CKNW Editorial
for March 5, 2001

I have admittedly been on about reform of how we govern ourselves and I’m afraid I’m going to press on because I think that politically, not to say socially, it’s the most important issue to face us. And today I’m going, once more, to make the case for a republican style of governance.

Before I do, let me comment on the reforms proposed by Liberal leader Gordon Campbell – and I think it worthy of note that Mr Dosanjh, apparently content with the present system, is not interested. I support Mr Campbell’s proposal for a fixed term. I also support the raising from the dead of the parliamentary committee system. This is by far his most important reform – if he really lets it happen and we don’t wind up with the Ottawa system where the committees are in fact run by the party whip.

You see, committees, to be effective, are a gigantic pain in the ass to premiers and cabinet ministers. They go down all manner of forbidden alleys and get all sorts of press unfavourable to government as they mosey around what has hitherto been private government business. What is important is that no cabinet minister sit on a committee and that they be appointed by the backbenchers … and that the chair be selected by secret ballot. What would really be cool is to have, as with Public Accounts, the chair be from the opposition from time to time. If Mr Campbell truly wants to let the voter get inside government he must let MLAs do it for them. That means a properly functioning committee system.

I applaud Mr Campbell’s idea for a constituent assembly. We can and must show Canada the way with meaningful reform of our system. But I don’t and can never agree with his jury system of selection. The members must be elected. Perhaps the ad hoc committees one from each riding is too many. The recommendations were not meant to be cast in stone. But for the assembly to work it must have public support and that will only happen if the public decides who will deliberate.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that an elected assembly would produce outstanding women and men who would bring forth a marvelous result. But there must be guidance. For that reason I hope Mr Campbell will accept the Committee’s recommendation that a "commissioner for government reform" be appointed by the legislature as a whole to report to the legislature, much as the Ombudsman now does. It would be the duty of such a commissioner to "quarterback" the exercise and to see that it gets the resources it needs.

Such a process will cost money but we ought not to begrudge it. It will, especially at first, seem cumbersome and lumbering in its gait. That’s to be expected. But I am convinced, especially after looking at experience elsewhere, it will be the most exciting and worthwhile exercise of our time.

Of great importance is this – the assembly must look at everything so long as it is withing provincial powers under the constitution. It must examine how we vote and how the elected rule. In this last regard, let me make again the case for separating the executive from the legislative as is done elsewhere.

Is there a soul in this audience that really feels connected to the governments, federal and provincial, that are supposed to represent them? I doubt it. But look at the experience ein the United States. Poll after poll says they don’t like what Congress is doing at any given time. That’s pretty normal for governments around the world. But, and here’s the crunch, in poll after poll people like their own representative. That can only happen if there’s a feeling of connection between the governed and those who govern.

The secret is that the administration – the premier and his cabinet – don’t get to vote on legislation nor vote on the budget. They administer laws passed by the legislature with the money the legislature gives them. Can you see what power this gives the MLA who, because the government doesn’t fall when it loses a vote in the legislature, is free from the worst constraints of party discipline?

This doesn’t render the premier and his cabinet – who would be selected by him from outside the legislature but subject to approval by the legislature – powerless. Not at all. The Premier, and presumably a vice premier, would be directly elected by the people and thus have a very direct mandate. It is this fact that keeps the MLA on the right track, for while he wishes to maintain his independence of action, he also knows that his electors demand that he be part of the governing process.

What happens in practice, of course, is that many lines of communication open between the executive and the legislature. There will still be parties and there will still be some discipline. But each side has to give and take – just as happens in Washington, DC. No longer will you have one man dictatorship for the term of the mandate.

It will seem strange at first. Instead of legislation and budgets being brought forth cast in stone, the premier will have to present proposed legislation and budgets for the approval of the legislature. The legislature might simply pass its own. What will likely happen in practice is that committees from each side will sand off the rough edges. The over-riding fact is that they all, legislators and administration, know that the province must be governed.

Won’t this be inefficient?

Compared to what? Is our present system all that efficient? And what about the fact that the most powerful country in the world has worked with this system for 225 years?

We must, when considering reform, always acknowledge that governments are inefficient and most of the time unpopular. My object in proposing reform is to get the voter back into the game. Just as you will not always agree with your neighbours it can hardly be expected that your MLA will always agree with his colleagues.

What can be expected of your MLA is that he or she will in fact express the will of his constituents and be directly responsible to them for what happens.

Is there anyone out there that thinks that happens now?

British Columbia is, and often with some reason, seen as the national bastion of political ineptness. The fact is, of course, that the bad situation in BC is many times worse in Ottawa. If we proceed to reform and actually do reform our system, who knows where it will end? Perhaps we might just become the center of a great deal of at first quizzical then admiring attention of those who need to clean up their act even more than we do.