Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, February 23, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 274

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 18 — Appointment of Special Committee to Review Private Members’ Business

Hon. R. Kahlon

N. Simons

T. Stone

A. Olsen

J. Rustad

S. Bond

J. Sims

H. Yao

A. Singh

R. Leonard

R. Russell

M. Starchuk

S. Chant

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2023

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 18 — APPOINTMENT OF

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 18, standing in my name on the order paper, which

appoints and sets the terms of reference for a special committee to

review private member business.

[That a Special Committee to Review Private Members’ Business be

appointed and empowered to examine the current use of time for Private

Members’ business by the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and

other parliamentary jurisdictions in Canada, and to make recommendations

on possible improvements to the consideration of Private Members’

business, specifically, Private Members’ bills and Private Members’

motions, in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

That the Special Committee have the powers of a Select Standing

Committee and in addition be empowered to:

a. appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and

to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its

powers except the power to report directly to the

House;

b. sit during a period in which the House is

adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following

Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. conduct consultations by any means the Special

Committee considers appropriate;

d. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and,

e. retain personnel as required to assist the Special

Committee.

That the Committee report to the House by October 5, 2023, and that

during a period of adjournment, the Committee deposit its reports with

the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the

sittings of the House, or in the next following Session, as the case may

be, the Chair present all reports to the House.

That the Special Committee of Selection prepare and report with all

convenient speed the Members to compose the Special Committee to Review

Private Members’ Business.]

Mr. Speaker: Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. [Applause.]

N. Simons: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and my lovely colleagues who are

here with us all in the chamber.

It’s an honour and a privilege to once again stand and speak on an

issue that has been raised over a number of years by members on all

sides of this House. I think we finally have a good opportunity to talk

about the role of private members in this chamber.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I’ve been a private member for about 15 years. It’s adding up

again. But I’ve been in this place for 17 years and nine months, I think

it is. During those years, obviously, all private members — and all

members, in fact — are able to represent their constituencies, the needs

of the constituencies, the priorities of the people who live where we

represent.

I have to say that not everybody understands how the Legislature

works in all its interesting ways — sometimes efficiently, sometimes

frustratingly, sometimes with humour. All of the ways that we work in

this chamber are to reflect the needs of British Columbians. So today

I’m pleased to be able to speak on a motion that has been tabled by the

House Leader for a special committee to review private members’

business.

[1:05 p.m.]

That committee would “examine the current use of Private Members’

business by the Legislative Assembly and other parliamentary

jurisdictions in Canada” and to make sure “recommendations on possible

improvements to the consideration of Private Members’ business,

specifically Private Members’ bills and Private Members’ motions, in the

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.”

It further states that “the Special Committee have the powers of a

Select Standing Committee and in addition be empowered to,” and there

are six points here: “(

a) appoint of its number one or more

subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters

referred to the Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittee

all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the

House; (

b) sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during

the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during

any sitting of the House; (

c) conduct consultations by any means the

Special Committee considers appropriate; (

d) adjourn from place to place

as may be convenient; and (

e) retain personnel as required to assist the

Special Committee.”

It further states that “the Committee report to the House by

October 5, 2023, and that during a period of adjournment, the Committee

deposit its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon

resumption of the sittings of the House, or in the next following

Session, as the case may be, the Chair present all reports to the House.

That the Special Committee of Selection prepare and report with all

convenient speed the Members to compose the Special Committee to Review

Private Members’ Business.”

In

summary, this motion is to set up a special committee to review

private members’ business. For those watching from afar, it’s important

to note that the government consists of all the members of the executive

council — that is, the ministers and the Premier of the province — and

all the other members in this chamber, whether they be opposition

members, independent members, members of the Third Party. Indeed, all

the members not appointed to a position on the executive council are all

private members.

There are many of us in this chamber. There are many private

members in this House. For many years, obviously — as I said, 15 years —

I sat as a private member. As a private member, you know that there are

many things that you can do. You can try to influence public policy by

talking to members of the executive council, encouraging community

members to bring their issues to you and to other colleagues, to promote

issues through public information, public awareness

opportunities.

Occasionally you’ll have an opportunity to speak in the chamber in

two-minute statements. You could speak on private members’ time in the

morning on Monday. Oftentimes we have statements that are presented by

private members in this House, and they begin each Monday, each week of

our sitting. There are usually four statements and then a private

member’s motion.

We take turns presenting statements, talking about issues that are

important to us or to our constituents or to the province. In fact,

sometimes we talk about issues that are of interest to people beyond the

boundary of this beautiful province.

But that’s an opportunity for private members to talk about issues

that are important to them. They don’t have the opportunity to write

legislation, as in government legislation, but they do indeed have an

opportunity to draft bills. Legislation, bills, put forward by private

members traditionally and historically in this country, in fact, are not

the priority of government. The government’s legislative agenda is set

by government, and private members’ bills are very, very rarely

debated.

I would point out that there have been occasions, and one

particular occasion in the last term of this government, the

opposition…. Two bills. I saw one for sure. I remember there was one.

There were two private members’ bills put forward and passed by

government in cooperation and supporting Green Party

legislation.

[1:10 p.m.]

I remember the first time I heard that private members would have

support drafting legislation. I thought: “This is a good step.” This is

a step towards making sure that the functions and the mechanisms of this

place can support those other than those who are in cabinet. Offering

the legislative drafting services to opposition members began when the

governing party had a slight majority and only because of the

participation of the Third Party.

So that opportunity was given to opposition members, and they were

successful in passing legislation. Obviously, the majority of the House

voted in favour of that legislation, and subsequent to that, the

government continues to offer that service, that opportunity for private

members to draft legislation.

Many members would wonder: “Okay, so we have the assistance in

legislative drafting. What do we do with the bills once they’re tabled?

Are we satisfied with simply standing up and tabling those pieces of

legislation and describing what their intent is? Would that be enough to

satisfy private members?” And many would suggest that they’d like to see

opportunity for private members’ bills to go further than

that.

These kinds of things, these kinds of issues, would have to be

fully canvassed, and I think the best opportunity for canvassing those

kinds of ideas would be in a special committee set up specifically to

look at what private members could do to influence public policy or to

raise the voice of particular issues or to highlight the concerns of

their constituencies.

In effect, the motion on the floor now is that we set up a

committee to look at all of the, I guess, pros and cons of broadening

the role of private members in this chamber. I think it would be fair to

say that the perspective on this issue could differ, depending on

whether one was in the government caucus or in the opposition caucus or

in the Third Party caucus or, indeed, as an independent. I look forward

to hearing submissions from members of all sides of this House,

obviously, on their views on this issue.

The questions that the committee could ask could be: are we using

private members’ bills to their full effect? Should we be offering more

opportunities for private members to make statements? Should we be

changing the format of Monday mornings so that we could perhaps engage

in a different kind of debate and perhaps not simply back and forth on

one issue for ten minutes and then move to the next?

These are questions that clearly would be best canvassed by

members of this chamber and, I think, in consultation with people in the

public of British Columbia. They perhaps would like to have a say in how

private members occupy their time and are given the opportunity to fully

reflect their community’s concerns and the province’s

concerns.

It has been a very long time, I would point out, since any

discussion or any deliberation around private members’ time has been

undertaken. I think this is an opportunity. We have two parties with

many private members in their ranks and opposition and independent

members of this House who are equally private members and who may, in

fact, wish to take on more of a role in either shaping public policy or

in getting the voice out from their constituents. So this kind of

discussion, I think, is timely.

As the caucus chair for the government caucus, there are a lot of

private members in our ranks, and each of them bring their unique

perspective to this chamber, and each of them bring their priorities and

the issues that their constituents bring to them to this place. I think

constituents of ours sometimes wonder how we can represent their voice

better, and that’s always an important question to ask.

[1:15 p.m.]

I think when people realize that, ultimately, the government is

formulating legislation, and the private members support that

legislation for the most part…. I haven’t seen any examples. I’ve seen a

few over the 17 years, nine months and I don’t know how many days. I’ve

seen very few occasions when sitting members of government would vote

against their bill. I remember a couple, a few of them. It wasn’t the

normal process. It wasn’t the regular expectation. So it became kind of

controversial.

What we could do during the discussions, as a committee, an

all-party committee, on this issue is speak frankly about how we can

make the system better. When people come and visit here, they sometimes

see the activities as kind of arcane, strange and out of reach for their

regular, day-to-day understanding of politics.

As private members, we have an opportunity to just speak on the

issues that are of interest to us. Hopefully, we can increase the

influence that we have as politicians, if we so desire.

What do other jurisdictions do in order to ensure that private

members have an opportunity to participate fully in the debates in their

legislative chambers? I was pleased to look over some of the findings

when it comes to private members’ bills. In Alberta, private members’

bills are referred to a parliamentary committee which recommends whether

or not they should be passed. I think that’s an interesting

perspective.

These examples, which I’m going to itemize and enumerate, could be

questions discussed in a special committee. I’d like to be on that

special committee, if I’m allowed to advocate for myself

there.

In Alberta, if the House agrees and concurs with the report of the

committee, then the bill can receive up to two hours for second reading

and committee stage and one hour for third reading. So there’s a

set-in-place process for Albertan private members to bring forward

legislation. The total is once a week for three hours.

In the House of Commons, in Ottawa, private members’ bills are

introduced during routine proceedings. Their Standing Committee on

Procedure and House Affairs sets the criteria as to whether or not

they’re voteable or non-voteable. In other words, they have rules

determining what types of private members’ bills they will vote on. The

sponsor of these private members’ bills, in the House of Commons, in

Ottawa, has 15 minutes to speak in support of their bill, and other

members could speak for up to ten minutes each.

In Manitoba, twice a week, for two hours, they discuss private

members’ bills and other business as well. Each recognized party may

select up to three private members’ bills per session to proceed to

second reading debate and a vote. Independent members may select one

bill. Scheduling is coordinated with the Government House Leader, and

the Speaker is advised of all the plans. So Manitoba has an interesting

way of doing things there.

In New Brunswick, they discuss private members’ business once a

week for 3½ hours. Sounds familiar to here. They can debate bills at

second or third reading and motions as well. Each item must be put to a

vote after a maximum of two hours of debate.

As I said earlier, a special committee set up to look at private

members’ time would be able to weigh the pros and cons, from all the

perspectives. I think it’s always good for those with experience on both

sides of the House to recognize that the needs or the interests of the

government or the opposition or the third party or independents will be

different, depending on the perspective that you have, the visual

perspective you have in this House and the physical location of your

seat.

[1:20 p.m.]

The Northwest Territories, where I was proud to work for a few

years…. Of course, they have a consensus government. They do not have

political parties. Their MLAs are elected from all parts of the

territory. A member who is not a minister may introduce a private

member’s bill, but those private members’ bills cannot involve the

imposition of any tax or a requirement of public funds — similar to

private members’ bills here, if I’m not mistaken. Looking to the Clerk’s

table for ongoing tutorial. Yeah, there’s a nod. Thank you very

much.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, private members’ time…. They

dedicate two hours once a week, and to debate motions only. So that’s an

interesting one.

