CKNW Editorial
for March 2, 2001

The great problem with any sort of reform is that those who will lose by it, and have a large stake in it going away, will love it to death. This happened to British Columbia back in 1978 when British Columbia presented its brief on reforming the Canadian constitution leading up to the patriation of the constitution from Great Britain. The cornerstone of the reform package was a new senate that would provide equal representation from Canada's five regions. It was a remarkable proposal because it not only proposed a reform of the composition of the Senate but dealt extensively with its powers proposing, amongst other things that it, like its American counterpart, vet senior federal appointments including judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, ambassadors, heads of Crown Corporations and the like. This senate document makes excellent reading to this day. Our proposal was the last thing in the world anyone else wanted to embrace.

Interestingly and ironically, one of the firmest opponents was Alberta's Premier Peter Lougheed whose nose was out of joint at the prospect of being only part of a region while BC was a region in itself. Ironical, because later Alberta would come up with the Triple "E" senate idea and act as if they had invented the notion of senate reform. In all events, rather than really oppose the package, Prime Minister Trudeau and the other first ministers loved it to death with the highest praise. It was to be studied by all and reported back on. And slowly but surely it strangled itself to death on its own umbilical cord.

We now see that the House of Commons, under the chair of Don Boudria, the former rat packer gone straight, is proposing lots of changes to the rules which, it is said, will give MPs more power. So far this notion has been warily embraced by the opposition and right they are to be wary. For no real reform will come. What will happen is that the opposition's ability to oppose by stalling parliament will be changed but nothing else. Do you suppose that the Great Dictator will permit backbenchers to appoint committees? Or permit the chair to be appointed by secret ballot by the members? Or be free of the party whip? These are three fundamental reforms that would give back to the MP some vestige of ability to hold the Prime Minister and Cabinet to account and I can tell you they ain't going to happen.

Similarly we must now look long and very hard at what Gordon Campbell proposes. And here I'm going to commit the unpardonable sin of giving a politician the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Campbell proposes fixed election dates - good. And he promises more free votes - two cheers for that because unless the vote is secret - which I would favour under some circumstances - leaders will still be able to state or strongly imply their preferences and judge the caucus accordingly.

Where Mr. Campbell will be put to the test is on major, fundamental reform. Will he create a constituent assembly, followed by recommendations and referenda as has been suggested? Will he permit the entire system of governance including the voting system to be on the table? Will he reform the committee system as I have suggested for the federal government?

The problem will likely be that Gordon Campbell will have such a massive majority that he will be under no real pressure to do these things. Gordon Campbell has declared that he wants to be a premier who is remembered for his reforms. I hope he will perform accordingly. If he follows the usual political path, however, he will be reluctant to risk his power by changing the way he got it and will speak nice things about reforms and love all the suggestions that are made.

Let's hope that Mr. Campbell does not come from the usual cookie cutter but really does want to make a difference.