CKNW Editorial
for October 11, 2000

We have spoken about the dictatorial powers of premiers and prime ministers. There is no question but that the entire concept of "responsible" government has been set on its ear. Now the word "responsible" in this context doesn’t mean a government that will behave properly but denotes a system where power comes from the representatives of the people who support or otherwise the government which is drawn from their ranks – thus a prime minister and cabinet that are "responsible" to the legislature for their office. The theory is that since the prime minister must have support of the majority of the parliament in order for him and his handpicked cabinet to stay in power that the majority of the parliament therefore is in control. In fact this is not so. I have only been able to find one example in Canadian history where a government, having control of the House, lost a vote of confidence and that was Sir John A Macdonald in 1873 over the Pacific Scandal. And those were the days when party discipline was not nearly what it is today. The reality is that the prime minister controls the Commons, and does so all but absolutely, not the other way around.

There are many ways a Prime Minister keeps control of his backbenchers. There is a long list of sticks and carrots he can draw from. There is one stick, however, which makes all else pale into insignificance. It is found in section 81.(1)(h) of the Canada Elections Act where, and I paraphrase, a candidate wishing his party’s endorsement to show on the ballot papers, must have the leader’s signature on a document giving party approval. In British Columbia the endorsement must be signed by at least two officers of the party in question … but it amounts to the same thing since no party officer is going to over-ride the wishes of the leader.

This is the ultimate power because it is all but impossible for an independent to be elected in a modern Canadian election. This means, in effect, that the prime minister and all the premiers have the political death warrants of their MPs and MLAs in their hip pockets. What backbencher knowing this will ever cross his leader? Who would dare raise a word of dissent knowing that he could be dead meat if he did?

Now this doesn’t remove all contrary opinions from caucus but it does mean that a backbencher – indeed a cabinet minister for that matter – is very careful indeed how he puts things. When your MPs like Herb Dhaliwal say that they make B.C.’s case from inside the caucus room you can imagine how passionate the pleas are when the prime minister doesn’t agree.

In fairness to Jean Chretien, he hasn’t said a word about reform since the 1993 election when he promised proportional representation, a promise forgotten as quickly as his ones on the GST and Nafta. But others have talked reform including the NDP in Victoria and Stockwell Day on the national scene.

Well, let’s put them both to the test. Let Mr Day promise to repeal section 81 (1)(h) of the Elections Act and let Mr Dosanjh repeal section 60 (1) of the BC Election Act both to be replaced with this, or something like it:

"If a candidate wishes to have the name of a political party on the ballot next to his name he must file with the appropriate officer a sworn statement stating that he has been duly selected as the nominee of that party according to that party’s constitution. Breach of this section shall carry a fine up to $25,000 or six months imprisonment or both."

But, the leader would respond, the present section is designed to remove the party label from kooks, racists and bigots and make sure that only the right sort run. However appealing that notion might be, the effect of this section is to keep out of power independent thinkers who will truly and vigorously put the case of their constituents forward. Besides that, it’s for electors to keep out kooks, racists and bigots. The political party is supposed to be for the convenience of backbenchers looking for like-minded people to push their political agenda, not a vehicle by which dictators sustain themselves in power.

Don’t be seduced by the argument that very seldom does a leader refuse to endorse a duly nominated candidate. That’s only true because he doesn’t have to. When you are an MP or an MLA you don’t need to be told of this fact. What these sections do is allow leaders like Jean Chretien parachute candidates into ridings and leaders like Gordon Campbell to insist upon the nomination of his favourites.

No, folks, I’ll tell you this for sure. No matter what reform any leader promises it will be of only minor importance if the leader has the power of political life and death over his members.

Two simple amendments – that’s all it takes. And, you can be sure, no leader has the guts or confidence enough in his own leadership to entertain these reforms.