AnimalsMagazine

Now that you have a better understanding of why politics matters, how challenging decision-making is and what avenues exist to advance change, let’s better understand exactly how the policy-making process works.

“You’ve got to start from the end. What is the goal? You need to get the votes?”

Sam Sullivan is the former mayor of Vancouver and a former BC Member of the Legislative Assembly.

“How are you going to get those votes? You need to appeal to enough people and you need to make it so that everybody gets something out of it. So, there has to be some pragmatism there. Working with diverse groups that you may not actually even like.”

Sam’s speaking to us from the historic library of the BC legislature and he’s on a mission to help us better understand how politics actually works.

“Every system can be improved, but we first need to know the system that we have.”

Former prime minister Kim Campbell agrees and she says that starts by realizing politics is “something very respectable. Something that people fought and died for.”

TV producer Mark Miller, who once covered politicians like Kim Campbell on Parliament Hill, tells us: “In my career on the Hill, there were a lot of people that I ran across who were in politics to make the world a better place. They weren’t in it for the money, because the money was crap. Now sometimes politicians get corrupted, not by taking money, but by ambition. Their goal was to get to here and help, and then they made some decisions that caused them to compromise on the values that put them there in the first place. But I met a lot of politicians over the years that were in politics for the right reasons – that really believed deep down in their heart that they were going to make the world a better place. And I think a lot of them did.”

Mike Farnworth – who has served in cabinet for multiple NDP premiers in BC – first ran for office because a natural area in his community was threatened by development.

“It’s a really special place and I just thought that this was a terrible idea (to develop it). I remember listening to a guy on (municipal) council arguing why it was a good idea and I was just, like, ‘no, this is really bad’. So, I wanted to do something about it. I naively ran for city council, saying that if I got elected, I would get it turned into a regional park. (Mike won) and that eventually happened.”

Sam Sullivan, a political conservative, also went into politics, in part, to help nature, aiming to improve the discourse around the issues that so often divide us.

“You know, there’s a lot of things you can do that are very visible. The (ways to help) that I think are more important are the invisible ones, where you actually change people’s consciousness so that they’re thinking about things a little differently. (That makes it) easier to pass legislation and make decisions that are healthier for the future.”

In both cases, Sam and Mike ran for elected office to advance their vision of societal good. But neither could enact the change they wanted to see on their own, as Sam explains.

“As an individual member of a legislature, you can’t get anything done.”

Though Canada’s political history will always have a scattering of independent politicians, at all levels, the reality is, as Sam noted, politicians without party affiliation just can’t accomplish much.

“Government is about arithmetic. It’s not about math. It’s very simple. You need to get the votes to get a majority. And in order to get a majority, you need to find like-minded people. No party will ever represent what every individual wants; it’s always got to be an amalgamation of interests. And if you can find enough people that generally support the direction you want to go, that’s the only way you can really get anything done.”

Even still, there are challenges with party politics. Just ask Michael Davis.

Michael worked for former cabinet minister Jody Wilson-Raybould who, famously, didn’t always agree with her party – the federal Liberals.

“As soon as you have the party system, you have party discipline, you have caucus discipline. It’s very hard to speak to individual issues.”

But Sam Sullivan counters, “We found when we didn’t have parties, it was chaos. Every vote required finding a different set of alliances.”

Sam adds, “It’s hard for the general public to really know what everybody stands for. But if you align yourself with a party, you get an idea generally of what their stance is toward various issues.”

Do all politicians who run under a party banner support that party’s platform? We asked former prime minister Kim Campbell.

“You run on a platform and it’s reasonable to assume your fellow partisans will support that platform.”

There is, of course, a difference between supporting a party, and its platform, and actually agreeing with every policy a platform proposes, as Sam Sullivan reminds us.

“Government and politics is a team sport. You have to work with others. And in order to do that, you basically submerge some of your interests to get other interests accomplished.”

What does that look like? Sam shares that when he first started out in politics?

