CKNW Editorial
for July 21, 2000

I have spent a lot of my time the past half dozen years thinking of ways we can improve our system of governance in this country and in British Columbia and am surprised to learn that there is an appetite for change with BC politicians but none at the federal level. In the better world I envisage, we would have a republican government with the executive divorced from the legislative. This would re-establish the power of the person we vote directly for, the MP and the MLA. At this point we know that the BC Liberals will examine the voting system in BC and my talks with attorney-general Andrew Petter indicate to me that the NDP will go at least that far and perhaps further. Presumably if they do that, the Liberals will move the question beyond just the question of our electoral process.

Thus far there is nothing from the federal Liberals and little to go on from the Canadian Alliance. The Alliance has talked about free voted in the Commons and a reformed senate but that's cheap talk ... in a free vote MPS will still vote the way their leader wants them to because they want to get ahead or retain their cabinet seat ... senate reform is impossible because of the constitutional straitjacket we find ourselves in. What's happened federally is that ever since Jean Chretien, in December 1995, promised a federal veto on any constitutional change that a region is against the body politic has become constipated. What's the point of discussing change if none is possible because Mr Chretien has changed an amending formula into a veto formula.

But let's get back to BC where constitutional reform is more likely. This is a watershed year because there will almost certainly be a change of government. If the only issue in the next election is let's throw the rascals out we'll throw in a new lot of rascals whose instinct it will be to leave things the way they are. After all, why mess with a system that got you elected.

I suggest a number or reforms only some of which need any changes to the law.

1. I suggest that the legislature, in the manner they appoint the auditor-general, the Ombudsman and so on, a Reform Commissioner whose job it would be to investigate the way our government is run, seek input on reforms and advise the legislature. He would be the perfect person to chair a constituent assembly to examine the way British Columbia can be better governed.

2. The Parliamentary rules ought to be amended as follows:- (a) all Committees shall be chaired by a member of the opposition, as selected by that opposition upon whose call the committee will sit. (b) all committee members shall be selected by caucuses in proportion to their number. (c) upon the petition of 1/3 of the legislature then voting, a secret ballot shall be held on any matter about to be voted on.

I have made these recommendations before but permit me to elaborate. We are supposed to have responsible government a term that means that the executive, that is to say the cabinet, is responsible to the legislature, not the other way around as has become the case. The means by which this is supposed to be accomplished is through parliamentary committees which examine what the executive is up to. This has not happened in Ottawa or Victoria especially the latter. My proposal would have the committees revived if only because the opposition would have the power to call it into session and set, at least in part, the agenda. It's true that the government members would still be able to out vote the opposition but of huge importance is that issues would be aired ... and if the government stonewalled, this would be evident. As it presently stand almost all committees only meet once ... at the beginning of the session the government appointed chair calls a meeting then promptly moves its adjournment sine die, which is Latin for meaning never again. The appointment by caucus itself would mean that Committees would be responsible to caucus members, which is to say ordinary MLAs, not the government.

The secret ballot suggestion has caused some concern. Many say "But I want to know how my member votes." The trouble with that argument is that you already know how your MLA will vote ... precisely as they are told. The reason we have secret ballots in elections is so there will be no coercion.

Why should the MLA be subject to coercion? A secret ballot would ensure that a government had a very good handle on how all MLAs felt meaning that it would no longer be able to bully government MLAs. There are other very important issues which require public debate but the foregoing are reforms that the government can make without any legislative change. They are changes which both practically and psychologically will return power to the person you elect - the MLA. Members of all parties, I humbly submit, ought to fight tooth and nail to have these reforms promised as part of their party's next pre election platform.