Nova Scotia — once a week for 2½ hours. Bills are called for

debate on opposition days. Debate is limited — an hour for any bill —

and no questions are asked, and no member can speak for more than 15

minutes on any item taken up.

In Nunavut, they also have a consensus government and no party

system. They do have cabinet ministers, and cabinet is selected from

elected independent members. All other members serve as the unofficial

opposition. They may not be seen as opposition as much, as it is

consensus. They work toward common goals without the partisanship, I

suppose you could say.

In Ontario, they do private members’ business three times a week

for 45 minutes, and three items of business are considered each week

during private members’ business. Third reading has to be called during

government business.

In Prince Edward Island, private members’ business is debated

twice a week for an hour and once a week for 1½ hours. All

right.

In Quebec, private members’ work gets done once a week for two

hours. Just to clarify, we do private members’ business only on Monday

mornings, in this chamber, from ten o’clock until noon, so we have two

hours here.

I think the discussion around Monday mornings is appropriate for

this time, because there’s been discussion between the House Leaders

around the order of business on Monday mornings and trying to make sure

that the institution is listening to the discussion around the use of

time. I think it’s always good to be reflective. As slowly as this place

sometimes changes, I think it’s important to be accepting and open to

the possibility of change.

In Saskatchewan, they debate private members’ bills and motions

once a week, and they are considered in the order of precedence as they

appear on the order papers. The order rotates between the government and

opposition, similar to our statements in this chamber and similar to the

motions that we put forward on Monday mornings. They’re introduced

during daily routine proceedings. Second reading takes place during

private members’ business.

In Yukon, once a week for four hours. They’re the territory that

does have partisanship in their chamber.

I think there are some complexities and fine parts to all of the

processes that we use in this chamber. The ability for members to get

the assistance of the Clerks in the deliberations around private

members’ time, the input from all parties with perhaps different

perspectives, perhaps similar perspectives, to really work out all of

the potential ramifications of changing the responsibility, whether it

be increasing or reducing responsibilities or the expectations of

private members…. I don’t think that would be recommended very

broadly.

[1:25 p.m.]

We’ve seen examples in this chamber and in other chambers, as

well, on how private members’ business is used and private members’

bills are used. In fact, sometimes we see private members’ bills being

put forward to recognize something important in their community. The

member for Courtenay-Comox put forward a private member’s bill

recognizing, and I’m not going to get the name of the fossil correct, a

fossil….

Interjection.

N. Simons: Well, the member for Courtenay-Comox has an opinion about it. It’s

one of those bills that I think would receive broad support without much

controversy, so it probably wouldn’t take too long to pass.

Other bills sometimes are put forward purely for political

purposes, to make a point, to make a statement, whether it be about

government or about another issue. There are numerous examples of those.

I do think they’re put forward by private members as bills in order to

be able to table them and express what they would achieve.

I don’t think, at this point in this chamber in British Columbia,

that private members have a lot of faith that their bills will be

called, because traditionally they haven’t been, with very few

exceptions, notably exceptions during the 2017-2020 period. But that’s

not to say that this discussion shouldn’t be examined further, should

there be a way for some of these private members’ bills to proceed to

second and third reading.

There are examples of private members’ bills influencing

government policy simply by raising the profile of that particular

issue. I think that in that way, it’s useful for government, in fact, to

be able to take those bills, read those bills and oftentimes incorporate

those bills into their own government bills. It doesn’t give the

satisfaction to the private member that they’ve passed a bill, but

ultimately, our purpose in here is to do what’s best for British

Columbians. If a government chooses to incorporate a private member’s

bill into their legislation, it should be seen as a compliment and a

mark of approval for that particular bill to be called.

A former MLA from Saskatchewan wrote a paper about private

members’ bills, actually, and whether they’re useful in our

legislatures. That’s from about ten years ago, but I don’t think things

have changed that quickly to make it obsolete.

I don’t know much about this particular MLA, but he did write

about his experience. His first experience was one that illustrates the

role of elected representatives, regardless of their place in this

House, in serving constituents. The first example was a reservists leave

bill brought to the chamber to allow reservists the opportunity…. Let me

see exactly if I can get the wording right.

Let me just read it out so I don’t waste time pausing here. It was

initially launched…. This is by David Forbes, MLA for Saskatoon Centre.

It was a paper written for the 50th Canadian regional conference, in

Quebec City, in July of 2012. “The reservists leave bill, initially

launched by the opposition…illustrates the flexibility of a private

member’s bill to respond quickly to an emerging issue or a gap in

government policy. We were at war in Afghanistan, and local reservists

felt that they needed job protection should they be required to take

leave to serve” in the forces. They “lobbied both sides of the House to

get the necessary amendments to the…Labour Standards Act….”

Actually, MLA Forbes was the Minister of Labour. “The opposition

seized the opportunity to champion the issue, causing government to

explain itself” — an indefensible position, they said. As he was the

Minister of Labour and at the request of the Premier, he offered to work

with the opposition and draft the appropriate legislation.

[1:30 p.m.]

While it didn’t incorporate everything in the opposition member’s

private member’s bill, it went a long way to serving the purpose for

which it was tabled. I think that’s a good example of how you can

actually demonstrate that the ideas that separate our parties are

sometimes wider and sometimes less wide. Perhaps it would be a good

opportunity for the public to see that, in fact, there are many things

upon which we agree.

Interjections.

N. Simons: Yes, absolutely.

Another experience that he related was

an act to provide for the

protection of service animals. I think that’s something that….

Government was preparing a major update to the Animal Protection Act,

and while this hadn’t been incorporated, they thought it would be best

if service animals were given greater protection than the legislation

had originally contemplated.

Other bills, including the removal of the “r” word…. If people are

familiar with the developmental disability community, it’s a word that

we don’t use any more, should never have used. But it was a respectful

language act, to take reference of that “r” word out of legislation and

replace it with more appropriate language.

These are examples of the opposition coming up with ideas that

obviously were agreed to by government, that didn’t seem to have any

sort of controversy and, in fact, just showed that they reflected the

views of that province all at once. I think in this place there could be

opportunities, such as my friend’s bill, from Courtenay-Comox, that

could demonstrate to the people of the province that we may not all

agree on issues of contemporary politics, but we can certainly agree on

fossils.

I hope that that bill gets an opportunity to be on this floor, and

I hope that the discussion of the committee will be fruitful and will

ensure that people of all sides of this House are valued and that their

constituents know that their members are valued as well.

With that, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this motion,

and I look around to see who might be next. I look forward to hearing

the words of my colleague from the other side.

T. Stone: I am pleased to take my place in the debate on Motion 18 that has

been called this afternoon. I will acknowledge the member for Powell

River–Sunshine Coast and thank him for reading the entire motion into

the record just so that we’re absolutely clear about every aspect of

this motion. So I will spare everyone in the chamber from doing the same

thing.

I did, perhaps, perk up and listen with a bit more attention and

care to the member’s comments, the member for Powell River–Sunshine

Coast, because we are talking about matters impacting private members,

and he’s been one for a long time in this place — 15 years, I believe,

15 long years. So he knows a few things about being a private member in

this place.

But in all seriousness, I want to start off my remarks by making

it very, very clear that the official opposition has been a strong

proponent of improving private members’ time. The two hours that are set

aside on Monday morning specifically, which has been practised for a

number of years in British Columbia, is not by any stretch of the

imagination the best use of that time.

[1:35 p.m.]

There are 87 individuals that are all duly elected. They’re sent

here. I would venture to guess that there are very few members in this

place that would actually seriously say they could look constituents in

the eyes when they go back home and say, in the context of a lot of what

goes on in this place, perhaps, but certainly specifically the Monday

morning time, that that is time well spent, that that is time that

couldn’t be better spent doing other things in this place to advance

good public policy. I think it’s important to just acknowledge it and

say it: good ideas come from all corners of this chamber.

I’ve been fortunate to sit on both sides. I’ll feel more fortunate

when I can go back to the other side one day, but I have been in

government, and now I’ve served a little bit more time in opposition. I

certainly have a much greater understanding and sensibility as to what

the role of the opposition is in this place and how important that

is.

I think we all acknowledge that government has a job to do.

Everyone in government, whether you’re a cabinet minister or a private

member of the government, whether you chair committees as a private

member of government or not, whether you’re in the official opposition

or in the Third Party or an independent in this place, everyone has a

role. Everyone can and should contribute, to the best of their

abilities, through that role. I certainly, again, believe that there is

a huge opportunity to improve the private members’ time.

The interesting piece, with all of that being said, is that a lot

of work has already been done on this. The sad reality is that we’re

sitting here on February 23, 2023, almost exactly one year after

meaningful discussions were being had between the then Government House

Leader, the Solicitor General; and the House Leader for the Green Party,

the member for Saanich North and the Islands. And before him, I should

definitely acknowledge the leader of the Green Party and the work that

she did while she was the leader and the House Leader at the same

time.

I was there, and I know before me, the member for Kamloops–North

Thompson had had some discussions. There was a lot of discussion and

work done between the three House Leaders of this place to focus on what

can be done, how we can make these Mondays, this private members’ time

work better. Whether it continues to be on Mondays or not, I think that

should be open for discussion too. There was jurisdictional

analysis.

Now, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast walked us through

highlights of what other jurisdictions in Canada do with respect to

private members’ time. I know that this is the case for the Third Party.

It certainly is the case for us. We’ve had the Legislative Library

research team and external individuals actually pull together

jurisdictional analysis of what other legislatures and the federal

parliament do in this country and how we could adapt private members’

time as it’s done in these other jurisdictions to work better here in

British Columbia.

This work is all done. So my first aspect of this motion today

that raises an eyebrow is: why do we need a time frame that takes us

from now to potentially early October of this year to presumably go out

and do the work that has already been done, the jurisdictional analysis

being the most important part of that?

Now, fair enough. You still have to take that jurisdictional

analysis and bring it forward, and you would want representatives from

the three official parties in this place to actually, as a group, as a

committee, pore through those options and then hone it down to a

made-in-B.C. solution for improved private members’ time.

But the point I’m making is that in terms of understanding what

those options are, what the alternatives could be, what other

jurisdictions have done, that work is already in place. British Columbia

would not be a trail-blazer on enhanced or improved private members’

time. It’s been done in a much, much more effective way in the federal

parliament for years. As has been already pointed out, it’s been done in

other legislatures for years.

[1:40 p.m.]

Alberta has a very robust private members’ time opportunity. Those

of us that have had a keen interest in this matter…. I mentioned my

interest in the context of being a House Leader for the past year, but

prior to that…. This is something that has piqued my curiosity. Why do

we do things the way we do them here in British Columbia when they can

presumably be done better, as we see in other jurisdictions?