“I deferred to the judgment of people who had a lot more experience than me, and I learned a lot. So, I did my time and I was a good soldier. And although I expressed myself very clearly, I would always vote with my team. And then when I got in charge, they had to do that for me.”

That might not sound appealing. It might sound as if you can’t make a difference in the party system. But political adviser Michael Davis tells us, “I do think that a political party or a leader or a minister or, even in some cases, a single MP can make a difference, but they have to be very, very focused.”

Michael argues, “If you come in stuck on one particular way of getting things done, I think that’s very challenging. But if you come in and say, ‘I want to fight for the environment in general’, you can find ways to move that agenda forward.”

All of that? It’s what policymakers must do in order to secure a party nomination, run for office and get elected.

“Then, as soon as you’re elected, it’s all about working with a large group of people within a lot of constraints”, Michael explains. “You’re trying to find out what is possible. Politics is the art of the possible.”

Michaels’ right, according to former prime minister Kim Campbell.

“In government, you want to do something. And then you hear from people: ‘Well, this is how it will affect us’. And you go, ‘oh, I haven’t really thought about that’, because your reality isn’t real to me; I never realized that would have that effect. And that’s why you need people from all different places, talking about what the effect (of policy) will be.”

That’s both important and, as Michael Davis tells us, overwhelming.

“I think the biggest surprise getting (to Ottawa) was this sheer volume of issues that are constantly coming at you. I was in a director of communications role and, really, you’re just triaging the hundred issues that go by every single day, hoping that one of them doesn’t catch fire. It was really quite overwhelming.”

And as long-serving BC cabinet minister Mike Farnworth tells us, one issue that crosses almost every policy-makers desk, almost every single day? Nature.

“We’ve seen in the last few years record forest fires, terrible flooding and pine beetle infestation. (That all) has a big impact on (the ministry). So, yes, nature impacts on my ministry because more and more of the issues that we deal with have a nature or natural component to them.”

Sam Sullivan agrees, adding “Nature is everywhere. We all are part of nature. But in order to get anything done politically, it has to be a balance.”

Balance is important, but so too is power. Right, Mike Farnworth?

“When you’re on the government benches, you can actually implement change. You can actually make change. And when on the opposition benches, you are advocating for change. It’s much more difficult to make change.”

Mike Farnworth isn’t new to politics. He’s a seasoned veteran, having served in government during the 1990s, the official opposition in the 2000s, before returning back to the government benches with the BC NDP. When in opposition, Mike says, “you’re constantly criticizing. And that’s the role, that’s the nature of our system. But what you learn to do – and what you hope to do – is ask the right questions that force government to either acknowledge an issue or (get them to) say, ‘here’s what we are going to do’, or ‘here’s how we are dealing with it’. And that’s where opposition can be successful. It’s not the easiest thing to do, but at the same time, it’s a critically important job.”

Upon returning to power, Mike tells us, “The biggest advantage of having been in opposition and then returning to government is you understand that everything isn’t black and white – that it’s shades of grey, that there are often multiple perspectives on a particular issue.”

There are multiple perspectives on an issue, but there are also multiple officials who need to be engaged on every issue, political adviser Michael Davis adds.

“You’ve got the bureaucracy of the ministry, the prime minister’s office, the caucus, the party itself, the opposition – and then you’ve got all the stakeholders involved in every single issue. It’s incredibly complicated to work with all of those different groups and to advance a particular agenda.”

For this reason, to have a policy make it on the agenda, Michael explains, “What you’re saying has to be short, it has to be relevant to the audience. You have to speak to the audience or it doesn’t go anywhere.”

That’s advice for the policy advocate or the policymaker, who must rally support within their party or within their caucus. After all, as Sam Sullivan points out, any MP and “certainly any MLA can speak in the legislature and raise awareness of an issue. And sometimes that gets the attention of the government and they realize that there’s something important here.”

However, even though an individual member of the House of Commons or a Legislative Assembly could table a private members bill, as Sam explains, “It’s more likely to succeed if it’s a government member, a government minister even.”

