CKNW Editorial
for June 21, 2001

Today a letter to the new speaker, the Honourable Claude Richmond ... Hi Claudio! Oops, I mean Mr Speaker. And I hope you'll encourage members to call you Mr Speaker instead of that "Honourable Speaker" nonsense the NDPinvented ... and if you are succeeded by a woman that she become Madame Speaker. But that's not what I'm writing about. But ... I nearly forgot ... remember that trip you and I took down to Victoria in March 1975 right after you nominated me for the Socred nomination? And remember that wonderful piece of Inuit whalebone carving I bought? Called Claude? Well, even though Claude was nearly chewed to pieces when Clancy was a pup it has survived and has pride of place in our living-room. But back to business. Mr Speaker ... you have one of the most important jobs in the parliamentary system. You are the servant of the Legislature but that doesn't mean you do as they tell you all the time. They can fire you ... but unless and until they do, you must not only interpret and uphold the rules but you must preserve constitutional tradition.

As you know from your legislative experience, traditions and precedent play an enormous part in how the legislature runs. There is a rule book of course - but in interpreting that book and in determining what the unwritten practice is you will often be called upon to refer to Beauchesne, the authority on Canadian practice and Sir Erskine May, the Commonwealth authority. My point being, old friend, that it is in you we repose the duty of preserving our traditions.

You are, of course, in the legislature because you are a politician and a successful one. But when you put on the three cornered hat and take the Speaker's Chair you are no longer a politician. You will take directions from no one but be guided by the centuries of tradition of independence that surrounds your high and wonderful office.

Claude - you and I both got into politics to defeat the NDP. You supported me in 1975 and 1979 and you took over the Kamloops seat when I left to go into radio. And the object was to kick out the socialists. But that was your political life ... and you succeeded. Now you must make some basic non political decisions about the House.

The Constitution Act says that a party must have four members to be an official party. But that's quite a different thing than being the Official Opposition. By long, long tradition the second largest party in the House is the Official Opposition and its leader the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The number of seats is irrelevant.

There is, of course, good reason for this tradition. Unlike a republican system, ours depends upon there being an Official Opposition. Lord Randolph Churchill put it well, when he said that under the parliamentary system it was the duty of the opposition to oppose. Election often carries with it high office but it doesn't confer absolute wisdom. And the amount of wisdom in a government is in no way dependent upon the size of the government caucus. You know that well from your days in the Bill Vander Zalm government.

Claude - I know the feelings amongst your former colleagues in the government caucus about the NDP. I also know the feelings of a great many - indeed a majority of British Columbians. They wanted the NDP thrashed and they want them to stay thrashed. But, with respect, it is not your job to implement the wishes of the public any more than a judge can worry about public opinion in rendering his judgment. Your duty is to the institution of parliament. And the institution of parliament has, by tradition developed a number of things by tradition. The premier is a tradition ... so is it a tradition that cabinet ministers come from the legislature ... indeed parties and caucuses developed by tradition. You have a clear, if unpleasant personally, duty. You must recognize the NDP as Official Opposition and Ms Joy McPhail as Leader of the Opposition. To do otherwise is, I fear, to put political considerations ahead of duty ... and I don't think you would want to do that. When you ponder on the matter, and the unpleasantness of your duty, may I respectfully remind you that the Speaker of the House of Commons had an even more unpleasant task in 1993 when he had to determine that the Bloc Quebecois, a party designed to break up the country, was the Official Opposition. It was argued, you will remember, that the Reform Party with representation in five provinces was thus more of a government in waiting than a separatist one province party. He decided that the constitutional rule, though unwritten, was that the party with the second largest number of seats was the Official Opposition. Period.

There are practical reasons for this of course ... the 42% of the voters who didn't support the Liberals must have a voice ... even though they may not have voted NDP that's all there's left in the House.

But practical considerations, like political considerations are outside your area of concern. I suspect that you would have no trouble if the two opposition members were from the Green Party, or the Unity Party or any other party. You must uphold the unwritten part of the constitution and even though the vast majority of my listeners disagree with me, I say you must, as a matter of duty, recognize the NDP and Ms McPhail as the Official Opposition in the current parliament.

It would not be popular ... but it would be right.