The first piece that I wanted to really lay out there is…. We

don’t understand why so much time is going to be needed to convene this

committee and to go out and do work that’s already been done. We’ll be

proposing, right at the outset, with this committee, that the

jurisdictional analysis work, all of that work that the Legislative

Library has already prepared, be put on the table and that the committee

focus on a much more expedited time frame.

Now, if the Government House Leader has some rationale that he

would like to share…. He didn’t speak to this motion. Maybe he will

later on. But if he could speak to what the rationale is for why so much

time is needed, I’m all ears. I don’t understand that part.

Secondly, I do not understand why we need to strike a brand-new

select standing committee to do this work. I will remind the members of

this House that there is a series of select standing committees that are

routinely populated with members of this place — representation from all

parties. This is one of the first orders of business that’s done at the

front end of a brand-new parliament.

February 8, 2023. A motion was moved and adopted by this chamber —

it’s always routinely brought forward by the Government House Leader of

the day — that populates a series of committees.

There’s the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. It

never meets.

There’s the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fish and

Food. It never meets. There’s one on…. Well, the Agriculture, Fish and

Food one, to be fair on that, is going to meet, with a limited mandate,

in the upcoming days.

The Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth does

meet.

There’s one on Crown Corporations. I don’t believe that one

meets.

There’s one on Education. I don’t think that one meets on a

regular basis.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services

does meet. That’s probably one of the top two or three most active

committees.

There’s one on Health. It met recently and did some very important

work related to the overdose crisis.

There’s one on Public Accounts. That’s, actually, the only one

that’s chaired by the Finance critic for the official opposition. All

the others are chaired by government members. That one meets

regularly.

There are two other committees, though, that don’t meet very

often. One is the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives.

The other is the Select Standing Committee on — and listen carefully —

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills. It has already got a convener, a member from Richmond, and it’s

got members from all the parties already populated on that

committee.

Why is that committee not just simply being stood up? We’ve

already approved the committee existing in this House. We’ve already

approved the membership in this House. Why is that committee not the one

that is going to be charged with the mandate of looking into

improvements to private members’ time?

Could it be that this new committee, which is provided for by this

Motion 18, this select standing committee to review private members’

business, with a very narrow mandate in doing such, will provide the

Chair of that committee with additional compensation of $17,000 to be

the Chair of this work?

[1:45 p.m.]

Is it because the government needed something else to bring in

front of this House on the afternoon of Thursday, the 23rd of February,

with a couple of days, presumably, worth of time that needs to be killed

before we get to the budget? The government doesn’t seem to have been

that successful at bringing forward any substantive legislation for us

to focus on.

I’d really like to understand the rationale for creating this

entirely new select standing committee when there’s already one that is

called the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform. I think

any changes we make to private members’ bills would be considered

parliamentary reform. This also deals with ethical conduct, standing

orders and private bills. I’d like an explanation for that. Hopefully,

we will get one.

I say all of that against a backdrop of some cynicism that I also

have and that I want to make very clear this afternoon in my remarks. I

hope I am forgiven for being cynical. Here we are, almost 30 percent of

the way through the spring session. When we rise and leave this place

today — and hopefully, it’s not early, like it was last Thursday — we

will have finished three weeks of an 11-week session having

substantially completed nothing.

We have listened to government members, ad nauseam, for days now,

including earlier today, before lunch. Ad nauseam, yes. Ad nauseum, we

have listened to government members filibuster their own bills —

housekeeping bills and bills that have no significant impact or

consequence to the daily lives of British Columbians. One of the bills

is a one-sentence bill.

How is it possible that we are three weeks into an 11-week session

and this robust agenda that the Premier, Mr. Man of Action, his 100 days

of action, which, by the way, are coming up on Sunday…?

Interjections.

T. Stone: The government members can bang their desks on that. That’s

pathetic. That is absolutely pathetic. It’s as pathetic as the lack of

substance that we’ve actually had to deal with for the first three

weeks. There’s been nothing of substance that we’ve actually dealt

with.

Again, it’s hard not to be cynical when there’s a select standing

committee that already is charged with the responsibility of dealing

with parliamentary reform. Instead of just standing up this committee

and charging it with the work, to go and do that, we’re going to spend

the rest of today and, I predict, most, if not all, of Monday afternoon,

when we’re here, listening to eloquent speeches from members of

government.

They are going to talk about the importance of democracy. They’re

going to talk about the need for enhancing how this place works and how

we can make it work better. We’re going to talk about how we can better

honour private members and the time that they have in this place against

the backdrop of some of the most egregious and almost contemptible time

wasting that this chamber has seen in a long time.

We’re three weeks into an 11-week session, having accomplished

nothing in this place. Not a single bill of substance has been brought

forward.

How ironic is it? We are here today talking about standing up a

select standing committee to look at parliamentary reform, in the

context of private members’ time, when at any point in the previous

couple of weeks, with all of the filibustering of government members

talking to themselves….

It got so bad that we told our members: “You know what? You can

just stay in your offices. We’ll have a couple of people in the House.

We’re not going to force you to….” It’s like sticking a fork in your

eye, listening to the same drivel over and over again.

Against that backdrop, here we are today. We’re going to enhance

how private members’ time works.

[1:50 p.m.]

At any point this week, at any point last week, the government

could have called any one of the private member bills which are on the

order paper. There’s a whole bunch of them. We could have actually used

it. In fact, we could be talking about a private member’s bill, an

actual private member’s bill, right now.

We could be dealing with the Equal Pay Reporting Act that the

member for Kelowna-Mission has brought forward, the Wildlife Amendment

Act from the member for Saanich North and the Islands, my Green friend.

We could be dealing with a private member’s bill that a member of

government has actually brought forward. The member for Courtenay-Comox

has a bill on the order paper. At any point in the last couple of weeks,

we could have actually watched the government bring forward, just

introduce a call for debate of, a private member’s bill.

Instead, we had to listen to filibuster speech after filibuster

speech on Bill 7, and then Bill 8 and Bill 7 again, one-line bills,

housekeeping to deal with, in one case, a very minor change about who

appoints a certain board member to a certain organization.

Ridiculous.

I know that there are a whole bunch of members on the government

side that are actually embarrassed about this. I know that because

several have said to me in the halls of this place that they’re

embarrassed about this, that they’re embarrassed that they’re coming in

here with the new Premier’s action-focused agenda — the man that was

going to save the day on housing affordability, that’s never been worse

in this province; or save the day on the health care crisis, that’s

never been worse in this province. We were going to see substantive

solutions to the pressing problems and challenges that British

Columbians face.

Members of government have said that they cannot believe where

they are three weeks into this 11-week session, with this chamber having

not accomplished anything. We have, as I’ve said, listened to members on

the government side filibuster bill after bill after bill. They’re

talking to themselves. It’s all housekeeping stuff.

We’ve even said, as have our Green colleagues, that we have no

objection to the legislation that’s in front of us. Believe me, we

looked at it, and we’re like: “Is there any way that this one sentence

could be something that we should really, like, take a stand on? Is

there anything about this one sentence in this bill, the one sentence of

the bill that we’ve got to go and just take it to the government on

this?” It’s absurd. We’ve had to listen to that.

We’ve had the reality of, when we talk about sort of disrespect

for how this place works, a government that’s decided for no good reason

to delay the budget by two weeks. That has real implications from a

timing perspective. The general practice in this place is that you don’t

start the detailed budget estimates for two weeks after a budget is

introduced. That’s generally the practice of this place.

When you look at the calendar and you look at where the stat

holidays are, you realize that with a budget coming down on February 28,

two weeks of required debate on the budget, it means that unless the

government actually follows up on a suggestion that the member from

Saanich North and the Islands and I have proposed jointly, unless the

government takes us up on our suggestion, we might not actually be into

budget estimates, canvassing the line-by-line ministerial budgets of

ministers, until the last week of March.

That would leave, basically, five and a half, six weeks of time to

conduct budget estimates on the entire government, every ministry. That

would be, by the way, over 100 hours less estimates time than what is

normally the case.

I want to remind the members — everyone knows this — the most

important responsibility that every one of the 87 members has is to come

to this place and, whether you’re on the government side or the

opposition side, conduct the important legislative business, first and

foremost, as related how public dollars are dealt with.

[1:55 p.m.]

The raising of public dollars and the spending of public dollars,

that is the most important function in this place. That’s one of the few

confidence votes, is how the public’s money is spent.

We saw, last session…. The new Premier, for some unexplainable

reason, needed this House to be suspended for a week. The government

ripped a week out of the calendar in the fall, ahead of the Premier

actually becoming the Premier.

There was no good reason to do it. Guess what happened. The

government imposed closure on a whole bunch of critical bills. So again,

I’m making these comments against the backdrop of Motion 18, that’s in

front of us, and this supposed newfound desire and warmth in their

hearts on the government side to want to improve how this place works in

the context of private members’ time.

But this is a government that imposed closure last fall. Now, for

those out there watching — there’s probably a few people, not many —

closure is when a government decides to cut debate, to end debate, on a

bill. Last session, the government brought forward some of the most

sweeping changes to health professions in this province, an over

600-clause bill.

We were only able to get through not even half of it, maybe

200-and-some odd clauses. Why? It’s because we ran out of legislative

time after the government ripped the week out of the calendar. Now we’ve

got doctors, nurse practitioners, chiropractors and you name it — people

in health care, traditional or otherwise — who are saying: “Whoa, whoa,

whoa. When did this happen? When did my profession and how we govern

ourselves get so substantially changed?”

We said: “Well, we couldn’t even ask questions about 400 clauses

of that bill.” It did pass. It’s law. We voted against it in the

official opposition. We’re the only ones that did.

How about the sweeping changes brought forward to strata

legislation? That bill was also subject to closure, meaning no more

debate at a certain hour on a certain day — done. We weren’t even

halfway through that bill. There was another housing bill….

It’s a pattern with the government. The session before the fall

session — last spring, a year ago — the government brought forward huge

changes to forestry policy in this province. Two bills. Some of the most

substantive changes we’ve ever seen in forest policy in a long time.

They brought these bills forward with only days left to actually work

our way through properly scrutinizing those bills and asking tough

questions, which, again, is the role of the opposition. The government

dumps the bills on this chamber with virtually no time left to debate

them, and they impose closure days later.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would ask that you bring the relevance to Motion

T. Stone: I appreciate that, Madam Chair. I would suggest that the relevance

is a government that is bringing forward Motion 18, which is about

reforming how private members’ time works. We’re going to hear about how

important that is. I think it’s very relevant to actually highlight how

much disdain this government actually has for this place.

I’ve mentioned the lateness of the budget. There’s no rational

explanation for that. I’ve mentioned that the estimates are being

truncated. I’ve mentioned all the time that’s been wasted. We could have

been talking about this private members’ stuff yesterday.

We could have talked about it on Tuesday. We could have talked

about it last week. We could actually be debating private members’

bills, which are actually on the order paper. Instead, we’re doing this

today, after listening to the government filibuster themselves on all of

that other legislation.

