CKNW Editorial
for July 6, 1999

It is right and fitting that Gordon Campbell should propose changes to how we run our affairs in B.C. but he has done so in such a haphazard and ill thought out way that he will, when the people start to think about it, simply annoy them. Just one example – he promises to make better use of Committees of the Legislature. But how? And for what purpose?

This sounds like such a bold move. For as long as I can remember and longer, most committees of the legislature have never met except at the beginning of a parliament when they duly elect as chair the person the premier directs whereupon the new chair adjourns the committee and that’s the last you hear of it. The thought that this might change warms the cockles of one’s heart until it’s remembered that all these committees are dominated by the Premier’s party and by his personal choice of members and chair. Unsurprisingly these committees do nothing whatever to stir up any trouble for the government. Now it can be argued that when these committees actually undertake a task – such as the one on Recall and Referendum, or the one on Aboriginal Affairs - at least the opposition can file minority reports if it chooses. True - but that’s hardly the stuff of parliamentary legend.

Committees are more used in the House of Commons but they are, for the most part, shams. The example of George Baker the late Liberal Chair of the Fisheries Committee is a good example. He asked questions and promoted studies which offended the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, lovable old David Anderson, and got sacked for his pains. Before Mr Campbell can call his proposals reforms, he must show the public that what he proposes is not just a way of keeping government backbenchers’ idle hands from doing the devil’s work.

Mr Campbell’s notion of open Cabinet meetings is a gross insult to the intelligence. Cabinet ministers are bound to an oath of secrecy so what sort of sham meetings would you expect from this exercise? The same as the Bill Bennett government had where we all passed in public the most innocuous crap you could imagine, always making sure that we called each other Mr and Ms and the Premier Mr Premier. It was ludicrous.

I say to Mr Campbell that if he’s serious, he should get serious.

First off, let’s identify the problems.

The parliament elected never comes close to representing the political wishes of the electorate and never will as long as it’s strictly first past the post.

2.Once elected, MLAs, especially on the government side, no longer remotely represent the wishes of their constituents but instead do the bidding, in all matters, of the party leader

3.Because of 1 & 2 the premier and the cabinet have become all powerful and instead of the legislature acting as a check on executive power it is precisely the other way around.

I have expressed my views on these problems here, in my paper inaugurating the Mel Smith Chair on Constitutional Affairs at Trinity Western University and in my book, Canada:Is Anyone Listening? But mine are not the only views – there are many more learned and, I’m sure, many who have thought through the reforms I have suggested and a great many more besides. We have great assets in this province like Mel Smith, Nick Loenen, Gordon Gibson, Professor Ron Cheffens and a great many more besides. Even more importantly, we have a very politically aware public.

If Mr Campbell wants to make an impact – and do some good besides – he should pledge that within 30 days of election he will appoint a royal commission with the widest possible mandate or, perhaps even better, a Constituent Assembly of the best brains in the province, to report back in no more than two years their recommendations, if any, for change. Mr Campbell must also commit to holding a referendum on the recommendations which, because it is known a referendum will follow, will be suitably concise and sober.

Anything less than this is just blowing smoke and will indicate that when Mr Campbell attains power, if he does, it will just be business as usual.