CKNW Editorial
for April 11, 2001

I get considerable static from BC Liberals because I refuse to believe that they are fully divorced from the federal party. In fairness, no matter what they called themselves, federal Liberals would likely support them. But support is not the operative word ... control is what we're talking about.
Let me throw the matter squarely into the Gordon Campbell/Martyn Brown camp. If your party is not joined at the hip to the federal party, why do you keep their name? Would an ex Ford dealer want to keep being called Ajax Ford when he no longer was associated with the Ford Motor Company and now selling Chevrolets? It would seem to any rational observer, I think, that you want it both ways. You want to be able to pretend to Tories, Alliance members and independents that you are not tied to the federal wing while giving the impression to federal Liberals that this is their provincial home. The fact of the matter is that the federal party exercises such influence within your caucus and provincial wing that you dare not change the name. Why not at least be honest enough to admit it and end the transparent charade.

And a question to federal Liberals - if the BC Liberal party is not connected to you, why do you permit them to use their name? Seeing how important Joe Clark considers the name "Conservative", one has a very hard time indeed believing that you would want to have a BC only party floating about with the same name unless there was a connection.
I stand by what I say - if you believe that there are two separate, discrete parties here I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in.
On another matter but still speaking of Liberals, it’s important that all Canadians understand what is happening in the Beaudoin v Business Development Bank case. Mr Beaudoin is the man upon whom Jean Chretien put the arm lock in order to get money to bail out the Grand Mere Golf Club. Because Mr Beaudoin, a man appointed to the job by Jean Chretien, blew the whistle on his master he was fired. He sues for wrongful dismissal. As we all now know, the bank sent the sheriff into Mr Beaudoin's home to seize and destroy documents. Now here is the important part. The Business Development Bank is in effect run by the PMO - the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister himself appoints the Bank president and the directors. This lawsuit and all its strategy is being run not by some servants of the bank or their lawyers but by the Prime Minister himself. It is truly a national disgrace.

Finally, for the editorial and the Liberals this morning - the case of Stephen Owen.

Mr Owen has a truly remarkable career both in and out of the country for public service. Quite rightly he is very highly regarded both by his constituents and the population at large.

When he was selected by Jean Chretien to be the Liberal candidate in Quadra listeners will remember how I warned Mr Owen what it meant to be in politics.

What happened to Stephen Owen was abominably cruel. As one who himself was naïve as a baby when he went into politics, I can understand how Owen assumed that he would be able to speak his mind on behalf of his constituents and always be true to his principles. We know what happened. On my show he extolled the virtues of having a Conflicts Commissioner answer to parliament not, as is the case of Howard Wilson, a poodle in the prime minister's office. Mr Owen compounded his "error" by expanding on these views with Vaughn Palmer who published them in the National Post. In a humiliating exercise reminiscent of the old way you taught a puppy to have his bowel movements outside, Mr Chretien rubbed Mr Owen's nose in it and he was forced to recant. It was an early and thorough humiliation which let Mr Owen know the rules – namely don’t say anything which might be seen by the Prime Minister as a criticism.

Now Mr Owen faces a very serious question of character. If he accepts office, be it a parliamentary secretaryship or cabinet post he will quite rightly be seen to have sacrificed his principles for political gain. If he does get rewarded, I hope against hope he won’t retreat into the political babble that he can better serve his constituents and his province by being inside the tent. That time honoured political bit of weaseling is suitable to the likes of Sheila Copps or Brian Tobin, not the Stephen Owen we have come to so respect.

In the next few weeks, months at the most, he will be put to the test – stand as an independent voice or make the usual excuses and firmly stick his nose in the Chretien trough.

Then we'll see what sort of stuff Stephen Owen is really made of.