I’ll tie it back to closure. I sure hope that we don’t find

ourselves, as legislators, in the last week or two of this session — the

last days, I should say — with substantive pieces of legislation sitting

in front of this House without adequate time to actually debate that

legislation.

[2:00 p.m.]

The government said, at the beginning of the session, that there

were about 24, a couple of dozen, pieces of legislation. Well, we’re

through six or seven housekeeping pieces of legislation, so presumably,

there are another 15-ish pieces of legislation that the government

intends to bring forward.

If those are truly substantive — we keep hearing that the Premier

is a man of action, so let’s see what he’s got for us — God help this

government if they bring forward that legislation and don’t allow enough

time in this chamber to actually properly debate it, which has been

their practice in the last six years and, certainly, has been ramping up

and getting worse in the last couple of sessions.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

To sum up, I just really cannot believe the audacity of this

government to bring this forward today against the backdrop of the first

three weeks of this session being practically wasted from a time

perspective. All the filibustering we’ve seen. Ministers not showing up

at the right place, at the right time. There’s just been such a

degradation of the professionalism in this place and of the ability for

us to actually be here to be canvassing the issues and challenges that

are really important to British Columbians.

Now we’re going to listen to speeches from all sides on this

matter. That’s, presumably, going to take us through…. This motion will

take us through today, as I said at the outset of my comments, and bring

us into Monday. Government didn’t introduce any new bills today, so

there’s nothing else on the order paper — nothing else — so, presumably,

we’re going to be talking about this motion on Monday.

At some point, the government will probably flip over to committee

stage on the one bill that’s ready to go to committee. I’m not sure why

we’re not doing that before this, but again, that’s the government

decision. But we’re going to watch the filibustering, on the government

side, on this carry right through until the budget on Tuesday. By that

point, we will be well past one-third of session time having been kind

of blown away without anything substantive to show for it. That, I

think, is completely and totally irresponsible, and it’s

unacceptable.

As I said in a media avail the other day with my friend from the

Green Party, it’s time for this government to get its act

together.

S. Chant: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Chant: I have a group of students from Lions Gate Christian Academy, which is

within the North Vancouver–Seymour riding. They are grade 10 students, and

they are having a tour of the building. They’ve also had the opportunity to

sit and hear some of the debate that’s going on in our chamber, which I hope

that they have found interesting.

With us today we have eight students and two chaperones, which sounds

like a good ratio to me. Lynda Currie and Brian Chan are the two chaperones

who are making sure that the kids are safe while they’re here. We have Ezra,

Abraham, Jaydon, Shirley, Clara, Joy, Jessie and David with us

today.

I’d like the House, if you would, to make them all feel

welcome.

Debate Continued

A. Olsen: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Motion 18, the motion

about private members’ bills, the use of private members’ time in the

House.

I guess I’d just like to start by saying that I am grateful for

this opportunity to have this discussion. It’s been, I think, an

important part of the work in our caucus over the last number of months,

as has been mentioned.

[2:05 p.m.]

There’s been quite a bit of work that has been done on private

members’ bills and the use of private members’ time. Definitely since

the 2020 election, that work started to ramp up.

I think it’s important to frame this in the context of the Third

Party caucus’s perspective in that we believe in the good functioning of

our democratic institution and our democracy. It wouldn’t be a surprise

to any British Columbians that we are strong advocates of democratic

reform when it comes to proportional representation. We were saddened

that the opportunity passed us by to reform how the members are elected

to this House and how this House can better reflect the will of the

people.

However, while we might have been disappointed, we recognize that

British Columbians, through the process that was provided, spoke. So we

remain committed to good, democratic reform to ensure good, democratic

function of this Legislative Assembly.

Recognizing that the conversation around proportional

representation has been had recently, we looked to some of the other

ways that we can reform the operations of this institution. It became

very clear — the imbalance. The way members are elected in here

imbalances the power from the actual percentage of votes that people get

in this House.

We looked to some of the tools that are available or that should

be available to the members of this Legislative Assembly, simply

recognizing that no matter what party you’re from, whether you’re from

the governing party, the official opposition, the Third Party or even if

you are an independent member, you should have access to the tools of an

elected representative.

Indeed, when people go to the polls on election day, they have no

idea how those…. I mean, we have polling. We can, I guess, get an

understanding, generally, of what might happen on election day. But

certainly, when people go and cast their ballot for the person that they

would like to represent them, I think they have an expectation that that

member is going to be able to come into this Legislative Assembly and

have access to the tools, to propose ideas, have them debated and then

have them voted on. Currently that’s not what’s happening in British

Columbia, so we began to take a look at some of those things.

I just want to, I think, pause and note the work from our

legislative manager, Laura Ferreira — the work that she’s done in

preparing us and having the conversation with the official opposition

House Leaders, the Government House Leaders that we’ve been talking to.

I and my colleague from Cowichan Valley have had incredible support in

organizing and doing a jurisdictional scan and organizing the

information so that we can be here today and have any number, amounts,

of pieces of paper in front of us to select from as this speech

unfolds.

There has been, over the last number of sessions, couple of

sessions, a concern that I’ve raised with respect to the management of

this assembly, to the flow of how the debate unfolds and

occurs.

As the House Leader for the official opposition mentioned, we

stood together to ask the government to better manage this Legislative

Assembly to ensure that the actions of this place are not undermining

the strength of our democracy, because our democracy is more than just

asking voters to go to the polls once every four years or once every

number of years the governing party, the party with the majority of the

votes — the majority of the seats, I should say….

That’s part of the problem. It’s not necessarily the majority of

the votes, but anyway, we’ll get back to that in some other debate at

another time. We should make sure that we are protecting how the

institution, our democratic institution, functions.

[2:10 p.m.]

The question was asked: if the House Leaders of the opposition

parties are raising these concerns, is this inside baseball? What does

it even matter anyway? Does it matter whether or not the House is being

managed well or not being managed well? I would say that it absolutely

does matter. It totally matters.

The reality of our democracy is…. The protocols and the processes

that have evolved over generations in this House have evolved in order

to ensure that bills get the proper kind of debate and scrutiny, that

they are legal and that the public knows and understands what laws their

elected representatives are passing. The way that this House has

operated ensures that the budget, the way this House is spending the

public’s money, is also getting a sufficient amount of

debate.

I would challenge the very question that because it seems too

difficult to explain to British Columbians how the mismanagement of the

Legislative Assembly is affecting the business of this House…. That very

question is actually quite scary to me. It is demonstrating how

disconnected the public has become from the very institutions that we

celebrate.

We stood and responded to a ministerial statement earlier today

about the impacts that an autocratic regime can have. We need to not

just be standing up irregularly and protecting our democracy. We need to

be doing it on a daily basis. Indeed, the people of British Columbia

rely on their elected officials to stand up and protect democracy every

single day.

In no way am I suggesting that we are in any way close to a regime

that has started an illegal war. What I am suggesting is that we need to

nurture our democracy daily in here. We need to call out when advantage

is being taken in an inequitable and unfair manner.

I would say that the reason why we are so supportive of reforming

private members’ time is so that the majority of the members of this

Legislative Assembly, the members who are not members of the cabinet, of

the executive, have access to the tools that their constituents, whether

you’re on any side of the House, expect their elected representative to

have.

Otherwise, what we’re asking is for our constituents to simply

guess the result of an election. We’re simply saying that the only

members in this institution that should have any power at all are the

members that are fortunate enough to have a majority of the seats. In

our current system, that doesn’t even necessarily mean that you are

required to have the majority of the votes.

This has been an initiative that has been worked on for quite some

time. It’s an initiative that the current Opposition House Leader and I

brought to the former Government House Leader. The conversation was

accepted, and there were commitments that we were going to be advancing

the conversation and that a proposal was going to be brought.

The government had a change in leadership, had a change in the

House leadership on the government side. Up until this week, we were

told that, while the government was interested in this conversation,

carving out time to have this debate was going to be

challenging.

We are now having this debate. I recognize the frustration. It has

been a frustrating process. Are we having the debate? Are we not having

the debate? Is this a serious debate? Is it not a serious debate? I’m

happy that we are here, and I’m happy that we’re going to hear members

of the governing party stand up and support transformation in this

regard.

I also, I think, want to highlight something that my colleague the

House Leader for the official opposition said with respect to the

committee that is being formed to have this. In the options paper that

has been drafted for us, it is noted that in order for any of this to

happen, the standing orders are going to have to be amended in the

House. The standing orders are the rules that govern the operation of

this place.

[2:15 p.m.]

It is curious to me that we would be creating a special committee

to take a look at this issue when we have a committee on parliamentary

reform already existing. It’s called the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform. It also deals with the standing orders, meaning

there is an opportunity to have the committee that’s going to have to

make the recommendation to do the work and to make the changes also be

the committee that is doing the parliamentary reform side of this

discussion.

In other words, I’m not sure why we need to create an extra

committee. We already have a committee. The committee sat last session

to deal with a private bill, which may be confusing for the public. It’s

different than private members’ bills. Nonetheless, that committee sits.

It has members on it, it has a Chair already, and it’s available to

us.

I just ask the question: why is it that we feel the need to create

a special committee to do work that a select standing committee is

already prepared to do?

I think it further highlights some of the challenges that we’ve

been articulating around the management of the various aspects of this

Legislative Assembly. There has been a considerable amount of technical

work that’s been done on this. We’ve got a jurisdictional

scan.

My colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast earlier today went

through the jurisdictional scan in some detail, how all of the rest of

the democratically elected assemblies across the country deal with the

private members’ business that happens. It’s basically private members’

bills, private members’ motions and private members’

statements.

A couple of hours each week, on Monday mornings, are dedicated to

this business. Unfortunately, when it comes to the way private members’

business is currently handled…. Even though there seems to be a debate

on private members’ motions that come forward on Monday morning, there’s

never a way to vote on them.

As a member of this House, the thing that I recognize is…. It

really is beneficial to government to not have to vote on some of the

motions that are put. Really, it comes down to, I think, over decades,

the desire for the governing party to fully control the legislative

agenda, to fully control what’s voted on and what’s not voted on. It’s

to the point where….

I think there was a proposal that was made back in 2013 or 2014

sometime, around the requirement for footwear for women in restaurants.

My former colleague proposed a private member’s bill for it. Instead of

debating and voting on the private member’s bill, a new bill was brought

in by government to make the change. This was before we, as private

members, had access to the legislative drafters. That’s a nuance that I

think is important.

For a moment, to just veer off course a little bit here…. I think

it’s important to acknowledge that in 2017 the Attorney General at the

time, now the Premier of the province, granted private members access to

the legislative drafters. This was, I think, the first step, in a very

slow and plodding track that we’re on, to maybe eventually being able to

debate private members’ bills.

One of the concerns that happened in the past was that the private

members’ bills or amendments were not drafted and were not scrutinized

by the legal drafters. So they were not going to pass the very basic

test, necessarily, of them being legal, in the sense of: does this cause

any problems for other legislation elsewhere, other references, maybe,

to what’s being changed? With the access of private members to

legislative drafters, that problem was solved.

