CKNW Editorial
for April 10, 2000

In an otherwise excellent editorial in the Weekend Sun the editor concluded "As for Mr Clark[Glen] he would be better earning his $70,000 plus benefits and perks if he showed up in the legislature regularly."

Why, Mr Editor? What would that accomplish? I ask this not out of cynicism but because it’s so obviously unimportant what Mr Clark or any other backbencher does. And I call upon the Southam Press, especially that which is published in Vancouver, to get behind efforts being made by a few to make it plain to the public that the system is broke and the manifestation of that is the fact that it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference to the running of this province if Mr Clark ..,. indeed all the MLAs never showed up. (I will make an exception for the opposition in a minute) but that statement is true enough that I cannot for the life of me understand three things

1. why those who report and have reported on the legislature over the years have always played the game as if attendance in the House was important
2. why there has never been to my recollection a major effort by either Vancouver paper to thoroughly and exhaustively expose the silly game of make believe the legislature is.
3. why the public still believes that what happens in the legislature makes any difference

Now let me state the exception to what I have said. It is critically important that the House sit so that the opposition can test the validity of what the government is doing and see that there is a public glare on what’s happening. Even that, however, is limited by the fact that when such things as huge pay-outs to public servants beyond the accepted standard are made they are done either outside the legislature or when it’s not in session, or both. But other than the above, it makes no difference whatsoever whether or not Mr Clark or any other MLA ever shows up.

This is how government is run. The Premier runs the entire show. From time to time cabinet ministers come to cabinet with proposed legislation, sometimes legislation comes out of some commitment made to the party, on very rare occasions legislation comes from an agitated caucus, most of the time legislation comes from the Premier’s inner circle. Nothing is either done or not done without the express imprimatur of the Premier. He is the monarch of all he surveys. Backbenchers like Mr Clark may, on rare occasions, exercise some influence within caucus as to government policy – occasionally a good idea may spring from the government backbenchers. Mostly, however, caucus is a rubber stamp for what the government, that is to say the cabinet, want to do.

When it comes to policy not resulting in legislation – that is to say orders-in-council passed by cabinet - the backbencher is for the most part shut out of the process. He or she may sit on a Select Committee of the house but in that capacity he’s there to keep the government out of trouble and for the most part these committees, at the order of the premier, never meet.

When the government backbencher is in the legislature itself he has but one job, so accurately set out by W.A.C. Bennett – that is to support the government. He is to support the government at all costs even though he may utterly oppose what’s happening. The occasional bleat of discontent from a backbencher is like Samuel Johnson’s dog walking on its hind legs – you’re not surprised that it’s done well but that it’s done at all.

This is the point – the entire exercise of being a government backbencher has a stench of phoniness about it. You read bills and papers because it keeps you busy. You long for the chance to speak on a government bill so that you can show the premier that you really belong in cabinet or at least should be a parliamentary secretary. You play an elaborate game of make believe astonishingly conspired in by the media and the public. You are as useless as tits on a bull but you act as if you are important and you waste no opportunity to point at your head, like a kid trying to make the baseball team, in hopes that you’ll be noticed so you can get into the room where the big kids play.

It’s true that Mr Clark and others are important to the government when a vote is taken but were it not for the elaborate game I’ve just described that could as easily be done by fax or email.

One thing there is not in any legislature in Canada is debate. This is where the phoniness is exposed for all to see. People see what happens at their city council where there is real debate and an effort to form a consensus opinion and think that happens in the legislature. It doesn’t. Legislative Sessions are called debates but they are nothing of the sort – in the case of government backbenchers they are simply exercises in sucking up to the premier. Debates connote laying out all sides of an argument for decision – by the time a matter his the legislature the decision has already been made and what happens after that is about as sensible and important as the famous trial in Alice in Wonderland.

What I have just said is true. And because it is true we must do something about it. It’s little wonder that the public of British Columbia feel so disconnected from their government – they are disconnected. The situation cries out for reform. And papers like the Vancouver Sun – which under its current editor has really begun to look like a B.C. newspaper, ought to be leading public opinion in a charge to see real change. It’s the ancient duty of newspapers to help reform institutions gone wrong. The parliamentary institution as practiced in this country and in this province is wrong as hell and I hope I soon see the day when newspapers like the Sun and the Province not only employ good incisive reporters on the goings on – which they do – but make a sustained editorial effort to see that the public understands what the real truth is and takes a lead in finding solutions.