CKNW Editorial
for December 18, 2001

I often hear that I, along with Vaughn Palmer and Mike Smyth, are now the opposition in this province. That is by no means always said approvingly – there are many in my listening audience who don’t want any opposition to the Campbell government, period.

I am not the opposition – and I’m sure that Vaughn and Mike would tell you the same thing about themselves. That is a parliamentary position – or was until the Speaker, Claude Richmond, acting as the Premier’s poodle, denied the NDP that position. But I am in opposition to government, constantly, and let me tell you why and what I think I and others like me should do.

I start with the premise that any idea, not thoroughly cross-examined, is highly suspect. I say that in both a philosophical and political sense.

Philosophically speaking, ideas must be tested. This really is the outgrowth of Francis Bacon and others who rejected the notion that you could, by logic and philosophical building blocks, debate, for example, how many fairies could dance on the head of a pin. Until an idea is fully tested in the real world it should not be accepted. I’m not saying that there are not articles of faith or philosophical musings that can be useful – but they do not belong in the world of government any more than in science.

Politically speaking, there is no fair test when only the proponent’s friends are asking the questions. There are, of course, advantages to having even friends look at the practicality of what you propose but it will never be properly tested until those who don’t care for you very much have a go at them.

Let me give you a graphic illustration. Back about 1980 when I was in government, we passed what is called the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. This is a common vehicle, used at the end of a session, to clean up some housekeeping problems with laws on the books. On this occasion we cleaned up part of the Insurance Act then adjourned the House ands went on summer vacation. The NDP, a vicious and extraordinarily able opposition, discovered that our actions had put a very much alive and well insurance company out of business. The House was hastily recalled and the matter, after a long and embarrassing debate, was put right. This was a service, certainly to the insurance company, provided by a vigilant opposition. This incident demonstrated once again the law of unintended consequences which beleaguers all law-makers.

Government initiatives are not to be trusted for more reasons than that. They may be well thought out but after the government flacks put their spin on them you can be sure than none of their unpleasant features will form part of the press package. Their virtues will be praised to the skies, their shortcomings ignored. Let me give you a current example. The Campbell government, after a firm commitment, especially by the Premier, promised to do very good things in the area of mental health. The premier appointed a minister of state for mental health who promptly announced a blue ribbon committee that was to make sure that all the needs of mental health community were addressed. That done, the minister abolished the office of Mental Health Advocate, assuring the public that because of the organization of the new ministry the Mental Health Advocate was no longer required – the Minister’s bureaucrats and the special committee would perform all her functions. The government’s position was, then, that it had kept its vow.

But had it? Ought it to be left like that? Should there not be some questions asked here?

The Official Opposition is so thin on the ground that they could scarcely get any attention if they wanted to object. But there were objections – lots of them – and I gave voice to some of them. There is a substantial body of opinion in the health field that feels strongly that the only way you can overcome the huge stigma that still prevails re mental illness is to have an independent, legislature appointed voice to speak for those who will not or cannot get into the system. Just as the Ombudsman gives voice to those who cannot get justice from the government the Mental Health Advocate identified problems the government would as soon not know about.

Were the critics right? Am I right? Or is the Minister right? That’s utterly beside the point. What is the point is that there must be a testing of government and ministerial policy if there is going to be full public understanding of what the policy entails. We’re talking about "issues" here … an issue is defined as a point between contending parties … issues don’t become facts because a government says they are.

In fact, I go further. It is essential to any democratic system that the governments feet be held to the fire for no better reason than that the opposition doesn’t like them very much and wants to embarrass them for the sheer pleasure of so doing.

Here is the factor that many ignore. Fans of this government don’t want opposition voices to be heard because they might infect the minds of the none too bright general public. This ignores two critical factors.

First, the none too bright general public is a lot brighter than is thought by stern partisans. One of the most enlightening and refreshing exercises I ever went through was with the Charlottetown Accord debate nearly a decade ago. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians demanded a copy of the agreement. The discussions that took place, not just on my program, but in the pubs, workplaces and dining rooms of this province demonstrated that people could and would understand complex issues.

Second, if you don’t have government propositions properly tested, sooner or later you wind up with government that is even lousier than usual.

This poses difficulties for me and my show. I don’t have a research budget and professional researchers. Nor do, I daresay, Vaughn and Mike though I’m sure they have more available to them than I do. I can’t rely on the other side of the coin being raised by a member of the opposition shadow government because such a thing really doesn’t exist.

We’re going to rely more on outside interest groups to help us with the task of testing government propositions. It will sound strange for a bit but we really have no alternative. It’s a pity that issues are not brought to the public’s attentions through questions raised inside the legislature or out, by those whose elected job it is to raise those questions. But they don’t happen to be there.

Finally, this point. Because I have a certain guest on doesn’t mean I agree or disagree with that guest, be he or she from the government or the general public. When I have an opinion, I assure you that I’ll make that fact plain.

I have a job to do that is unchanged with a new government – I must try to expose all sides of an issue. The only difference is, with such a small opposition my job is considerably more difficult.