[2:20 p.m.]

The private members’ bills that we’ve crafted and that are

currently on the order paper — I have three of them. I have a private

member’s bill to protect bear dens, I have a private member’s bill to

deal with solitary confinement, and I have a private member’s bill right

now to address concerns that have been raised by the public and by the

Information and Privacy Commissioner around fees for FOI.

I suspect that there are lesser problems with the solitary

confinement and the bear dens. I am assuming that the government doesn’t

agree with me on the FOI legislation that I proposed. However, I think

the reality of those three bills, whether we agree on the content or

not, is what happens in this place a lot: agreement and disagreement on

the content. Government can be certain, though, because our own

legislative drafting team wrote the content, that at the very least,

it’s not going to be in conflict from a legal perspective.

Currently, as was mentioned previously, there is a pathway to

debate private members’ bills, but it requires the agreement of the

Government House Leader to call it. There does lack a freedom for a

member to be able to propose a bill that may not necessarily be a bill

that the government would pass and have it debated and have it voted on

— have the government be forced to take a position on

something.

We’ve seen, I think, two examples of that over the last few years,

where after a long-drawn-out negotiation, finally, a private member’s

bill was able to be debated and passed. We celebrated that as a unique

occurrence. I don’t think that we should be too celebratory for such a

unique occurrence, where one private member’s bill, over decades, is

passed.

I think that that is actually an admission to the failure of this

democratic institution to provide fair and equitable access to all the

members, who get elected here in exactly the same way, who sign on to a

political party or run as an independent, who work very hard during the

election and the writ period, are able to achieve enough votes to be the

member that gets first-past-the-post and then take their oath to then

sit in a seat here. Each and every one of us has achieved, at the very

least, that.

I think that what we should be creating in this institution is

the former Premier talked often about how good ideas don’t only come

from the governing side of the House. Indeed, I’m pretty certain that

the former Premier thought that he had great ideas when he sat on this

side of the House as well. That was probably what was informing the

understanding that there are good ideas everywhere.

Indeed, when we sit together in committees, this is where…. The

public don’t pay much attention to the committees, I suspect. But when

they do, I think that they would be much more encouraged than if they

just watched question period, as an example, because the work that

happens in committees has always been, for me, the most productive, the

most collaborative and the most positive work that happens in here. The

partisan robes kind of get shed. You then get tasked with a common

purpose, and you go to work to try to find an outcome that you can agree

on.

As was mentioned earlier, several legislative assemblies across

this country work on a consensus basis. They’re not burdened by the

partisan gamesmanship, the sport of partisan politics that happens in

this place. They’re much more focused on finding a space that they can

all agree, looking for common ground and beginning to build strong

relationships off that common ground. That’s what happens when you have

a consensus-based decision-making body. That’s the way our committees

are supposed to work. In fact, that’s the way our committees work the

best.

[2:25 p.m.]

That’s where I built some of the strongest relationships that I

have in this House. This is where I found respect for people that I

didn’t even know existed until we sat in those meetings and we had those

discussions. That is where I’ve seen people go from being opposition to

being collaborators.

That happens in the Douglas Fir Room. That happens in the other

tree-named rooms in this House — not the Cedar Room, but the Douglas

Fir, the Maple, the Oak, the Birch, the Hemlock. That doesn’t happen

enough in this House, and I think it’s a shame that when you get into

this big room with the bright lights, collaborative, consensus-driven

decision-making and relationship-building get traded for the

back-and-forth of partisan gamespersonship.

I have a lot of feelings — many of them have been stated very

clearly — about the impact and the degradation of our democracy when

this institution is not well managed, when bills don’t go through good

debate process, when clauses are left with questions unanswered, when

the public is unclear about what the intention of it is, even when the

courts are unclear about what the intention was behind it and the

questions are asked, if the legislation is ever scrutinized at that

level. I’ve been vociferous about the challenges that I have with the

mismanagement of this institution and the fear that I have if

mismanagement of this institution is both trivialized and viewed as

being unimportant.

However, today I’m going to momentarily set that aside. As the

House Leader of the Third Party, I’m going to continue to demand that

this institution be well managed, that the public be given the

opportunity to understand what it is their elected representatives are

actually debating, that the public be able to demand and get answers to

questions that are valid, that we don’t leave gaps here for a vacuum of

information where then the public can fill it in with whatever it is

that they feel it means. That’s dangerous. I’m going to continue to be a

critic of that. That’s the role that I play.

I’m going to continue to demand that large pieces of legislation

that require more scrutiny be given more time in the public to have that

scrutiny happen. I’m going to encourage the Government House Leader to

table legislation for exposure, to be able to give the public time, to

be able to give the rest of the MLAs time to go out into the public and

hear from their constituents how they feel about changes in

law.

Let’s set that aside. I’m going to celebrate the fact that there

have been 18 months of good work done by the House Leaders — a variety

of House Leaders now as it is, including my colleague from Cowichan

Valley; my colleagues from Kamloops, both of them, North and South

Thompson; the Solicitor General; and the Minister of Housing, now

Government House Leader — to have this debate. I’m encouraged that my

colleagues from the governing party are going to stand up over and over

and over again and support reform in all of the areas that I’ve talked

about, that we’ve talked about.

That’s encouraging. What that’s doing is building momentum behind

a more fair, a more equitable House that is open to all members, who get

here the same way. I think that’s pretty cool.

[2:30 p.m.]

I think I’ll return to being critical of House management as soon

as I sit down, but for this moment I want to raise my hands to the

Government House Leader for giving us this opportunity to get this on

the record, to get government members on the record and to continue to

build momentum that indeed has been building in a very cross-partisan

way.

I think the people of B.C. should see this as something to

celebrate. The complaint that they had that the partisanship in this

House overtakes all…. This has been good work done by people who set

aside differences of opinion to look at how they can improve the

functioning of this democracy to make it more effective, to make it more

representative, to make it more fair and to make it more equitable. That

should be celebrated. Now back to the regular business of the

House.

J. Rustad: Thanks for the opportunity to go to this. I want to start,

actually, by thanking government for bringing forward this motion. I

find it interesting. People at home may be curious about what they’re

hearing in terms of this debate.

I think that, to really understand it, you should maybe consider

the words of Thomas Sowell. Thomas Sowell is an African-American who

grew up in poverty and became well educated — one of the most celebrated

economists in the States. He taught at Harvard and has got a beautiful

way with words. What he said was: “To understand politics, you have to

understand that the number one priority of a politician is to get

elected, and the number two priority of a politician is to get

re-elected. Every other priority is way down the list.”

When you think about the speech you just heard from the official

opposition side and the speech that was heard from the Green Party

member — and I thank them for their comments in terms of this — think

about it in the context of why they made those speeches and the outrage

that’s being expressed by the official opposition in terms of the way

the House is managed, and rightly so. There is some good criticism that

could be raised there, except when you look at the actions. The

practices that have been done on either side have been the same, whether

they were in government to whether in opposition.

Last Thursday is a prime example. Last Thursday the government put

forward this motion for debate. But because it wasn’t given notice, the

official opposition denied the ability to actually have this debate in

the Legislature, because they chose to try to embarrass government

because of the lack of legislation that was on the agenda as opposed to

debating how we actually move forward with private member

bills.

Government has done the work. They’ve put it on here now. Now

they’ve given an opportunity for us to debate that. I’m thankful that

they have done that in terms of how we move forward with private member

bills and parliamentary reform on this.

I agree with the House Leader of the Green Party in the

perspective that maybe this could have been done through an existing

committee. Maybe this doesn’t have to be done through a special

committee. Hopefully there’ll be an answer with regards to that. But

regardless of that, the issue we’re debating here is a needed issue. But

unfortunately, in my experience, both within government and in

opposition, these committees, more often than not, are make-work

committees. They tend to go through. They tend to do all this work. They

bring people together. They do all the stuff. The report comes forward,

and often a lot of that work doesn’t get implemented in the

Legislature.

I’ve had the honour of deputy-chairing more committees than, I

think, any other MLA has, certainly in the Legislature today but perhaps

even in the Legislature’s history, over the time that I’ve had the

honour of serving my riding of Nechako Lakes. I’m hopeful that there may

be a process that comes out of this. There might actually be some change

in terms of how things get done. But I guess you could say that I’m a

little skeptical, simply because I’ve been in government. I’ve seen how

government agendas work. I’ve been in opposition, and I’ve seen how

opposition agendas work.

I’ll just give you a prime example — last fall, Bill 36. The House

Leader for the opposition stood up and said: “We’re the only ones to

oppose it.” Well, that’s not true, Sorry. I voted against it. Obviously,

they weren’t the only ones that voted against Bill 36.

But what’s worse is that the complaint was that they didn’t have

time to debate it. Yes, there was a jam in terms of how government moved

that thing forward. But remember what Thomas Sowell said. “The No. 1

goal is to get elected. The No. 2 goal is to get re-elected.” Making the

government look bad is one of those objectives.

[2:35 p.m.]

What happened? There was the type of legislation that we have seen

move forward so far in the first couple of weeks of this session, which

was not contentious, which didn’t require a lot of debate, hour after

hour of debate spent on it to jam the time, to not allow enough time to

be able to debate the more important bills.

I have to admit that I was part of the opposition in previous

years, and that was an objective. That was a goal. That was what you do,

and you know what? When the governing party was over in opposition,

that’s what they did, because it’s about politics, not necessarily about

doing the right thing.

Through the debate on this — which quite frankly, I don’t know why

we’re debating; it is quite simple and straightforward, should only take

a few minutes of debate on any side in terms of this — I’m hoping that

maybe there is a ray of light that the way things are done in the

Legislature could actually change, particularly for private members’

bills, because I think everybody that comes in here that gets elected

has different ideas, has different things that they want to

present.

Some parties choose to try to muzzle their members in terms of

what they can say, and that’s fine. That’s their choice in terms of how

they do it. But as a representative, you bring forward your ideas. You

hope to be able to move forward a bill. You hope to be able to have a

process. Maybe now, through this, there will be a window, but that also

means that government has to give up a chunk of their

control.

What Thomas Sowell said still runs very, very true for government.

They don’t necessarily want the agenda to be going elsewhere, because

they want to build a control of it for this simple reason: to get

elected or get re-elected.

Maybe there is a window that can be created in this Legislature to

actually be able to focus on trying to get some things done that are

important for members, individual members, collectively members, to be

able to move forward a piece of legislation and be able to make at least

a few hours of the Legislature function for the people and the people

that we represent.

I’m not saying that the process of moving forward bills in

government and opposition doesn’t do that, but what I’m saying is that

there’s an opportunity for individuals, for private members, to be able

to maybe do something a little more meaningful than waste hours and

hours debating a motion, quite frankly, that’s going to pass and move

forward anyway.

