2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 5, Number 3

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2014

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I call Motion 1 standing on the order paper in my name.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 1 — CHANGE TO QUESTION PERIOD

Hon. M. de Jong: I move:

[That the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be amended as follows for the duration of the Second Session of the Fortieth Parliament, which commenced on February 11, 2014:

1. Standing Order 25 be deleted and the following substituted:

The daily routine business of the House shall be as follows:

Prayers (morning or afternoon sittings)

Introduction of Bills

Statements (Standing Order 25b) (afternoon sittings: Monday and Wednesday; morning sittings: Tuesday and Thursday)

Oral question period (30 minutes, afternoon sittings: Monday and Wednesday; 30 minutes, morning sittings: Tuesday and Thursday)

Presenting Petitions

Reading and Receiving Petitions

Presenting Reports by Committees

Motions on Notice

Written Questions on Notice

Proposed Amendments on Notice

Orders of the Day.

The order of business for consideration of the House day by day, after the above routine, shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as follows:

MONDAY

10 a.m. to 12 noon

(Private Members' Time)

Private Members’ Statements (10 a.m.)

Public Bills in the hands of Private Members

Private Members’ Motions

Private Bills

Public Bills and Orders and Government Motions on Notice

No division, on Orders of the Day, will be taken in the House or in Committee of the Whole during Private Members’ Time, but where a division is requested, it will be deferred until thirty minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House on the Monday, unless otherwise ordered.

MONDAY (afternoon), TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY and THURSDAY

(Government Days)

Throne Speech Debate

Budget Debate including Committee of Supply

Public Bills and Orders and Government Motions on Notice

Private Bills

Public Bills in the hands of Private Members

Adjourned debate on other motions

2. Standing Order 47a be deleted and the following substituted:

There shall be a 30 minute Oral Question Period at the opening of each afternoon sitting on Monday, and Wednesday and at the opening of each morning sitting on Tuesday and Thursday, which shall be subject to the following rules:

(a) only questions that are urgent and important shall be permitted;

(b) questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion;

(c) supplementary questions may be permitted at the discretion of the Speaker. There shall be no supplementary question to a question taken on notice;

(d) debate shall not be permitted;

(e) points of order arising during Oral Question Period may, at the discretion of the Speaker, be deferred until Question Period has been completed;

(f) Oral Question Period shall not take place on the day of the Speech from the Throne.]

I should say at the outset that we dealt with a procedural matter yesterday addressing the hours of sitting that enjoyed unanimous consent. I am aware that the proposal contained within Motion 1 is not viewed nearly as favourably by the opposition. I'm not, by the way, aware of what the positions of the independent members of the Legislative Assembly are, though I'm certain we'll discover during the course of the discussion today.

I will also say this. I'm not going to insult members of the House or members of opposition by trying to dismiss or minimize the significance or relevance of the proposal that is before the House, the change that is being proposed. This is a place steeped in history and tradition, and that's a good thing.

[1005]

In many ways, when the strength of that history and tradition reveals itself, sometimes unexpectedly and sometimes in a very positive way, we should be aware of that, cherish it, celebrate it.

Yet over the years changes have been tried, changes have occurred and have been made. Some of them have been tried and relegated to the trash heap of history, and others have become rooted and formed new traditions and a new basis for doing things.

I think back…. Members of the opposition would be correct to point out that the mere fact that we are able to read what takes place in this chamber via Hansard — today, watch through recorded means — was the result of a change, I believe, introduced by the first NDP government, between '72 and '75. Prior to that there was no actual transcript of specific proceedings in here. I also recall that there were those at the time who spoke very negatively of that as an intrusion upon the traditions of this place.

We have sitting hours that have evolved over time, yesterday being the latest iteration of that. I would say that
[ Page 1246 ]
of late, in the last number of years, they have evolved in a way that has reflected a more modern notion of the needs of members, of the mix of people that are here. They need to have healthier work hours. We've eliminated night sittings, and I believe, on balance, that has reflected well on the proceedings that take place here.

