Vancouver Courier
for December 16, 1998

The NDP. can’t get away with it. Can they???

The Moe Sihota affair cannot be simply left to peter out, to drift off into the political sunset. For the Sihota affair graphically illustrates just what the NDP has been able to get away with since 1991 - abusing and misrepresenting the parliamentary traditions which cover such matters.

This has been a deliberate NDP policy too - at least you have to assume that on the evidence, for prior to their election in 1991 no more eloquent statements of parliamentary traditions were to be found than those speeches of NDP hellcats demanding the resignations of wayward Socreds.

The rule is a simple one. If a minister comes under a cloud he must resign, not to be reinstated until that cloud is lifted. Now it has to be a reasonable cloud - it must go to the ability of the minister to continue as one of Her Majesty’s court of advisers.

The reason for this rule is simple - under our parliamentary traditions a minister must be above reproach. This doesn’t mean that he must be flawless - his political competence is not in issue.

What is in issue is his moral ability to hold the highest post the state or province has to offer.

What is not involved is the presumption of innocence. The minister does not resign because he has been found guilty of something - he resigns because his moral right to discharge his duty has been called into legitimate question.

What should have happened in the Sihota case?

Simple. About three weeks ago it was alleged that Mr Sihota had contacted the Motor Carriers Commission about an application before it for a limousine licence. The applicant was a close friend of Mr Sihota’s who indeed had guaranteed a large mortgage for him.

At this point, Sihota having admitted making a call (it turned out to be much more than that), it is clear that on the face of it he has behaved improperly. He has, if the evidence bears out the alleagation, interfered in a quasi-judicial function on behalf of a crony. He should have resigned forthwith, pending the outcome of the investigations to come.

Having failed to resign, Mr Clark should have fired him.

This was always the practice followed by the Socreds.

Bud Smith resigned the moment a tape was released having him bad mouthing a lawyer in private practice.

Peter Dueck resigned the moment it was alleged that one of his expense accounts was improper.

Bill Reid resigned while in Europe when his lotto grant to a political supporter was questioned. (All three, incidentally, were later cleared of any wrongdoing.)

(It is interesting to note the Jack Davis case of 1978. Mr Davis, under investigation for fiddling expenses refused to resign. Premier Bill Bennett promptly went in to the Legislature and did it for him.)

Ever since Mike Harcourt came to power in 1991, the NDP have consistently ignored this practice, a practice they articulated with such eloquence when it was Socred ministers under the gun.

Perhaps the most blatant example was when then Attorney-General Colin Gabelman who swore a false affidavit. Mr Gabelman indulged in the most unusual and improper practice of getting personally involved in abortion case prosecutions because he was such a devout feminist. Despite the unusualness of this practice he swore an affidavit that he had not attended such a meeting. This, on the face of it, was perjury. Premier Harcourt did not force him to resign but appointed a Crown Counsel who billed the Attorney-general’s ministry $150,000 the previous year, to investigate.

Mr Gabelman, an attorney-general for God’s sake! under suspicion of perjury, sailed on as if nothing had happened.

The reasoning of both Mr Harcourt and Mr Clark is enfuriating because it successfully (sometimes) clouds the issues and makes it appear that a resignation would be unfair to the minister who ought to have "his day in court".

This rule has nothing to do with fair treatment of the minister - it has everything to do with the public’s trust in the government system. It has nothing to do with "presumption of innocence" - it has everything to do with maintaining the integrity of a high public office.

There is another aspect to this. When Premier Clark, a couple of weeks too late, announced that Sihota’s conduct would be investigated he appointed his own deputy minister Doug Macarthur to do the investigating. It would have been just as appropriate to appoint Mrs Sihota.

Doug MacArthur is nothing more nor less than a NDP hack appointed to high office because of his politics. He may have ability too but that would be a bonus.

This shamefully handled affair ought to be referred to Conflicts Commissioner Ted Hughes for guidelines. If I were to make representations to Mr Hughes I could do much worse than simply refer him to speeches by the NDP when they were in opposition. They were masterful expostulations of how Cabinet Ministers ought to behave in embarrassing moments.