CKNW Editorial
for July 23, 1999

What I want to talk about this morning is scarcely new but is initiated by a caller yesterday who expressed the frustrations, I daresay, of many of you. What can we do, he asked, to make governments more responsive to the voters? In fact I think he asked how we can make them at all responsive..

Let’s approach this the way law students brief a law case … we’ll look at the facts, the issue then our judgment and the ratio for it.

The facts are that we are governed under what is called a parliamentary democracy or as some say, responsible government, the word “responsible” being used in the sense of the executive (as we would call it the cabinet) being responsible to the legislature or parliament. (I’ll use provincial terminology throughout though merely changing legislature to parliament and premier to prime minister will equate the argument to the federal scene.)

The issue is this – over a period of time the responsibilities have become reversed. Instead of the cabinet being responsible to the legislature, and thus the people who elect its members, it’s now quite the other way around. These facts are contradicted by the politicians who disingenuously argue that the premier and his ministers are still beholden to the legislature because the legislature has the power to vote non confidence in them but the fact is that this is nonsense from a practical point of view. Such is the hold the Premier has on all of the levers of power even a premier as bad as Premier Clark cannot, for practical purposes, be deposed.

Another fact is that politicians constantly deny that there are problems. This is because it is the problematic system that took them to power in the first place so why should they want to change? Even politicians out of office will only speak against the system until they’re in power when they too will suddenly approve the system that put them in office. In fact oppositions always promise, in vague unenforceable statements, that they are different and will surely bring in reforms. The fact is they never do and never will unless the people act.

The politicians also say that the people don’t care about these esoteric things – they’re more interested in jobs, in health care, in taxes and the like. Yet this show and other media outlets have time after time proved these politicians wrong. People do care – it’s in the politicians’ interest to pretend otherwise.

The issue is, does this system cry out for change and the answer, and a full throated one at that, must surely be yes.

Then what do we do about it?

It’s no use relying on politician’s speeches for they ring hollow indeed after the election has been won. It’s no use relying upon resolutions at political conventions for they are merely guidelines at best. The people themselves must grasp this issue and force politicians to make changes.

How is this done?

It’s done by all of us, in whatever way we can, making the politicians see that this is a critically important issue that can’t be shouted down by those who love the status quo. We do this in a number of ways but the most effective one is by joining a political party and insisting that any candidate chosen pledge for reform. Moreover the people must insist that their vote cannot be counted upon unless reform is not just promised but pledged in the most solemn way.

But it goes much deeper than that. We have a pledge on this program by the Liberal leader to being in a forum for debating reform and a pledge that any recommendations brought forwards be put to referendum. This is excellent as far as it goes. But the devil is in the details. Mr Campbell proposes sort of a grand jury of ordinary people. Fair enough except the problem is a complex one and the process must contain some expertise. Without doubt all British Columbians must be able to participate but I think most of us have questions to ask before we make dogmatic statements. If we do this, what will happen? Will it mean that something else must be done too?

I think a good way would be this, or a variation – have the first legislature after the election select the Chair of the Constitutional Reform Committee, by 2/3 majority and give him of her power to appoint, say, five assessors to sit with him, these assessors to cover the broad spectrum of the community. The Committee would have two years to seek input from the entire community and make, if it deems it appropriate, recommendations which, by the legislation setting up the committee, must be put to public referendum no later than one year from their being made. I believe that a constituent assembly drawn by lot or some other method of chance, while it sounds democratic, simply does not bring to the exercise the expertise necessary. On the other hand, for the process to work there must be the widest possible public input and the committee must give all British Columbians a chance to be heard.

I have on other occasions set out what I think ought to be done but that’s no more than one man’s opinion. All opinion, as fortified by such expertise as is necessary, ought to be put forward. There should be nothing sacred.

The point is that to do this, or something like it, must be a solemn pledge of any political party seeking election.I personally think that this is the most important issue before us because all others cannot be satisfactorily handled unless we have a system which takes the elitism out of government.

Finally just a word on a constituent assembly such as the famous one which settled the American Constitution in 1787. That was perhaps the most unbelievable unto miraculous group of men ever assembled. But one must remember that this came in an era where the franchise was limited and where the entire question of governance had been not only debated but fought for but a few years earlier. This was the only real issue of the day and while it might be called a constituent assembly these were hardly ordinary people. The movers and shakers like James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were steeped in the pros and cons of the various options open to them and were learned men. On the other hand, the people of British Columbia have the advantage of seeing the results of the labours of these men and are able thus to judge the good and the bad.

What we cannot permit is further delay. I’m not saying the sky will fall if we don’t effect change in the next few years – the ability of Canadians to muddle along is justly famous. But if we the people really do wish to regain control of our affairs the opportunities presented by the next election are too good to pass up.

You can bet your life the politicians are not going to do anything except under great pressure. And, speaking frankly, I’m not going to be here forever to help you hold their feet to the fire.

It’s up to all of us to do every thing possible to make sure all parties going into the next election not only have promises of reform on their agenda but a solemn pledge as to how it is to be accomplished.