We have a parliamentary calendar that has eliminated virtually all of the uncertainty that used to characterize the sittings. There are a few members in this House, on both sides, who will recall how we used to sit around our offices, our homes, our phones — cell phones, if we had them — and wait for a call.

By the way, the uncertainty around that visited upon government benches as well as opposition benches, because it was generally the Premier's office of the day that made the decision. Although oppositions like to think that everyone on the government side knew everything that was going on three months in advance, that wasn't the case. Everyone got notice usually a week in advance of when the House was going to sit.

We've moved beyond that now, where members can plan their lives. That, I would say, represents a positive advance.

I expect, in raising the issue, I will hear talk from members of the opposition about the fall session, in some cases the absence of a fall session. But the fact is that in roughly half the time that there is a fall session, we know when it's held. I think I indicated earlier, prior to the House reconvening, that this year I fully expect that there will be a fall session. And we know when it will be. Members will be able to plan their lives accordingly. So that's, I would suggest to the House, a positive advance.

[1010]

We use technology in different ways. Remember the debate around televising parliamentary proceedings, in Ottawa and here? Some argued that the very pillars of democracy would be shaken, and yet we have survived and, I would say, flourished in the new regime.

So here's a proposal in Motion 1, contained within Motion 1, for another change. I should say that for as long as I am aware, certainly as long as I have been here, question period has occurred after the lunch break. It has, for both government and opposition, represented our afternoon rendezvous with parliamentary destiny. It has been and remains a fundamentally important part of the parliamentary exercise.

The cross-examination, the accountability…. That time in the parliamentary day is intended to be uncomfortable for members of the executive council and very, very rarely is occasionally uncomfortable for members of the opposition, though that is very rare. For those of us who have sat in opposition, we can perhaps all think back on one of those rare occasions, but they are rare indeed.

It is the time for the opposition, in a very public way, to critique, as I said, and cross-examine the government on policy, on events of the day. That is fundamentally important.

I am also aware of how much time goes into preparing for that exercise. Over the last 13 years, admittedly, my bias has been around the time it takes to prepare from the point of view of answering questions as a member of the executive council. But I spent seven years in opposition. I know how long it takes to prepare, to consider what the range of issues are, to get the background material, to check facts and to decide on the strategy that will be employed in the somewhat theatrical process that question period represents.

I don't say that dismissively. I understand that. I understand the time and the challenges.

I also understand the amount of time and the degree to which it preoccupies the day leading up to the event, and that from the morning until 1:30 ministers spend anticipating, reviewing, thinking about the issues that they may be confronted by. Many members of the opposition are preoccupied through that same time period, bringing themselves up to date, analyzing and considering the strategy. Everything else becomes secondary.

The proposal that is before the House is, first of all, a sessional order. It does not represent an attempt by the government to permanently amend the standing orders.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: I understood that my remarks and the proposal might be disconcerting to members opposite.

It is a sessional order that proposes — for the life of this session through to the end of May — that for two days in each week, question period be conducted in the morning as opposed to the afternoon — those two days being the Tuesday and Thursday.

[1015]

Now, other jurisdictions have gone further and shifted to the morning on all four days. We have other traditions here in British Columbia in this assembly. We have private members' business on Monday mornings. On Wednesday mornings caucuses and cabinets have traditionally met. For the purpose of this trial, if you will, the government…. I am suggesting to the assembly that we make the shift for two days only and assess what the impact of that will be and whether or not it is worth continuing in future sessions.

I expect I will hear a little bit from members opposite. The assembly will hear a little bit from members opposite about this representing some kind of scurrilous and surreptitious attempt to mute the opposition. I would only say this. I make two observations.

One is that if that were a general predisposition on the part of the government, we wouldn't have doubled the length of question period. For the whole time I was in opposition, question period was a 15-minute affair. Today it's half an hour. Some might say that's not long enough. There are some days when, for the government, it seems
[ Page 1247 ]
an eternity. There are, again, occasional days when, for the opposition, it seems an eternity. Again, those days are rare. But they do occur.