We all want to just be puffed up and be able to say our things so

that we can try to embarrass the government or the opposition or

whatever the case may be. Unfortunately, much of this Legislature is

about theater. It’s about show. It’s about what Thomas Sowell said: how

to get elected and re-elected.

Let’s hope that this motion can lead to a little bit of sanity and

a process that we can move forward and actually be able to have some

good honest debate about moving forward, ideas that people bring

forward.

With that, I won’t bother filibustering moving forward, like many

other members have in this Legislature. I just want to thank government

for moving forward this and express the fact that I certainly will be

supporting this piece, motion, and I’m hopeful or optimistic that it may

actually lead to some success.

S. Bond: Good afternoon, hon. Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to

make some remarks this afternoon.

I’m going to begin by simply responding very briefly to several

comments made by the previous speaker. I would just point out the

contrast between the comments of the House Leader for the Green Party

about the value of committee work in this place. The member from Nechako

referred to it as “make-work.”

I would just like to say that as someone who was part of the

Standing Committee on Health that talked about the opioid crisis and the

deaths in British Columbia, I found that anything but make-work. It was

devastatingly difficult. It was a learning experience. I moved on my

journey of understanding. We had differences of opinion in that

committee, but we had a multiparty approach to dealing with one of the

most difficult issues facing British Columbia. To call that “make-work”

is disrespectful at best.

[2:40 p.m.]

I would also note that the House Leader for the Green Party talked

about the relationships that are built, which is why this kind of

motion, the motion being made today by government, is an important

one.

Many people don’t see the work of committees. What happens is that

you have to grapple, in a room, with issues that matter to everyone in

that room. They may approach them differently, but we learn to work with

one another, in a way that many British Columbians want to see but do

not see.

So I found those comments incredibly disrespectful to the work of

committees, who do very substantive work. I know that I was personally

impacted by the work of the Health Committee, and I know other members

on that committee felt exactly the same.

I also remember working on…. When we think about Public Accounts

and what that process is like, it calls for people to work together, to

scrutinize and look at the financial expenditures of the government and

of the province. It calls us to set aside our partisan views and look at

what really matters for British Columbians — how dollars are being

expended.

I remember that’s where I got to know the House Leader for the

Green Party. I remember him leaving one of those committee meetings and

sending out a tweet one day. He said — my paraphrase, basically: “This

is how work should be done. We work together. We work our way through

issues.” I’ve always been grateful for that. It was an important

reminder of the work that is done, and particularly in a very complex

committee, like Public Accounts.

I don’t want to reiterate all of the concerns that have been

expressed very capably by the Opposition House Leader and also by the

House Leader for the Green Party. Obviously, we support efforts to

reform the work that is done here in the Legislature. I say that as a

long-serving member of this Legislature.

There are questions that I’m hoping the Government House Leader

will come and answer to, in relationship to this motion. One of those,

for example, is the length of time. There is a long trajectory for this

committee. In essence, as has been expressed over and over, much of the

work has been done. There have been literature reviews. They’ve looked

at jurisdictions across the country, so a lot of the work has been

done.

The other thing that does raise concerns is that we do have

standing committees that could actually do this work. Here we go,

creating a special committee; for what reason, we are unclear. I think

it’s important, if we’re going to have some sense of confidence that

this committee is actually going to work, that the Government House

Leader should lay out the rationale for the decisions that were made,

related to this motion brought to the House.

Again, we have said clearly that we agree it needs to take place.

We just want to know the details. I think that’s part of the process

that takes place in this Legislature. I want to say that talking about

the management of time and effectiveness of this place is particularly

ironic, considering the last week that we’ve gone through here. I can

only say, as now a private member on the opposition bench, that it has

been frustrating and disappointing, to say the least.

You see, we’re talking about making more effective use of private

members’ times. We’re talking about looking at the business of private

members. We have spent an entire week in this Legislature watching

government members get up one after another and filibuster their own

bills.

The disappointing part, for me, is that they have support of the

members in this Legislature. What that should have meant is that the

government needed either to have a more substantive agenda or to think

about how radical it would have been, potentially, to call a private

member’s bill. That’s what this motion today is about, effective use of

private members’ time and also private members’ business.

Instead, what we’re doing is having a discussion this afternoon

about reform in the context of dragging on housekeeping bills that

routinely would be dealt with in minutes in this place — minutes, not

weeks, not days, not hours. We’re talking about single

sentences.

[2:45 p.m.]

At the same we have, on the order paper, bills that would make a

difference, that are in the public interest, but we didn’t spend our

time on that. We need to be spending our time on issues of substance,

substantive issues that demand our time and our energy.

We know that British Columbians expect us to do better in this

place. We’ve certainly heard a lot about that in the last couple of

days. I do agree that this is one way that we can look at a different

approach to what’s in the best interests of British

Columbians.

One of the things that we’ve noticed over the last few days is

members on the government side standing up and being critical of

opposition members for not getting up and speaking to two-clause bills.

Well, I make no apology for that. We agreed to the bills. There is no

controversy. We’ll have questions at committee stage, if we ever get

there, but the bills are going to pass, unless something happens during

committee stage.

For there to be a conversation about who is getting up and why,

it’s because we’re wasting time in this place. So forgive me if I’m more

than a little skeptical of a motion that promises we’re going to look at

better use of private members’ time when we should begin with looking at

better use of government management.

Let me give an example, because it’s already been referenced

several times by members here. The concern we have about managing this

place and how we get the best outcomes and results is that time

management does matter, whether you’re a private member or you’re the

government.

We only need to look back to the last session, when the government

tabled one of the largest bills I have ever seen in this place, more

than 600 clauses, and failed to provide the time needed to adequately

debate and question the complex and technical bill. That matters. It

matters to me as an opposition critic. It matters to me as a private

member.

When we talk about being more effective and more efficient, what

happened? Closure. We had spent three weeks…. What I’m worried about is

a repeat of what happened last time: closure. Closure was invoked. We

did not even get more than a third of the way through 600 clauses of

technical, complex information.

Then what happened? Well, the public suddenly realized: “Wow,

something went on there, but I’m not sure what it was.” Now there are

all kinds of concern about that bill being rammed through this

Legislature. That is why time management matters. That’s why results

matter. That’s why allowing private members to have time and to have the

opportunities to question and critique….

Here’s the most disappointing part of that. I’ve had people

contact me to tell me that, when asked why Bill 36 was rammed through

the Legislature, the explanation that several NDP MLAs have provided is

that I dragged out the debate. I can actually see one of them nodding.

Let me be perfectly clear. There were over 600 clauses of complex,

technical information, and I am going to stand in this House every day

that it takes….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, we will have…. One member has the floor and is

speaking about the motion that is in front of us. Others will get their

chance. Thank you.

S. Bond: If the government caucus chair would like to continue to mock my

behaviour, then he can continue to do that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, let’s focus on the debate. Let’s stop the back-and-forth,

please.

S. Bond: But I am going to continue to ask complex…. I am going to

continue….

Deputy Speaker: Member for Prince George–​Vale­mount, let’s just take

a moment. Please, everyone take a deep breath. We can get back to the

motion at hand.

I see the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has a point of

order.

N. Simons: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think it’s appropriate for a member to

attribute any particular behaviour to an unknown motive. If the

member wants to point her fingers at everyone…

Deputy Speaker: Member, is this…?

N. Simons: …while she speaks about irrelevant issues, that’s her

prerogative.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I asked if it was a point of order. I understand your

point, but we’re going to go back to the speaker so that she can get

back to her remarks. If you don’t want engagement, just let her have her

remarks, and we won’t have a debate. Thank you.

[2:50 p.m.]

S. Bond: We should be clear that as members of the opposition, we’re going

to continue to ask as many questions as it takes to have people

understand the bills that are brought to this Legislature. If this NDP

caucus decided that it is satisfactory to debate a two-clause bill for

an entire week, I would suggest that having ample time to discuss 600

clauses is probably an appropriate ask from the official

opposition.

When MLAs get elected, they come here with the intention of

representing their constituents. They want to improve the quality of

life for people in their region, they want to raise issues that matter,

and they want to make a difference. One of the ways they can do that is

by creating a private member’s bill. That process is important, because

an MLA who is not a cabinet minister can introduce a bill that is of

interest to the general public.

That bill, when it’s adopted, when the government has the will or

desire to, can be debated, adopted and made into law. In some cases, it

can move the government to create their own bill that captures and

addresses an issue raised in a private bill. In either case, MLAs can

then see their work move forward, and British Columbians are better off

because of it.

It is long past the time that there is a meaningful process for

that discussion. In fact, so much homework has been done, which makes us

wonder about the timing of this particular motion. Other jurisdictions,

as has been pointed out even by the caucus chair for the government

side, are far more advanced and progressive on this idea. That is what I

hope the proposed committee will look at.

The whole concept of listening to and working with private members

on key issues has worked in this House. An example of that would be Bill

M233. It was a bill introduced by opposition MLA Andrew Weaver. It was

called the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2017, and it was intended

to prevent employers from requiring employees to wear high-heeled shoes

at work. The bill didn’t need to get to second reading because it was

immediately accepted by then Premier Christy Clark, and our government

created a regulation that prevented employers from that requirement. The

process worked, and it was better for British Columbians.

There are so many good ideas that members work hard to bring to

this place. Let’s look at a few examples. Today alone, my colleagues

introduced three bills. There are others on the order paper, but today,

obviously, the MLA for Peace River North re-introduced a private

member’s bill in this Legislature urging the government to change the

name of his riding. Why? To better reflect its regional

composition.

The MLA for Delta South re-introduced a private member’s bill in

the Legislature today to protect Brunswick Point farmland and bird

habitat from future economic development. Today in this Legislature, the

Opposition House Leader re-introduced a private member’s bill that

reflects the need to overhaul B.C.’s disaster financial assistance

program. I don’t know about the rest of the members in this House. Those

all sound like a pretty good and reasonable requests to me.

Here are some that…. I simply cannot understand how, year after

year after year, these bills are simply left to die on the order paper.

Our shadow minister for gender equity and inclusion reintroduced the

Equal Pay Reporting Act. What does that do? It emphasizes the immediate

need for equal pay for women in the workforce. How on earth is that not

an issue that every single MLA in this Legislature should embrace? But I

can tell you, multiple years, we are still standing here asking for that

to take place.

Here’s one that I literally sit in my chair here and just hope

that someday, someone on that side of the House is going to get up and

say: “Let’s just do it” — that is, the private member’s bill that has

been re-introduced by the MLA for West Vancouver–Capilano.

[2:55 p.m.]

It is a private member’s bill, introduced for the second time, to

remove discriminatory covenants in land title documents that restrict

people of colour from purchasing or occupying land.

The people of British Columbia, first of all, probably don’t know

it exists, the vast majority of them, that problem. We could fix that

today. We could have fixed it this last week. We could have dealt with

what is discriminatory in British Columbia. The process exists today,

but no. Instead, we have listened over and over and over again to MLAs

literally talking about two sentences for days and hours while, sitting

on the order paper, we have a bill that would remove discriminatory

covenants.

