Skip to main content
opinion

I admit it. I was one of the patsies who believed Glen Clark on that day back in 1996 when he announced that the budget was balanced.

In my defence, I was only one of several million living in a fool's paradise. On the eve of China's takeover of Hong Kong, well-heeled refugees were pouring billions into the economy of southwestern British Columbia; the streets were paved with Mercedes-Benzes. Under these conditions, I figured, even the NDP can balance the budget. Hah.

I should have suspected something was up. After all, Mr. Clark made the announcement on the same day that a provincial election was called, and the Liberals and Gordon Campbell were leading the polls. And then, some time after winning the election, he came clean and admitted that the promised surplus had evolved into a deficit due to an unforeseen economic downturn.

Right. After a long, thorough investigation, the province's auditor-general last year told the story of how the government responded to a less-than-rosy outlook from its finance officials by blowing $800-million worth of special Clark helium into revenue projections in order to yield a surplus.

He stopped short of calling the premier and his finance ministers liars, but David Stockell has no such compunction.

Mr. Stockell, a citizen of Kelowna, has made it his personal mission to make the New Democrats pay for what has come to be known as the "fudge-it budget." He believes the NDP violated its own election act by campaigning on a balanced budget while finance department bureaucrats warned of a deficit. Since August of 1996, he has doggedly overcome every roadblock erected by a creative cadre of government lawyers. This week, he finally gets to prosecute his case in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

This is an interesting moment in the history of democracy. Can a government be convicted of fraud for making false election promises? We'll find out in a few weeks. But tiny beads of sweat are starting to break out on NDP foreheads. Only last month, the mayor of McBride, B.C., pop. 700, was tossed out of office by the same B.C. Supreme Court. And, as diligent local reporter Harold Munro found out, the law used to declare the McBride election null and void is almost identical to the election act.

According to Section 152 of the Municipal Act, "a person must not, by abduction, duress or fraudulent means . . . compel, persuade or otherwise cause a person to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate."

The fudge-it budget case hangs on Section 156 of the Election Act: "An individual or organization must not, by abduction, duress or fraudulent means . . . compel, persuade or otherwise cause an individual to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate or a particular political party."

Sadly but inevitably, the NDP's lawyers opened their case on Monday by arguing that there is no difference between the fudge-it budget and Jean Chrétien's bogus promise to abolish the GST. Even if that were so, the argument makes one go hmmm. They seem to be complaining that, if the ruling goes against the government, it will no longer be safe for politicians to tell whoppers to get themselves elected. And this is a bad thing?

For three NDP MLAs, this is not just an interesting exercise in civics. They're the three named in the lawsuit, two of them now cabinet ministers in the new, improved NDP government of Ujjal Dosanjh. If Mr. Stockell wins his case, they are faced with losing their seats, and could be subject to two years in jail, fines of $10,000, and a ban from public office for seven years.

Of course, they're probably just like me: patsies, cited merely because voters in their ridings answered Mr. Stockell's call for volunteers who would swear that they voted NDP because of the balanced budget, uh, claim. But if they lose, the government's credibility -- already on the verge of extinction -- will be irretrievable.

The man who orchestrated the fudge-it budget campaign, Glen Clark, may not even be called to testify -- government lawyers are still trying to keep him off the stand. Still, Mr. Clark is hardly free and clear. He could still face criminal charges in the wake of the Casinogate scandal and, at the moment, he's defending himself in a libel suit over the fast-ferry fiasco, brought forth by a man who alleges, ironically, that the former premier called him a liar.

For years, Mr. Clark dismissed the Stockell case with a characteristic snort. Yet, it could turn out to be his legacy to the people of British Columbia, prompting a historic, across-the-board elevation of political rhetoric. For that alone, Mr. ex-Premier, a grateful province commends you. E-mail: psulli@sullivanmedia.com

Interact with The Globe