Vancouver Province
for April 7, 2000

Everyone agrees we must have parliamentary reform of what is a clear and extremely important problem - the Member of Parliament is nearly powerless, utterly so when he sits on the government side of the house. Since the MP is our only contact with the government, surely we must, as a matter of critical priority, do something about this. (I will speak in federal terms but my arguments apply equally to provinces.)

We have so-called "responsible" government which doesn't mean that the government behaves in a responsible manner – in fact the very opposite is much easier to demonstrate - but that because members of the government sit in the parliament they are "responsible" to the members. Thus, so the theory goes, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet must act as the people wish or their MPs will toss them out. In fact the system has now become topsy-turvy. Because of the party system and the fact that an adverse vote may topple the government the Prime Minister has been able to seize all the power. The Canadian Prime Minister is the most powerful autocrat in the world.

The problem is not a new one – back in the 60s W.A.C. Bennett stated that it was the duty and the only duty of the government MLA to support the government.

How do we break this mold? Let me make two suggestions even though in my opinion we ought to turf the entire system for a republican model.

First I would change the Rules of the Commons so that upon petition of 1/3 of the members any vote, other than in committee, would be a secret ballot. The argument against this is that people want to know how their MP votes. Well think on that a moment. You already know how your MP will vote - as he’s bloody well told by the Prime Minister. Is that what we want from our MP? Wouldn't we be better represented if on key matters he could vote as he wishes? Don't for a second think that "free votes" will accomplish this because they won't. Free or not, the Prime Minister will watch how his MPs vote and reward or punish accordingly.

A second reform. Under federal law, the leader of a party must sign the candidate's nomination papers or he'll not be able to run under the party banner. In effect, the same is true for the BC legislature. This puts enormous power into the hands of the leader who can not only stop what he deems to be outspoken candidates from getting nominated, parachute a favourite in, but also to threaten MPs with de-listing if they misbehave. That power is so overwhelming that the Prime Minister almost never has to make the threat - every MP knows that this sword of Damocles, held in fact by the Prime Minister, is there as a very real and ongoing threat. I propose an amendment to the Elections Act, which says two things -

1. Every Political Party under this act must hold, in each constituency where it wishes to contest an election, a free and democratic nominating vote where all members of the party in good standing, 14 days prior to the voting day selected, may stand and may vote.

2. The only qualification for a candidate to be on the ballot carrying the Party name shall be his/her sworn affidavit that he/she has been properly nominated under section 1.

In other words, the leader will have nothing to do with the nominating process and the candidate's affidavit, subject of course to the laws of perjury, would be all that’s required for his name to stand under the party banner.

This isn’t without precedent. The Tories in the UK repose all the power to nominate in the Constituency.

With these two reforms we’ll not get complete independence for our MP and I'm not sure we want that. There are advantages to the nation in the party system. What it will do is very substantially reduce the power the Prime Minister has over his caucus and at the same time increase the power of the person we send to represent us, the Member of Parliament. And it requires no constitutional amendments whatever - only a courageous leader.

Let’s start with these reforms in British Columbia - are you listening, Gordon Campbell?