I think we should all be embarrassed by the fact that we couldn’t

get meaningful business done. Even if the government didn’t have

legislation ready, private members did. They could have been dealt

with.

I want to highlight one other that, I admit, is personal in

nature. I will very shortly, thank you to the Opposition House Leader,

reintroduce again — since 2018, I might add; it’s 2023 — a bill that

would deal with public access to defibrillators.

The thing that I find incredulous is that we had a luncheon the

other day with the heart and stroke organization. What did they say

would make a difference in British Columbia? What would save lives in

this province? Everyone in this House was there, all three parties — not

every member, but representatives from all three parties — nodding their

heads. “Good idea. Let’s make it happen. Let’s save lives. Let’s put in

defibrillators and talk about CPR.”

Well, since 2018, I have been trying to make a difference for

British Columbians in the public interest, because we know that sudden

cardiac arrest can happen to anyone. It could happen here. It would be

interesting for people to know that we do have defibrillators here.

Trying to get access to one would be another question, but I have looked

at that.

My point is this. We go to luncheons, and we agree that it’s in

the public interest to make a difference, whether it’s getting rid of

discriminatory covenants or whether it’s putting defibrillators in

public spaces. Then we come here, and instead of actually grappling with

those issues, what do we do? We talk about a two-clause bill for three

days. No wonder British Columbians lose faith and wonder what’s going

on.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you will forgive me for momentarily….

It’s not a simple thing, as a private member, to bring forward a private

member’s bill or to bring forward a motion or to bring an issue that

matters to your constituents or to British Columbians to this place. In

fact, it takes a lot of work. It takes drafting and reviewing and

researching and checking out what’s going on in other jurisdictions.

That is a private member doing their homework.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I managed to get my bill drafted and on the order paper, yet we

have a government that hasn’t been able to figure out how to get a bill

on the order paper for the last week. That is why British Columbians are

critical of what happens here.

There’s lots of discussion about how to improve things in this

place. I am really proud of my colleagues and members of the Green

Party, for example, and previous House Leaders who have sat down and

said, “We need to make these changes” — a year ago. And here we are now,

all afternoon and who knows how many more days, talking about this. Of

course it’s time that we make changes in this place. Reform is long

overdue in British Columbia.

[3:00 p.m.]

Here’s what the new Premier added to mandate letters to every

single minister in this House: “British Columbians expect their elected

representatives to work together to advance the public good. This means

seeking out, fostering and championing good ideas regardless of their

origin. I expect you to reach out to elected members from all parties as

you deliver on your mandate.”

Now, if that doesn’t sound like a rationale for reform, I don’t

know what does. What I hope is that reform starts on the ground. When we

are dealing with issues in constituencies that we represent and we know

well, that discussion should be taking place at the constituency level,

on the ground, talking to one another about how to make progress.

Hopefully, those aren’t hollow words, because that would make a

difference. Yet we’ve witnessed very little, if any, of that since the

new Premier took his seat in this chamber.

We have an opportunity ahead of us to look at the way that this

House operates. One of the things I do know, as passionate as people are

in this Legislature…. Yes, there’s a lot of passionate debate at times.

But I do know this: every person who is elected to this place comes here

with the intent of representing their constituents well. They want to

come here and do meaningful things, and looking at how private

members….

Let’s face it. As the number of seats in this place grows, the

number of private members is going to grow too, because you can’t have a

cabinet that includes everybody in this place. Why would we not embrace

the opportunity to make work meaningful?

I can say this. This past weekend many of us — well, all of us,

most of us — had to leave home on Family Day to come here to do work.

That’s hard. We want to be at home. We want to be with families. We want

to be in our constituencies. But no, we came here to work, and we came

here to do meaningful work. In fact, many of us who live hundreds of

kilometres away from this place came through winter storms, windstorms,

you name it, because we care about what goes on here.

British Columbians want to see the results of that work. All

they’ve seen this week is a lack of substantive debate on issues that

are minor in nature and hours of discussion about those issues, while

British Columbians just try to get through every day.

I am hopeful that as we talk about this in a meaningful way, first

of all, we will have the Government House Leader come back and speak to

the issues around timing. Why is it going to take so long? Secondly, why

do we need a new committee? Another committee, more taxpayer dollars —

the list goes on. Why do we need that to be the case? I think it’s

important that the government actually provides those answers. Maybe

some of their MLAs will actually speak to that in their

remarks.

The work has been done. The will, on behalf of all of the members

of the House, is there to make a difference. We have a chance to do that

and to demonstrate to British Columbians that when they send their

elected representatives to this place, that MLA will have the

opportunity to bring things that matter — whether it’s changing the name

of their electoral riding, whether it’s protecting a sensitive

environmental area, whether it’s getting rid of discriminatory covenants

or whether it’s putting a life-saving AED in a building in a community —

and there will be an opportunity for a meaningful debate about that in

this Legislature.

I thank you for the time this afternoon, Madam Speaker, and will

certainly look forward to hearing the response from government. But as

my House Leader and our team have said, we support a move to make a

difference in this place.

[3:05 p.m.]

J. Sims: It is a pleasure, as always, to be able to stand up in this House

and debate the business of the people, for the people. We are here today

to debate a motion that will establish a committee, but let me just make

a bit of a

preamble.

Our democratic institution here is modelled on the British

parliamentarian system. I have had experience at a number of different

levels, and definitely, I’m very, very familiar with the way the system

worked in England, but that’s not what I’m going to talk about today.

Coming into this House, what surprised me was the private members’ time

— a block of time on Monday morning — but this is part of the heritage

of this parliament. That’s how it has operated.

I can say, before I get into the substance of the motion, that

we’ve heard a number of speakers today. I always appreciate any

questions that the opposition or anybody else has to ask. They have a

right to ask those, but in the same way, there has to be that mutual

respect. There are other members who may want to stand up and speak to a

motion that may only be a three-word change, but as I’ve said before,

one comma in the wrong place or one word can alter legislation

irreparably.

I really want to say that I absolutely value and respect the right

of every person, no matter where they sit in this House, within the

guidelines and the time permitted, to be able to ask questions, to be

able to make comment and to be able to stand up and speak. My respect is

for those who have stood up in the last few days to speak on motions

that they felt were important.

Legislation that through debate could be seen was necessary;

legislation that was going to make an impact that was requested, in many

cases; the technical changes that we made yesterday — all of those

things happened and took place, and members in this House had the right

to speak, but they also had the right not to speak. That’s the beauty of

this place. So it’s just a reminder to all of us that just when we want

to speak isn’t the only important time. There is also time for others as

well.

As to the establishment of a committee to look at the

effectiveness and maybe make some changes to the Monday morning private

members’ time, I’m fully in support of that. I’m supporting a committee

being struck. I’m supporting the parameters that have been laid out for

the committee.

I’m going to leave it up to the judgment of the committee as to

how long they’re going to take to do the work. Now, it says they’ll

report to the House by October 5, but if the committee should happen to

get the work done earlier, I’m sure they’re not going to try to hide it

from the rest of us and not bring it forward.

Really, this is an all-party committee where people from the

official opposition, members of government, members from the Third Party

are all going to be able to sit in a room and struggle with something

that we all know needs fixing. I have heard from both the official

opposition and from the House Leader for the Third Party that they have

concerns, and obviously, the government has some concerns. That’s why

this motion is here today to be debated.

I think when we take any steps to improve our democratic

structures, to improve our democratic processes and make that time that

we have in these hallowed corridors and this hallowed hall…. When we

make them useful and help to focus in on them, then it serves British

Columbians. Because of that, I think we need to take the time to take a

look at Monday mornings and say: “How should it be effectively

used?”

[3:10 p.m.]

I’m not going to take the time to canvass what happens in all the

other provinces. At least three of the previous speakers have gone over

and given us a bird’s-eye view, and we can see that it is not

one-size-fits-all. Almost every province or territory has a different

way of dealing with the work of the members, and federally, the federal

parliament has a totally different way of dealing with this, where

private members’ bills are part of routine business.

I’m hoping that when this committee looks at it, it will look at

the jurisdictions across Canada but will also look at federal

jurisdictions outside of Canada. One thing I’ve learned is that research

is so much easier now since the Internet appeared. It would be so

fascinating for this committee to take a look at how other jurisdictions

outside of Canada actually make their democracy work. We may find things

we like, and we may find — you know what? — that what we have is, as

faulty as it is, maybe as good as it gets. But that will be a decision

made by these members sitting in this room.

As a teacher, I would say let’s not narrow the net. Let’s widen

the net and get all the information we can, from as many jurisdictions

as we can, because, as you might know, Madam Speaker, bringing about

change to any institution, especially a parliamentary institution, is

not an easy task.

This committee, I would say, has been a long time coming. I’ve

been hearing about the needs for changes to the private members’ time at

least since 2017. So now that it’s here, after all these years, and I’m

sure there were cries before that as well, let us take the time to do

this right. We’re not going to get to go back to it over and over again,

because institutions don’t actually allow for that, nor do our

systems.

I think when we are going to be taking a look at this at the

committee level, it is going to be really, really important that the

committee members don’t just go on what kind of a scan was done by the

previous members who….

With all due respect, amazing work. Thank you. You did

that.

But I know, if I was on that committee, I would want to scan for

myself. I would want to go through the material. I would want to read

it. I would want to find out what’s happening in other jurisdictions.

Sometimes just reading what is written isn’t going to give you all the

answers.

I would say they have some Zoom calls with private members in

other jurisdictions and ask them how they feel about what they have,

because just going with what’s being written doesn’t tell us whether it

works or not. All it tells you is, yes, all these ten provinces and the

territories have a different system than us. Well, I could tell you that

right now.

Just knowing they have a different system is not going to give us

the solution that will suit us. What we need to find out is: how do the

structures held by other provinces, territories and other states or

countries…? How do they do their work, and how effective is it? That’s

why it’s really important to talk to the backbenchers, to talk to

government, to talk to opposition from those countries. We have amazing

avenues to do that through. The Commonwealth Parliamentarians

Association — I’m sure they might have done some work on that already,

but maybe not.

I’m going to urge our committee members to take the time not to

just take a look at the words on paper but see how those words are

implemented. When you look at our words on paper, Madam Speaker, it

doesn’t look bad either. If others were to look at it from the outside

lens, they’d say: “Oh yeah, their private members get two hours.” But

you and I have sat in that room, and we know that that two hours is just

like…. It goes like that.

[3:15 p.m.]

Also, I’ve often heard people say in this room that there is no

debate. Well, absolutely. I’m not even sure we have debate during the

private members’ time — those five-minute segments. I never find those

very satisfying. One person speaks. The other one responds, and you sit

down. That’s it. Sometimes, listening to the two speakers, they might as

well be talking on two different planets. And you say: “Okay, so what’s

the connection with what was said earlier?”

