Last week, when Saskatchewan Liberal Senator, businessman and farmer Herb Sparrow stood in the Senate to be counted, he unleashed forces that threw the federal government into a panic.
Sparrow, 28 years in the Senate as a loyal Liberal, had voted with the Conservatives to kill a government bill. His vote was pivotal, producing a tie which under Senate rules means defeat.
Since he was appointed to the Senate as a 38-year-old former provincial Liberal Party president, Sparrow likely has cast hundreds of votes but until June 19, 1996, none made the national news.
Read Also
Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality
Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.
The reasons are simple. It produced a rare moment of unscripted political drama on Parliament Hill.
It scuttled a key Liberal policy.
It may end up costing Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
Sparrow sees it on a higher plane, a decision to uphold the principle of due process in Canadian law.
At issue was a controversial bill limiting the ability of a consortium of Toronto developers to claim damages against the government for its decision to cancel a deal signed by the previous Conservative government.
The contract was for upgrading Toronto’s Pearson Airport. The Liberals thought it a sleazy attempt by the Tories to reward rich developer friends with public money.
In 1993, they campaigned against it, arousing public opposition which helped smash the Progressive Conservatives as a national political force. Facing certain defeat, prime minister Kim Campbell signed the deal in mid-campaign.
In office, after a cursory review, the Liberals fulfilled a promise to cancel the deal. The developers went to court, claiming damages of more than $600 million for expenses and lost profits.
The Liberals introduced legislation to limit the potential claim to actual costs, rather than compensation for expected profits as well.
Several times, the Conservative majority in the Senate blocked the legislation, claiming to stand on the principle that everyone should have his day in court.
Finally, this winter, the government restored the Liberal majority in the Senate and tried the bill one last time.
They did not know that Sparrow agreed with the Tories on the principle that access to the courts is a Canadian right.
He did not speak in the debate, so when he rose in the Senate just before 5 p.m. to vote with the Tories, tie the vote and sink the bill, it was a bombshell.
Liberals vowed to try again but it sounded more like bluster than planning. Reporters who moments before probably did not know there was a Senator Sparrow were hanging on his every word as he explained it was principle, not politics.
Barring a political settlement, the courts now will decide how much Sparrow’s principle will cost us. Sparrow will return to the Senate obscurity he is entitled to enjoy for another nine years.
Still, if the developers win their case and use some of the money to build an office tower or a shopping mall, it would be a nice gesture if they named it Sparrow House or The Sparrow’s Nest. Too few acts of principle in this country have been honored with public monuments.
