STATEMENT OF POSITION
Spencer / O’Neil - Interview - November 25, 2003
The Interview
Peter O’Neil, who mysteriously secured a copy of a November 5, 2003 email sent by Mr. Larry Spencer to a colleagues’ constituent, initiated this interview. The email in question also contained an attachment of an email that had been sent to all Canadian Alliance Members. The attachment was a copy of a letter sent to a Senator by Stephen Gray, expressing his opposition to Bill C-250, wherein he quoted (Michael Swift, “Gay Revolutionary” in the February 15, 1987 issue of the homosexual newspaper Gay Community News and was reprinted in the 15-21 February 1987 Congressional Record.) Mr. Spencer’s brief email was an innocent response to a fellow colleague wherein he noted the quote made by Michael Swift in 1987, which was part of Stephen Gray’s letter to a Senator, which was in turn copied to all Canadian Alliance Members. How Peter O’Neil obtained a copy of this email has been undetermined and for these discussions is not relevant at this time.
The core of Mr. Spencer’s discussion with Peter O’Neil was based on the attachment. Larry Spencer never said homosexuality should be placed back in the Criminal Code. He indicated that he would not have supported Pierre Trudeau’s amendment to the Criminal Code.
Larry Spencer, under severe pressure from a predatory member of the media, on the fourth and same question, conceded that given his personal moral convictions he would support legislation introduced by his caucus or a colleague that would have the effect of reverting back to the pre 1969 Criminal Code. This was purely a hypothetical question, which should never have been responded to and nor would it have been if Mr. Spencer believed the interview was any thing other than an informal discussion. In fact, Mr. Spencer expressed a sense of concern and caution to O’Neil that he was being more open in explaining the context of the attached document than he should be and was entertaining the discussion against all advice.
Under questioning by Peter O’Neil, Larry Spencer emphatically denied that he would ever bring forth legislation to re-criminalize homosexuality, as was set out in the Criminal Code pre 1969. In response to a further hypothetical question, Larry Spencer finally conceded that he would likely support a colleague’s motion to revisit the Criminal Code. This is where the story was spun out of control by the media at large. This, in spite of the fact the Victoria Times Columnist reported, “Spencer said he wouldn’t want homosexuals to ever go to jail as a result of their choice to engage in homosexual acts. I wouldn’t even suggest that there be a penalty.”
It is clear that O’Neil was out to damage the reputation of Spencer and his party. The comments about Spencer being from the US, being a pastor, being old (61), having only received his citizenship in 1999 and having only narrowly defeated John Solomon of the NDP disclosed O’Neil’s intentions in this regard.
Notwithstanding the above, Mr. Spencer is very clear that he made a serious error in judgment in believing that his discussions with O’Neil would not be reported. Peter O’Neil gave no indication that Mr. Spencer was being interviewed for a story, only that he was seeking clarification regarding the information referred to in the constituent’s email. Mr. Spencer has learned a valuable lesson that he will never have to learn again. He regrets immensely and with a deep sense of pain the political tension he caused the leader, his party and more personally his friends and colleagues and the general public who have been left to believe the contrived, exaggerated and false statements that he has not been allowed to refute. A statement of clarification along with Mr. Spencer’s statement of apology would have been appropriate and helpful at the very beginning. However, at the direction of caucus leadership, Larry Spencer remained silent to the detriment of the Leader, the Party and himself.
The Problem
The timing of Mr. Spencer’s interview was ill timed, but was unintentional. It was on the eve of the merger and was perceived to be an unexpected stumbling block to a successful agreement for the Conservatives and Alliance to merge. This was only a perception as the vote to merge was equally strong even in Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre. In short, it was not an issue or a problem.
The other perceived problem was how this would affect Mr. Harper’s leadership and whether or not it would brand the new Conservative Party as being opposed to liberal social conservatives. The reality is quite different than the perception. Our office has received hundreds of letters on this subject and a majority is supportive of Larry Spencer’s views and extremely upset with Mr. Harper’s handling of Larry Spencer. Stephen Harper’s harsh and hasty judgment of Larry Spencer undermined the trust that many social conservatives had in him as leader.
