June 1, 2005

Legislative Reform

The Citizens' Assembly agreed on three "values" that were used to evaluate alternative voting systems: "fair election results through proportionality, effective local representation, and greater voter choice". Whether BC-STV could deliver on any of those values any better than other systems is a matter for debate, but it's probably safe to say that those weren't the only issues on the minds of voters when 57% voted yes. The yes vote, particularly since it carried in 77 of 79 constituencies, must be interpreted as a call for change. It could be argued that legislative reform is needed at least as much as electoral reform.

Gordon Campbell made some legislative reforms by introducing a fixed election date and a legislative calendar. He set his reform agenda back by adjourning the legislature in April rather than following his calendar which called for the House to sit until the legislature was dissolved for the election. If elections were in the fall, the budget would be passed and the Auditor General's report on the previous year would be received before the election. Campbell said that he is interested in changing the date, but it must be changed soon if it is going to continue to be viewed as a fixed election date. A simple amendment to Section 23 of the Constitution Act could change the next election date to perhaps November 4, 2008, and the first Tuesday in November every four years thereafter.

A consequence of Campbell's decision to adjourn the legislature early, so as to campaign rather than pass the budget estimates, is that government must receive further legislative approval in order to spend any money past September 30, 2005. On or before that date the authority granted by Supply Act (No. 1), 2005, will be exhausted. The Parliamentary Calendar for 2005 calls for the House to resume sitting on October 3 and sit through November 24 with two one week breaks during that time. Unless the government is going to go back to the bad old days of using special warrants to approve spending, another Supply Bill will have to be adopted before the end of September and the estimates for each ministry will have to be adopted before the legislature adjourns at the end of November.

Estimates debate is the next best thing to question period as a means for the Opposition to hold the government to account. Government members who have not experienced a full-sized Opposition are in for a shock when they see well researched questions that probe government policies, spending and mistakes. There have already been calls for legislative reform by lengthening question period and taking the 20 second time limit off supplementary questions. There is also an opportunity for legislative reform in how estimates debate is conducted. Typically a minister sits surrounded by senior staff while the Opposition critic enters into debate followed by a question to the minister. Frequently the minister will take several minutes conferring with staff before rising to answer what appear to be simple questions. An open and honest government that wants to reform the legislature could post the briefing book for each minister on the government website weeks before estimates debate begins. Why should the opposition have to brow beat ministers in order to get answers to questions that are plainly written in the briefing book prepared for the minister? Likewise, the opposition could provide each minister with a list of questions, and an outline of how the debate will proceed, well in advance. There is little benefit in surprising a minister who must then stall until staff rush to find answers. Debates of substance about alternative approaches to public policy could be held if both sides worked to make access to the facts much easier.

The fall sitting of the legislature does not include the almost useless "Throne Speech" and "Budget" debates where MLAs drone on about anything and everything so they can have something to mail to their constituents. Without two or three weeks of time-wasting prelude the fall sitting will get to business immediately. Every minute not taken up in debating the government's fall legislative agenda will be devoted to estimates debate; that could mean twenty four days of detailed examination of government policy and spending. It would be a refreshing change, and true legislative reform, if that time could be constructively spent with direct answers and reaction to positive alternatives. For example, the Minister of Fisheries could come prepared to say how many Atlantic Salmon have escaped from open net fish farms, what the state of sea life is on the ocean floor surrounding fish farms that have used Slice and what the volume of production has been for the past several years. The Minister could be prepared to react to the Opposition's suggestion of tax incentives for closed containment by coming armed with information on the cost of closed containment relative to the taxes currently paid by the producers. If past practice continues, expect to see questions answered with attacks on the real or imagined record of a former government.

In addition to posting briefing books to the government website and elevating the quality of debate, other legislative reforms might include posting all of the provisions of MLA and cabinet minister compensation to the web, posting the Standing Orders and making the Legislative Assembly Management Committee and its decisions open to the public. The Legislative Assembly website provides much useful information, but it is missing those key facts in a readily accessible form. Legislative reform should focus on making it worthwhile for people to follow what goes on in the legislature.