethics Counselor vote was an interesting one for here was a motion which, while it might embarrass the government, certainly would not normally be considered one where the government would fall upon defeat. But Jean Chretien, always willing to pull the lash from the top of his jackboots, so as to keep absolute control, declared it to be one of confidence. I suspect he did so to make an example of Mr Owen after his outspokenness on the issue. If a rookie like Owen could get away with this, goodness only knows what sort of independent action could come from other Liberal backbenchers in future.

But what about the use of the referendum?

I favour it’s use provided it isn’t binding. Lest you think I am in favour of meaningless public gestures let me point out that any referendum of the people would only be ignored at the extreme political peril of the government.

There are two forms of referendum – those initiated by the government and those initiated by the people.

I believe the government ought to initiate referenda from time to time. The only time I can remember a BC government doing so was with the referendum in 1991 on referenda and recall. But I see nothing wrong and a lot right with governments taking official soundings of public opinion from time to time, especially as part of a general election.

I also believe that the public ought to be able to initiate referenda with a low threshold of qualification. If the result will be advisory, not binding, there is no harm except embarrassment of the government (which may be a plus rather than a harm) in making it easy to put a question to the people.

Why do I not favour making the referendum binding?

First of all it’s not practical to put before the public all the issues in a simple question. These issues will, it’s true, be put to people during the campaign but they will be, if at election time, mixed in with a lot of other issues and associated debates.

Let’s take the question of capital punishment, which I oppose though I think it is a most suitable question for public debate and vote. How do you frame the question?

Do you simply ask "are you in favour of the death penalty for premeditated murder?" Since very few murders are not premeditated, if only for a few seconds, you would quickly gather into the fold almost all unlawful killing including motor manslaughter. Do you keep the defences of diminished responsibility recognizing that many killings are by people who are, at least momentarily, deranged? Do you make any exceptions for crimes of passion? Do you concern yourself with the matter of mistake which, while not commonplace, would be fatal as hell in murder cases. Does it matter that where we can see the death penalty, in the United States, there is a hugely disproportionate number of poor people, especially poor blacks on death’s row? Does it matter that legal representation for the poor is usually far less skilled than for the rich? Do we leave with the government the residual power to commute?

I hope the forgoing might convince you that such a question might be a very valid referendum question but that because of the complications that would flow from a "yes" vote, before implementation it would need the careful attention of the government.

How about a question "Are you in favour of the Canada Health Act?" How do you or I answer that question from which hundreds of sub-questions attach themselves?

And, if I may be so undemocratic, how do you take into account the passions of a given moment and balance them against legislation and policy of a more leisurely and thoughtful pace?

As I say, I support the notion of referendum whether government or citizen initiated. But ought we not to address the real issue here, namely that Stephen Owen is merely a glaring example of the rottenness of our system? Isn’t our real complaint that MPs don’t listen to us because it doesn’t matter what we say, the Prime Minister will do whatever he damn well pleases?

It may well be that the use of the citizen initiated referendum would make our views plain to the government but what government in Ottawa is going to bring in such a procedure? Surely it would be easier – certainly no harder – to get reform of the system as it would to get those rockheads in Ottawa to agree with citizen initiated referenda.

I think there are lessons to be drawn from the Stephen Owen affair … as there were from the John Nunziata matter and countless other examples over the past decade. The system is rotten to the core and the MP simply no longer can even pretend to represent the views and wishes of his constituent. Until the MP regains his powers and respect of yesteryear we will be governed under what I have called a "soft dictatorship". The Owen case shows how easily an MP can be forced into obedience … until that changes, government in this country will continue to be "top down" with the legislature responsible to the prime minister instead of the other way around as it was intended to be.