CKNW Editorial
for July 4, 2001

As I understand it, prominent BC economist David Bond has dismissed the blatherings of Minister of Finance Gary Collins as utterances of a Flight Instructor. Pretty nasty. The obvious inference being that Collins wouldn’t know a debit from a wing strut. In fairness it must be noted that Bond’s criticism came after Collins declared that the books weren’t all that bad, authorizing a large tax increase and reversing himself a week later by saying that we faced a huge deficit and financial slash and burn was on the way.

I take Mr Bond’s point but must point out that expertise in the subject matter of a ministry doesn’t guarantee good management of that ministry. Doctors, for example, probably ought not to be deputy ministers of health if only because the health ministry is about a lot more than medicine and doctors tend to see health care through a rather narrow vision. When I was Health Minister my counterpart in Nova Scotia was a veterinarian which I thought was a neat compromise. But Mr Bond's – I suppose it must be Dr Bond’s – real complaint is about the system. We insist upon have our ministers come from the legislature except in the case of the recently departed NDP Premier who, in a moment of rare political candour, admitted that the NDP caucus talent pool was not sufficient to provide a Minister of Children and Families and went outside to get Grand Chief Ed John for the job.

Now there is no law which says that outsiders can’t serve in cabinet – it is just a time honoured custom. Usually the non elected cabinet minister, it seems, loses his chance to get into the legislature, and thus satisfy custom, so we don’t have much history of this exception to the conventional rule. If Mr Campbell wished, he could appoint Dr Bond as Minister of Finance and might, for Attorney-General even find an outside lawyer who believes in letting Commissions, even ones that get too close to the bone, finish their work.

This issue is one of the major distinctions between our way and the republican way. President Bush is entitled to scan the nation and come up with what he considers the very best for each portfolio with these important caveats – the choice must not remain in Congress if that’s where he goes and the President’s choice is subject to approval of by the Senate which, I remind you, in the US is an elected body. This has meant, however, that presidents have traditionally been able to get people suited to the portfolio.

We could do the same thing here, of course. Simply pass the Cabinet Qualification Act permitting the premier to appoint from outside subject to approval of the Legislature. But here comes another snag. Our legislatures are bound up in party discipline where the United States Congress is not. You can be pretty sure that the 76 caucus colleagues of the premier would enthusiastically endorse his choices.

But, if we did that, another problem arises. At least with the present system Mr Campbell can keep 1/3 of the caucus happy with cabinet posts. What on earth would he do with 77 backbenchers? Again, this points out the genius of the American system. Because the administrative arm of their government is removed from the legislative arm, Congressmen have plenty to do since it is they and they alone who can pass legislation.

It would seem that if we want economists for the Finance Ministry, barring one being an MLA, we must go whole hog and become a republic. This, as you will know, I favour.

It’s not just the Finance Ministry that gets run be amateurs although in my time the post has been held by a car dealer, a radio ad salesman, a failed haberdasher, and two union organizers. I myself held down three large ministries, two of which, Environment and Health, were way outside my background as a small town lawyer. Tom Waterland, a mining engineer, may well be the longest serving Forests Minister of our time. And on it goes.

There is, of course, a defence of our system. The very nature of our form of democracy is that public affairs be administered by members from that public duly elected to serve. It is not expected that ministers have a special training for their ministry for they are to implement government policy, not make bureaucratic decisions. They have experts to help them with the technical bits.

But our system often breaks down because ill trained ministers, upon receiving their honourables, begin to act as though the conferring of the title carried with it inherent skills and experience. It’s always amusing to listen to newly minted ministries pontificate on the various aspects, serious and trivial, of their new ministries.

One must also be careful not to assume that expert advice will keep a minister from making a bad decision. Probably the most disastrous economic decision in the 20^th century – at least with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight - was when Churchill, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, despite serious personal misgivings, took Britain back on the gold standard. In doing so he fought unsuccessfully against the Treasury, the Bank of England, most economists and the shadow Chancellor, Philip Snowden before reluctantly giving in. Maynard Keynes, the great guru, criticized the decision to return but, as so often is the case with economists, long after the event. During the actual debate he was the typical economist described by Harry S Truman when he demanded a one handed economist instead of the ones who go "on the one hand, on the other hand."

So what is the answer? Do we have a flight instructor in charge of the treasury or do we adopt a system where the premier can select an expert for each portfolio, subject to approval of the legislature? I like the latter system but in order to have it, I’m afraid we can’t tinker. We must go the whole way and divorce the administration.