The lessons of a very political life/ Lecons tirees d'une vie consacree a la politique.

• Author: Pawley, Howard
• Position: Report

Public opinion polls show that Canadians have lost respect for their political parties and institutions. They are more inclined to engage in protests or to work for interest groups to influence public policy. Parties are seen as less representative of their views and more interested in fundraising and electioneering. This article, drawing on many decades of political involvement and academic study of politics, suggests some things that might be done to regain public support for our parties and institutions.

Political parties today fail to involve their membership in policy development. Members wish to do more than wear a button during an election campaign and raise funds in between. Members must have input in policy development. MLAs and candidates were enlisted to assist in this province-wide effort. This idea was borne out of a discussion I once had with Tommy Douglas, as I drove him to Winnipeg from a speaking engagement in Brandon. I asked him what advice he could offer concerning the internal bickering which had caused the exodus of three caucus members. His words were, "Keep your Caucus members busy with public policy. There is no better garden than one well tended and it enriches their purpose and they are thus able to contribute while at the same time demonstrating to the public an Opposition Party that is prepared to listen to those whom it wishes to govern." The more I thought about his message, the more I realized how Tommy had hit the nail on the head.

In Manitoba, during the eighties, we made considerable progress in developing some innovative methods in enhancing the role of backbench members of the Legislature. Real votes were held in caucus; all caucus members including its cabinet members were treated as equals. Caucus members attended and participated in cabinet committees and reported back. Detailed briefings of budget estimates and proposed legislation were always shared with the Caucus. Their approval was required for the legislative process flow chart. Personally, I feel we should also have ensured more rotation of Caucus members within cabinet. I believe most members can benefit from a stint in Caucus as well as in Cabinet. There may be some merit to the proposal by Belinda Stronach, for the election of Cabinet Ministers by the caucus membership. This proposal has been too easily dismissed by editorial writers. Certainly the Prime Minister should continue to designate the ministerial positions. Editorial writers complain that such a system will increase caucus factionalism. This may be partly true but it would also reasonably diminish some of the excessive power First Ministers exercise in respect to caucus matters. Perhaps, a better balance as is exercised in New Zealand and Australia could be considered.

We could have more effective use of our legislative assistants. Greater use of members should take place in various committees meeting with the public before legislation is introduced in the House. Finally, more private members resolutions and Bills should reach a vote. The House should also be given a greater role in approving major appointments.

While there are additional occasions where free votes should be encouraged, I would caution against too much enthusiasm on this score. First, if a Caucus works together as a team, there may be little need for more free votes. Unfortunately free votes may pit one member against another in a public venue and create unnecessary dissension, which is better avoided. Secondly, if there are

too many free votes, a weak member may buckle from the pressure from powerful lobby groups, break ranks and other members are likely to point a finger at that member. I recall the threat we faced in regard to the introduction of Public Auto Insurance in 1970, and years later with compulsory seat-belt legislation for motorists, compulsory helmet legislation for motorcyclists and amendments for sexual-orientation human rights legislation. The same pressure was experienced in respect to our controversial French- Language legislation.

Much more needs to be done to fix the party system. First, we need to discourage the practice of guaranteeing nominations to incumbents or allowing party leaders to name local candidates. Second, we need to further cleanse politics of "Big money". Let us make no mistake; the old phrase, "Those who pay the piper play the tune" remains true. To its credit, the former Chretien Government with support from the Opposition parties limited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals and also provided some public funding to political parties. Also to its credit the current Conservative government, with opposition support, is further restricting contributions by corporations and individuals. Although the legislation is still riddled with too many loopholes, it has been a major step. Unfortunately, any doubt about enforcing these provisions has been heightened by the lack of authority on the part of the Chief Electoral Officer to ensure federal parties are not breaking political financing laws.

Third, we need to deal with abuses in third party advertising to avoid the problem that besets American political campaigns. Fourth we need to level the political field between organizations that advocate on behalf of the consumers and the disadvantaged on the one hand and lobbyists working on behalf of the rich and powerful who enjoying lavish tax subsidies. Much of the recent controversies in the federal parliament tarnishing the reputations of the previous Liberal government, have related to a real or a perceived association between political contributions and the favours that were subsequently awarded.

Our government and some other provincial governments were among the first to enact conflict of interest and Freedom of Information legislation. Provisions were enacted to provide funding for constituency offices, thus enabling Members of the Legislature to do a better job of serving their constituents. Limits were imposed on what could be spent in election campaigns by political parties and public funding was provided to defray the cost of campaign expenditures. These measures were a significant step in reducing the disproportionate influence of the rich and powerful on the democratic process.

The Importance of Consultation

Shortly after the 1969 election when Ed Schreyer became Premier of Manitoba, I learned a lesson which convinced me of the advantages of public consultation. As the newly appointed Minister given responsibility for the contentious auto insurance file, 1 chaired a feasibility committee that toured the province, receiving oral and written submissions, about whether public auto insurance would be feasible. We heard many real life experiences from the province's motorists. Although this perhaps proved to be one of the most contentious issues in Manitoba history, public input was vital to the recommendation we eventually would make to proceed with such a plan, despite the fierce hostility of the Insurance industry.

Later in the 1980s, I saw an unfortunate experience with a lack of public consultation relating to the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement. Although, the Corporate community was heavily involved in the discussions with the Unites States and also later in the NAFTA negotiations there was little or no input from other sectors of society. My government did arrange a series of public hearings in 1987 to obtain input about the proposed Canada-US Free Trade Agreement. These meeting were extremely well attended far beyond our expectations, and continued our tradition of seeking input from the province's communities.

Before our Environment Act was enacted in 1987 documents were distributed throughout the province to all potentially interested groups including municipalities, environmental groups, farming organizations, companies involved in the production and distribution of chemicals, etc. so they could study the proposed legislation and consider making comments in writing or at meetings which were being scheduled throughout the province. Indeed, the consultation was very thorough. It was an opportunity to meet and listen to Manitobans and also to convince them of the necessity to proceed with more stringent and encompassing environmental legislation. Even those who were concerned with some new aspects of the legislation because they thought it might impose a tough burden on them were very appreciative of the opportunity to express their views.

There were submissions by 400 concerned citizens, business people, environmentalists, and farmers. Also 60 written submissions were received. It was an opportunity to build trust and convince them of the practicality and the necessity of tougher measures in order to protect our environment which in the long term would result in a healthier economy for Manitoba. The consultation proved useful for all interested parties including for our government as proponents of the legislation. We got some very useful feedback that helped us improve the legislation. This was the type of legislation that might have given us a great deal of difficulty in the House and in Committee had we not involved a broad spectrum on Manitobans in the drafting process. It was a new era in environmental protection for Manitoba.

It was at the time the most comprehensive, far-reaching, foresight and up-to-date environmental legislation in Canada. Even today the legislation remains almost totally unchanged. Governments, both federal and provincial could learn much from this consultation process.

Consultation also means permitting Opposition members to play a more meaningful role. When I was Attorney General for Manitoba, I recall the advantage of having Opposition members play a key role in decision-making. We were able to convince some Opposition members to work with us to enact what was at that time, the nation's most progressive legislation involving the equal division of marital property on the...