A government minister like BC’s Mike Farnworth.

“You obviously work with the appropriate minister. The government has the bureaucracy – professional public servants – who are able to develop the policies that you want to see implemented. And sometimes things can be done quickly; other times it can take quite a while.”

Why?

As Sam Sullivan explains, “In writing a bill (bureaucrats) always have to do consultation. They have to reach out to the interest groups they think might be affected and make sure that (government) isn’t doing something, inadvertently, that’s going to harm certain interests. Politicians will be very attuned to what might clobber them, they’ll want to be very cautious. But if the bureaucrats go out and do the work and find that the coast is clear? It’s much easier to put through a bill.”

Even still, as Sam points out, cabinet – basically the government’s board of directors – needs to weigh the policy.

“There has to be a chance for the cabinet to speak honestly, to bring up concerns that they might have and they have to be able to feel confident to ask questions that might ultimately be stupid. But they have to feel that they’ve been given a chance to canvas all these questions and they have to feel comfortable about it. Because they are the government and they have to take the responsibility for anything that goes through.”

If cabinet signs off on a policy proposal?

“If I’m in the government and I’m on the legislative review committee, then I will hear about it that way. And that is when you get a chance to take another crack at the policy from a political lens.”

And then, Sam explains, the policy “has to go to the clerk to be put on the order paper.”

At that point, it’s no longer a policy proposal. It’s now a proposed bill.

“There has to be a first reading”, Sam points out. And if you’re not in cabinet or on the legislative review committee, “First reading is sometimes the first you ever (hear of a bill).”

Whether in government or not, every politician must carefully review every proposed piece of legislation. Right, Sam?

“You want to take a look at every bill that comes forward and see if you think it has got some relevance to your riding, the people that you are trying to represent.”

If first reading is really an introduction of a bill, second reading is where the action is.

Sam Sullivan continues, “Second reading is when the whole legislature can take a run at the general issue.”

In other words, it’s debate time. And whether we’re talking Question Period or the debate of a proposed bill, it almost always seems clownish. But Sam wants us to realize?

“What you see there is what used to be done through blood. People used to kill each other over decisions. It might look childish now, or petty, but it is much better than the alternative.”

Former prime minister Kim Campbell agrees.

“Question Period is a great institution that requires our government to be accountable. No American president ever has to face the opposition like our prime minister and ministers have to do. And God forbid you should ever say something in the House of Commons that isn’t true. I mean, the repercussions of that are extraordinary.”

Kim Campbell continues, “If people don’t understand how the institution works, then they often look at it and they see people sort of lounging about, not appearing to be all that serious. But they are taking it seriously. It’s just that the processes by which the House works are often kind of tedious, and they don’t require everybody to be there all the time.”

Sam Sullivan adds, “There’s a lot of theater that goes on in the Question Period. Once you get out of Question Period and you get into committees and things, it’s much more civilized and respectful.”

Right, committees! Because if a bill passes second reading, it then heads to the committee stage where representatives from all parties work through the fine details. And as each component – each clause – of a bill is discussed, opposition politicians – even government members – can suggest changes.

“The government will often listen to the opposition and if there’s something compelling, they will amend” the bill, Sam Sullivan tells us.

For that reason, “if a citizen shows a lot of interest in a bill, not only should they meet with the government”, Sam argues, “they should actually meet with the opposition too. They’re going to be the ones that are bringing up the hard questions and the opposition should know as well that there’s support for this.”

Plus, Sam notes, “If you can get multi-party support (for a bill) then what you’re going to avoid is that the next government tries to unravel it. Only if it’s coming truly as a widely supported bill (will you avoid) this threat that the opposition is just going to be waiting for the moment that they can get in power and take it apart.”

Good advice.

Also know this: If changes are made in committee, federally, the chair reports the changes to the house and, during what’s known as the report stage, members can propose and debate the specific changes to the bill.

As Sam notes, “Anything can be amended right up until the third reading. It’s hard to predict. So, yeah, you have to be careful right through the whole process.”

