MLAs busted in cookie jar caper

Turns out it's easier to get laws passed than we thought, and it's easier to overturn them too

by Kevin Potvin <kpotvin@republic-news.org>

Two observations arise from the shameful self-promoting pay raise and quick cancellation of it four days later by British Columbia members of the legislative assembly.

One observation is this: When the cause appeals to members across party lines, no matter how inconsequential the necessary legislation is in the big scheme of things, even bitterly quarrelling parties can arrive at a quick, easy, behind-the-scenes consensus, and can make quick work of it with a unanimous vote in the House, if they want to.

In this particular case, the cause is a tiresome and galling one, being substantial pay increases for the very MLAs voting on the package. But as far as the package’s effect on the overall provincial budget is concerned, it wouldn’t show up even as a carrying error. As far as its real effects on society, it has none, for the measure only affects a miniscule 79 people. The pay increase for MLAs has only a symbolic political value by any real measure.

Nonetheless, every last MLA in the House took time out of a busy legislative schedule to bring this package forward and take it to a vote.

The conclusion is this: no issue brought to the attention of any MLA can ever be legitimately dismissed again as not important enough. This is the excuse usually relied upon by MLAs to avoid addressing a cause brought to their attention that is valid and compelling. “It is a good cause and you are right to pursue it,” many citizens have been told, “but it would simply take too much political capital to push it all the way through,” the wise representative explains.

Hogwash. There is scarcely any cause one can think of that could be less important to society or the budget than a pay raise for MLAs, and that cause got quickly pushed all the way through to a successful, even unanimous, vote. Our MLAs—every one of them from both the governing Liberal side and the opposition NDP side—just denied themselves access forever more to one of the most reliable and ubiquitous excuses employed by politicians the world over.

The second observation is this: spontaneous and unorganized public outcry can not only lead the media but can quickly topple legislation if it’s expressed quickly, widely and succinctly enough. The outcry in this case was not lead by the media, which in the first stage of this rebellion only expressed mild disgust over what the media pedaled as a fait accompli. It was only after a weekend of calls and letters to media did the opinion writers catch up to the serious nature of the public outcry, and then it took only another day for the representatives to catch up to them.

Of course, because the package affected so few people, it was easier to overturn than most other legislation would be, but that should not detract from a central lesson in this whole affair. Public outcry can and does sometimes send representatives back to the legislature to overturn an earlier decision, even one they had all taken only days before unanimously.

It is possible to imagine from now on that if the public generally feels strongly enough about an issue, no matter how small it is, it can if it wants refuse to accept a vote in the House and force MLAs back to change their decision.

It is useful to note that pay packages for MLAs, though in reality of not much importance in the overall scheme of government budgets and society, remained on the radar of public attention as a result of effective work by dedicated groups keeping this relatively small cause pumped up in the media over time. It is therefore possible to draw another lesson form this episode: even if there is no immediately pressing issue within a general cause to justify it earning media and public attention, nonetheless, a great purpose is served in always keeping information about the cause circulating through the media and the public mind because there could come a day when an issue does occur, and when it does, the public will be already primed to express loud and withering outcry over it, generating a different policy outcome than would otherwise have been the case.

In this matter, it was only pay scales for MLAs. A more important matter might be something like the oil and gas exploration moratorium off BC’s coast. The provincial government might soon decide, even with labour-backed opposition and federal government connivance, to reverse that moratorium and allow fossil fuel mining companies to start punching probing holes in the unstable ocean floor. If the public were as constantly reminded about the grave public risks this activity engendered as they had been about the risks of too-high a pay scale for MLAs, any decision allowing for exploration could be reversed by a public outcry.

The real work on such a cause should be done now, long before a decision happens, not after the decision, when it will be too late to stir the public to fast and loud enough outcry. And that work is in fostering in the public mind an easy, clear and repeatable set of statements about the issue so that everyone has, if only in the back of their minds for now, an easily accessible feeling on the issue for when it is called on by some bad decision by government.

What one would like ultimately is to plant a future public outcry in the mind of the citizenry on a whole range of issues, an outcry that can be triggered by some codeword or phrase if and when one decides society is required to overturn a bad government decision. But that all sounds a little too conspiratorial, doesn’t it, a bit too much like I’m talking about manufacturing dissent. And I would never do that. Who would?

****