How Campbell Killed Debate

To understand the ineptness of the NDP generally, save Adrian Dix but very much including leader Carole James, one has to go back to a parliamentary reform initiated during the Mike Harcourt years.

The saying used to be "the government opens the house, the opposition closes it." That is no longer true. To understand why, one must look at the budget process. After the budget bill is tabled in the House it goes to committee to examine its provisions just as all other bills do. In days gone by, like other bills, it was examined by a Committee of the Whole which meant that the estimates were examined, point by point, right in the legislative chamber with all MLAs present.

The estimates are simply a breakdown of the proposed spending, debated minister by minister, expenditure by expenditure. The minister stood in the house and, subject to the government's ability to bring in closure to end debate (a dodgy political move fraught with peril) the Opposition could take all the time they wished.

What this means, amongst other things, is if the Opposition wished, it could keep a minister on the griddle for weeks. In fact, in spite of abuses, this gave the public, through the media, a pretty good look-see into the workings of government. It also gave the opposition plenty of ammunition.

How it used to work

Let's use an example. When the Report of the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture was tabled there was little opportunity other than question period for the Opposition to belabour the minister of agriculture and the minister of environment on the recommendations and what the government was going to do about them.

Back when the estimates were debated in the Committee of the Whole House there was, subject to closure, unlimited time to question ministers. Were the situation the same today, the opposition could cross-examine the ministers of agriculture and environment, plus the premier, endlessly on fish farms.

The media would be bound to take notice and the public would be much better informed.

Now the estimates are done in committee rooms, often several at a time. This serves to diffuse the Opposition's ability to back a minister up against a wall and it ensures that estimates are done much more quickly. This means that the Opposition's ability to really grill a minister is gone and it also means that estimates, now heard in bits and pieces, will end sooner and the legislature will rise much quicker.

It also means, of course, less media attention.

Thus debate on estimates, once the most important and effective weapon for the Opposition, has become a series of ho hum meetings, raising few issues and almost no media attention.

Slippery slope

Ironically, the NDP have, while in government, brought in reforms that have badly hampered them. The first one caused an early election (1975), which they lost.

In 1975 the Barrett government brought in a rule that all the estimates had to be completed in 135 hours. A sensible rule -- but politics isn't always terribly sensible. Bill Bennett saw an opening and the Socreds filibustered the estimates so that the 135 hours ran out during the minister of finance's estimates. This meant that the Speaker would no longer permit debate.

Bennett, working on the theme that the NDP were wastrels, went to every nook and cranny of the province shouting "not a dime without debate" with devastating consequences for the government.

Now, in streamlining the "estimates" procedure, the NDP in fact made it impossible to use this process to explore all the issues, embarrass the government, get media attention and affect public opinion.

By way of aside, after winning the 1975 election in part by the "not a dime without debate" stratagem, the Socreds, now in government, decided that 135 rule didn't look so bad after all and suggested to the NDP that for 1976 it should be enforced. It was touch and go whether or not the NDP would all be hospitalized for collectively splitting a gut laughing.

They grilled ministers, grilled 'em again, then once more for good measure. I remember the pounding then minister of mines Tom Waterland got -- I'm sure that it alone exceeded 135 hours. The NDP finally allowed us (I was a minister in the Socred government) to close the House just a few days before Christmas.

I haven't done the math but my guess that we did at least 10 times 135 hours!

Take back democracy

What does this mean, then, for the NDP's chances in 2009?

In a strange way, a roundabout way, it could enhance them.

Carole James has been a catastrophe as leader of the NDP. She hasn't got the stomach for a no holds barred political system (or lack of same) in part because she is a decent caring person and in part because her political training in the much nicer and more civilized school board atmosphere, far from grooming her for the legislature, has rendered her utterly incompetent to deal with that nest of adders.

But, if she plays her cards right, James might turn her disadvantage into a winning policy. She might make a virtue of necessity.

As I've reported to you before, we don't have a parliamentary democracy at all but an elected dictatorship that does exactly as the premier and his unelected advisors wish. More and more British Columbians are understanding this and what's left for this to become an election issue is for the NDP to make the point, deplore the absolute absence of democracy and offer solutions. Tying her next election campaign, in some measure, to the Single Transferable Vote (STV) would be a good start. I've given her the slogan: Let's Try Democracy.

Minority government, under which most western democracies operate, is a good thing. It gives the MLA the power he or she should have as your representative. It forces the government to convince the legislature that its budget is appropriate, just as Premier Jean Charest has recently had to do in Quebec. It brings you and me the voter into much closer contact with those who govern us.

Once having embarked upon a campaign where "democracy" is the issue, James could focus on the utter lack of democracy in the Campbell government.

Campaign on it

Is this a risky tactic?

That depends upon how you look at it. It's risky because it's not been tried before and it's risky because Carole James may not be up to fighting such a campaign. Moreover, sensing that such a campaign might succeed, it's possible that the BC Liberals could propose and start bringing in reforms to spike James's guns.

On the other hand there is no risk to the NDP fighting a conventional campaign because they and James will get their asses whacked.

Democracy. What a charming thought. British Columbia's public, suitably educated and provoked, might just like to try it for a change.

Related Tyee stories:

• Give MLAs a Real Job
  With pay raise should come responsibilities.
• Get Your Act Together, Carole
  NDP leader must hammer a theme. Here's one.
• Democracy, Gordon Campbell Style
  His 'process' angers even conservative people.