For me, those are the kinds of things I want the committee to

grapple with. I want them to grapple with showing British Columbians

that we are at work, not just with making five-minute speeches but that,

really, we are using our time well. I would love nothing more than to

get more debate built into the institutions, into the different

structures of this amazing institution, because that debate is what

moves us to a better place at the end.

When we can debate issues…. And I mean issues. I don’t mean

hurling epithets or other things at each other. That doesn’t help us.

What I’m talking about is real debate based on the issues where we can

agree to disagree and then walk away, knowing that we put our point

forward, and we’ve done it respectfully, have listened to others, and we

also feel that we have been heard.

I will agree with my previous colleague that she has a right to

ask questions within the time parameters that exist. I don’t think

anybody denies that. However, other members also have the right to stand

up and speak.

Since I’ve been here, our government has taken many steps to try

to improve the functioning of this place and done it a few different

ways. Sometimes it’s hard to see where the linkages are, but I think

those of us who work in the system know it works.

But the one area that I think really needs a major rehaul is the

private members’ time. I’ve spoken there many a time, Madam Speaker.

I’ve heard you speak there, full of passion, many a time, as have my

other colleagues who are in this room, but I think every one of us knows

that that time could be used more effectively.

I’m not saying that I or one person in this room or one side has

all the answers, because if we’re going to make institutional change

like that, it is good to have an all-party committee actually do the

work and then make recommendations for us to consider. I look forward to

that.

I’ve also heard comments that the time is too long. I think I’m

going to leave that to the committee as they start their work and as

they dig in. I’m hoping they’ve heard my appeal, and I’m sure I’ll make

it heard again, once they are meeting, to take the time — not to just

read words on paper but to actually find out how private members feel,

how much they achieve and what they achieve with the practices in other

areas.

The last few days, we’ve had a number of legislations. I would

say…. I think we’ve had eight or nine pieces of legislation introduced

in three weeks, which is quite a record, I think. We’ve managed to get

through a lot of them pretty quickly. That happened for a number of

reasons. Not everybody was comfortable getting up to speak to them. I’m

saying that’s perfectly okay. If you did not want to speak or feel the

need to speak, that is good. But at the same time, I’m hoping that

people will get up today and speak about the private members’

time.

[3:20 p.m.]

This is a very rare opportunity for us to set a committee. Here in

the House, we can sort of start laying out the kinds of things we wish

for and hope for that the committee will consider. I think that becomes

very, very important.

I don’t think this is a committee that can just go into a room

with a set of computers and just sit around and talk with each other.

They have to get out of that. I’m certainly hoping that we’ll get an

opportunity to meet with them as well.

As I was saying earlier and as the previous member spoke, I think

it’s good, when we pass legislation and when we establish a committee

like this, that the public hear our debate. If we were just to establish

this committee on the quiet, nobody would even know the significance of

the work that has to be done and that will be done.

I’ve had the honour and privilege to chair a committee, and I can

tell you — I agree with my previous colleague as well — that I really,

really value our committee work. It is where we all come to a table and,

as somebody said — I think it was my colleague from Saanich North and

the Islands — the partisan robes shed away. When I get into a committee

and we start dealing with issues, we actually deal with substantive

issues and deal with the meat of the problems that we are faced with. I

have been so impressed at the committees I’ve been at, how cooperative

and how collegial everybody is.

If British Columbians could actually spend more time viewing

committee work than question period, they would see a whole different

side of parliament. They would see the cooperation that exists here.

They would see the compromises that are made at the committee level.

They would see how, even though we may go into those committees with one

perspective, when we listen to each other, we can come out with a

product that’s even better than the one we thought we were going to be

ending up with. I really, really value that committee work. I can’t

stress that enough.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard people stand up in this House since

I’ve been here — or it hasn’t registered — saying how terrible being on

a committee is. The member who spoke just before me, I’ve always heard

her say how important committees are, how they play a critical role, how

they allow us to work together. Absolutely, the work that was done

during COVID, then on mental health issues and the health care issues

has been just amazing work out of those committees. I really, really

value that.

For those who are kind of saying, “Why do we need this committee?”

my reaction is: it’s so we can take the time in a very focused way. This

committee has no other agenda. This committee will not have ten other

things on its plate, looking at all of parliament in its entirety. This

committee will deal with one thing that is really significant: private

members’ time. Time and time again, I’ve heard from members from all

sides of the House that we need to do something about private members’

time, so I think here is an opportunity.

I was really glad to hear that my colleague, the member from the

Third Party, absolutely agrees with the work that needs to be done. I’ve

been hearing the same from the government side. I think this is an

opportunity today for us to demonstrate to the public — I’m sure that

right now there are many watching this scintillating debate — to share

with them that we’re not just working within the status quo but that

here we are looking at our own structures.

[3:25 p.m.]

As well as doing the work, including the amazing work being done

by our Premier in the first 100 days and the actions that this

government has taken, I think they also need to see that we are looking

at how we work in different parts of parliament.

This is a review of Monday morning. That might end up not being a

Monday morning. It might end up being integrated, in the way the federal

parliament is. It may end up with another version; I don’t know. I know

that the members who go there will take this responsibility very, very

seriously, because they know how important this is. Making this change

is not, “Oh, let’s make a change,” two weeks, and again, “Let’s make

another change.”

As I said, it has taken us this long to just get to the stage

where we’re going to form a committee. Now the committee has to be able

to do its work. As well as doing this, our members already know that

when it comes to taking big money out of the election process, we did

that. That was another way of improving our democracy. I think there

isn’t anybody who would be speaking out against that.

Another way of improving our democracy was to take the dirty money

out of B.C. casinos, real estate and other sectors. I could actually go

on and on. We made lobbying more transparent. There are stricter rules

around our ministers, when they leave their offices, about lobbying.

They can’t leave one day and then the next day be a lobbyist. That would

be a conflict, because they would be privy to all kinds of

information.

Making parliament better, more responsive and more transparent is

our responsibility. We have to make sure that we all are, in this

building, carrying out the work of the members and of the citizens of

this province and that we are not only passing legislation that will

improve their day-to-day lives but that we are also very focused on

improving transparency, accountability and the workings of these

institutions.

Interjection.

J. Sims: And, absolutely, of government. I’m very, very proud. I’m glad my

colleague there, from the riding just next door to me, perched up and

reminded me. Absolutely, I will take the record of this government over

the previous government any day of the week.

Deputy Speaker: I would remind the member that relevance is important.

J. Sims: Madam Speaker, it relates back to governance and the governance

review that we are doing here with Monday morning. I respect

that.

One of the things is that, as a government, it is the government

that has brought forward this motion. We have to remember that. It’s a

government that’s not scared to look after its structures and to look

after how it operates. It’s quite open to inviting the opposition, the

Third Party and independents to come down and just do this work. That’s

what they are going to be doing. They are going to be working on

improving how we govern and the kind of ways we get to play a role as

elected people.

Now, it’s always very, very clear on the role the ministers have.

They get their letters of expectation — I think that’s what they’re

called — and all these other parameters. But for members at large, what

I’ve often heard is that Monday morning is not as useful as it could be.

As a government, our House Leader had the courage to put forward a

motion to create an all-party committee so that we — not just the

government side, but all of us together — can come up with something

that will work for all of us.

[3:30 p.m.]

It’s that “all of us” that is important when it comes to private

members’ time. This is not about the government abandoning its

responsibility. It’s actually showing leadership in this case to say:

“We have heard you. We’ve heard the opposition. We’ve heard the Leader

of the Third Party, and what we’re going to do is start doing the work

to make the kinds of changes that will make the private members’ time

more effective, more useful and serve the people of British

Columbia.”

As I said previously, it’s not going to be easy work. I really

want to thank the colleagues who are going to be joining that committee

for the work that they are going to be doing, because that work is not

just for themselves. That work is for this Legislature. That work is for

British Columbians. We want to make sure that private members get the

time they need, as they play a critical role, and that their time is not

considered wasted.

I’ve heard that term being used by a couple of colleagues — that

we need to change the way things are done. Well, you could have had a

government that just said: “Okay, these are the changes.” But we don’t,

and we’re lucky. We have a government that actually believes in

democracy and practises it. So that’s why we are going to go to this

committee.

It is an all-party committee, just for those of you who are

watching at home. An all-party committee, and we have many of them, is a

committee that is made up of government, the official opposition as well

as the Third Party. That committee will then do its work, and they will

then report back to this House, and then it’s the determination of this

House whether they act on all of their recommendations or a few of them

or whatever happens. That I don’t want to presuppose, because I don’t

even know if they’re going to come up with recommendations or if they

will just come up with a recommended process.

All of those things are possible within the parameters that the

House Leader has laid out. Once again, the committee is not being bound

in any way. The committee has the leeway to go out and do the work they

need to do. They also know….

I’m sure many of them will be private members sitting on that

committee, and some of them in here have a far superior history and

memory bank than some of us newer ones. So I’m really hoping that this

committee, in its diversity, will come up with a system for private

members’ time that will make every private member feel that Monday

morning is useful and that they are serving the people of British

Columbia.

Thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to stand here

and speak.

I forgot to say this at the beginning, so I’m going to say it now.

I’m very, very proud to be the elected representative for

Surrey-Panorama. I’m always grateful to them for their trust in me and

putting their faith in me and sending me here. I will certainly be

sharing with them in my newsletter the fact that we are going to be

having this committee, if this motion passes here, that will be taking a

look at Monday morning private members’ time, because we want to make

sure that the work that is being done here is done in the best way to

serve the people of British Columbia.

[3:35 p.m.]

H. Yao: It is my pleasure and privilege to stand up and speak about Motion

18. I just want to, first of all, take a moment to express my gratitude

to many of our colleagues who spoke before me to express the importance

for us to have private members’ time to really share different

perspectives and diversified experiences.

I’m actually going to piggyback off the member for Prince

George–Valemount’s comments about AED. We all went to a Heart and Stroke

Foundation event, and I was able to listen and actually read the

material. One of the fascinating things they talked about is that most

heart attacks actually happen in residences of individuals. I think this

is also bringing back a lot of the experience, reminding me — I used to

be a first aid attendant and also an instructor — that AEDs also require

a certain amount of training.

Why did I bring this story up? Because I do want to take a moment

to thank the member opposite. It’s a reminder that all of us are coming

from different backgrounds and different experiences. We all want to

contribute to this beautiful British Columbia and the B.C. Legislature.

To share, really, what we can do to contribute for a better future for

all of us, including our future generation.

I want to take a moment, echoing one of my colleague’s comments

earlier too, to thank Richmond South Centre for sending me here to be a

representative and to be able to speak on their behalf. I think one

thing I do want to echo again and again, from my past speeches, is that

we’re elected here to speak. We’re elected to be a voice. Because we

spend our time in constituencies to listen, to understand and to

appreciate the complexity.

I think one of the important things too is that I do want to take

a moment to express the time I had on the Finance Committee. The time I

was spending o