Further, it would be unreasonable to blame Larry Spencer for any notion people may hold that the Conservative Party is unreceptive to social conservatives. The reality is that the Reform, Alliance and Conservatives have traditionally been significantly different than the Liberal Party when it comes to how we view social policy. Ironically, it is Mr. Spencer who has a record of addressing these very issues. I point to Mr. Spencer’s most recent rational commentary in the Hill Times. Larry Spencer is a strong proponent of responsible and equitable social policies that will serve all the families of our nation.
The prompt disciplinary action taken by the leadership of the party and the caucus was believed to be the absolute correct decision. Mr. Spencer had no representation to assist him in his meeting with Mr. Harper and his supporters. Decisions were made based on media headlines without fair consideration of relative and important facts that would have been provided by Mr. Spencer had he not been under the heat of the moment. This was unjust and not without consequences to both sides. Mr. Spencer was then and still is prepared to accept full responsibility for the facts regarding his conversation with Peter O’Neil. A statement of clarification and apology by Larry Spencer, prepared jointly with the OLO, at the time would have put this issue to rest. Stephan Harper’s prompt and stern intervention to bury Larry Spencer has failed to bury the issue.
This set the stage for one of the most humiliating, disgusting, insensitive and brutal attacks on a Member of Parliament only equaled by those personal attacks made on Stockwell Day, who has rebounded to proudly serve as a respected Member of Parliament. Larry Spencer deserves an opportunity to rebound. He has carried all the pain and humiliation while the party has attempted to reassure itself that they made the correct decision in firing Larry Spencer, stripping him of his critic position, removing him from caucus, having him sign a statement of apology hastily prepared, leaving him to bear the weight of his critics in the media and the general public without any opportunity to fight back due to his trial by fire and the gag order placed on him. If this wasn’t bad enough the gag order was also placed on me, as his Executive Assistant, with my 41 years of political experience dating back to John Diefenbaker. Houston, we got a problem!
The Solution
While others have been leaving the Conservative caucus Larry Spencer has been trying to get back in and be part of the solution. Is the big tent too small to accommodate Larry Spencer? Can we tolerate every person in Canada, but Larry Spencer? To this point, Larry Spencer has bowed to every demand of his party. He has asked for forgiveness. Is the Conservative Party unforgiving? Are the party’s leadership and Larry’s caucus colleagues and friends unwilling to forgive one of their team players who is desperately pleading to rejoin his caucus family. I suppose it must be stated that Larry Spencer is a rookie M.P. and has only made one mistake in three years. Can one mistake be traded off against all that he has contributed to his leaders, his caucus, his party and his constituency?
Larry Spencer’s constituency was won by the NDP in every election since 1966 until Larry’s historical victory in 2000. Nowhere in Canada are the NDP stronger than in the City of Regina and no one is better positioned to hold this constituency at the next election for the Conservatives than Larry Spencer. If Larry Spencer’s name is not on the ballot for the Conservatives at the next election we will lose more than his constituency. Larry Spencer is the anchor for the Conservatives in the City of Regina.
If the Conservative caucus can be so gracious as to allow Larry Spencer to rejoin the caucus he is committed to working hard to make up for his mistake. He is committed to submitting himself to a set of reasonable conditions that will be applied to him upon his re-entry to caucus. He is prepared to never again conduct an interview with the media on any issue and that all media inquiries will be managed by me personally in accordance with party policy and discipline as set out by the leader and the caucus. He is prepared to submit all communications from his office through the OLO Director of Communications.
These commitments will include the writ period and post election in the likely event that Mr. Spencer wins his nomination and holds the constituency of Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre for the Conservative Party at the next federal election. Mr. Spencer’s only request is that he be allowed to quietly retain his moral and personal integrity, rejoin his caucus, work hard as an honest team player, regain and earn the trust of his colleagues and be allowed the simple virtue to earn as much trust and respect as this good and decent man is prepared to give. His heart is in the right place and as big as the entire Conservative caucus and to his strongest opponents let me assure you his head too is in the right place. Larry Spencer has reached out to his caucus in every way he knows. He is a man of significant honour.
I respectfully ask the Conservative caucus to accept Larry Spencer back into caucus on the conditions and commitments that have been set out in this statement. Larry Spencer can offer no more. He will not fail you.
Larry Birkbeck