Right! Third reading! Federally or provincially, this is the final chance for all members of the house to debate the policy.

If the bill passes third reading, provincially, it visits the lieutenant governor. As someone who has served in that role, Janet Austin reminds us:

“Here in Canada, we have a separation between the role of the head of state, who is the King, and the head of government.” And the head of government provincially, of course, is the premier.

That means the head of state’s representative – the lieutenant governor – must give royal assent to bills passed by government before they become law.

Janet says this process “provides a stabilizing rudder that connects us outward to a tradition of parliamentary democracy and to the Commonwealth.”

Sam Sullivan adds that “technically the lieutenant governor could withhold ascent. It hasn’t been done that often. It has to be pretty serious. Actually, I like the idea that this final approval is required. But (a bill) is pretty much a sure thing once you’ve got it through third reading.”

Unless we’re talking about a federal bill.

Why? Well, there is one additional step before royal assent – the Senate, as they too get a crack at debating legislation proposed in the House of Commons.

As you already know, the Senate is a controversial place, seeing as it’s not representative of Canada’s population and because the prime minister appoints its members. But it is a real place with real power, as former prime minister Kim Campbell explains.

“The Senate has complete power to overturn the legislation of the House of Commons and many Canadians don’t understand that.”

The Senate’s process? It’s basically the same as that of the House of Commons – first and second reading, committee and report stage, followed by a third reading. The goal is to provide ‘sober second thought’ on bills, which might mean nothing changes or it might mean that amendments are made. Sometimes, the Senate even outright rejects a bill.

Didn’t know that? Kim Campbell isn’t surprised.

“‘Oh, well you know, if the Senate defeats it then the House will pass again’. No! It’s done.”

Kim Campbell adds a quick opinion on this:

“The Senate is very powerful. And I think, in our day and age, having an unelected body with that much power is an anomaly. I don’t think we necessarily should have an elected Senate. I think that makes it too complicated. But I think (we should do) what the British did with their House of Lords and give our Senate a suspensory veto. In other words, (the Senate) could delay legislation. They couldn’t ultimately defeat it, but they could delay it. So, there would be an incentive on the government to negotiate and pay attention to amendments that are being proposed by the Senate, who are supposed to be the house of sober second thought. But (in this scenario) you don’t give them the ultimate power to defeat the accountable members of the House of Commons, because the ultimate accountability is to be vote out or re-elected.”

Agree or disagree, an unelected but powerful Senate is what we have and is part of the federal policy-making process.

After all, the Senate even has the power to propose and approve bills in the very same way our elected House of Commons does. In this case, it’s the House that plays the role of sober second thought, having to review and pass the bills first proposed in the Senate. Or, in other words, the unelected Senate can’t pass legislation without the approval of the elected House as well. Which is a good thing, even if the whole process, between the two chambers, seems long and is long.

In fact, the long-ness of the process, in theory, prevents our system from being abused, but there is another consequence too. The processes of the House and the Senate must complete before the parliamentary session ends, maybe for the holidays or maybe because of the increasingly common prorogation of parliament. (Let’s leave prorogation and the equally controversial notwithstanding clause of the constitution for another day, shall we?)

My point?

Federal bills need to have the support required to navigate all of this – and navigate all of this in time – in order for a policy to receive royal assent, in this case from the governor general.

If it does? Well, finally – finally – a bill becomes law.

Maybe you think this is all a bit crazy, but Sam Sullivan believes “the system can, with goodwill and responsible leadership, work for everyone.”

And even if you disagree, at least now you understand what you’re disagreeing with – and what it takes to pass a law, or change one, to better our political system or our natural systems.

“There are a lot of people who turn their nose up at politics and they’re much more interested in getting involved in civil society organizations. And I say go for it. Find where your passion gets its outlet. But do not turn your nose up at government, at politics. Because I’m very aware of the price people paid so we can have these choices. But also, at the end of the day, things go wrong when we don’t put the right people into positions of authority.”