To those who might be tempted to suggest that this is part of some grand strategy to camouflage or otherwise hide away the deliberations that question period represents, first of all I'm going to suggest that it simply won't happen. There will be as much attention focused on question period on Tuesdays and Thursdays in the morning as in the afternoon. But that theory is inconsistent with the actions of a government that has actually shed a broader light on the executive council through the doubling of the length of time that is spent in question period.

There will, if the House chooses to accept this proposition and try this for the duration of the session…. My guess is that there will be days when the government appreciates the additional time it may have to address or bring additional facts to bear on an issue that the opposition has raised in an earlier-in-the-day question period. I think that's true. I don't think there's any question that there will be days when the government appreciates that additional time.

I think there will also be many days when the opposition benefits greatly from the additional time that they have to present additional material or to present a response to the government's response. Those debates and battles and political exchanges will continue. They will continue on Tuesdays and Thursdays, under this regime, for longer. My guess is, based on my experiences, it will all work out in the end and kind of be a wash, as these things usually are.

That's the nature of the proposal. That's the rationale behind it. I want to assure members that I will listen carefully to the arguments that are advanced in opposition to what is being suggested here.

I also want to say this as a final comment. If, as I hope and modestly expect, the House in its entirety does choose to accept this on a trial basis for this session, I will undertake to have conversations with the Opposition House Leader — and any other member, for that matter, who has thoughts — to assess at the end of this session whether it has been a useful exercise or a fruitful one and what, if anything, should be done in the future.

[1020]

Madame Speaker, thanks for the opportunity, and I'll listen with interest to what other members have to say.

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly, it's good to be back. It's nice to see us all in our places with bright, shiny faces this early in the morning. Next week at this time, should this standing order pass, we'll be engaged in question period. I know that, certainly, we'll be full of vim and vigour on this side, but I'm not so convinced how it will go on the other side.

Before I get into the bulk of my remarks, I want to just take a moment to review some of the points made by the Government House Leader. He said that on normal days in the current standing order regime, with question periods in the afternoon, ministers often spend the entire day preparing for question period. I'm thinking back to just yesterday and the responses we got from the government side, and I'm thinking: "That took you all day? That took you all day to prepare?"

I'm also thinking, with deference and respect to the newer members of executive council, there are seasoned veterans on the government benches. I would think that after 12 or 13 years in power, a government and members of cabinet would be more than prepared to defend the policy positions that they put forward to the people of British Columbia, and they wouldn't be fretting about it all day, concerned that we may lob a rock at them at two o'clock in the afternoon.

Again, I'm very mindful of the Justice Minister's performance yesterday and some of the performances we had, for the new members, in our brief session in the summer. I know that I have not been a cabinet minister, but I've been around cabinet ministers, and I do appreciate that it does occupy a good deal of time.

We on the opposition side…. Of course, it's easier now, with all of the ammunition we have available to us, to prepare for question period. In that sense, I'm not concerned about our ability to respond. We do have a handful of people that help us out here. Not the hundreds…. Actually, in the government's communications and public engagement office, which is devoted exclusively to massaging the message coming from government, 299 staff apparently occupy their entire day preparing for question period so that the government can come out unscathed.

I'm surprised that that is a concern. I'm surprised that's a concern for senior members of cabinet. And for those newer members or those who are aspiring to be members of cabinet, I would think that if you have a principled position, you can stand and defend it regardless of what time of day it is.

In the afternoon we have question periods in the House of Commons here in Canada — even the Senate. Of course, it's probably harder to get up early in the morning at that age, with all of that largesse. But even in the Senate of Canada they have question periods in the afternoon, as do the province of Alberta, the province of Saskatchewan, the provinces of Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, P.E.I. and the three territories — all in the afternoon.

The minister suggested that other jurisdictions in Canada have adopted morning question periods. That's correct — Ontario and, for two days a week, New Brunswick. So it is becoming a practice in a very, very small minority of jurisdictions here in Canada. If that is the foundation on which the government, after 200 days to prepare a parliamentary reform package, comes forward with a "we'd like to leave early on Thursday" strat-
[ Page 1248 ]
egy, I don't think that's really acceptable to this side of the House and, I would expect, most British Columbians.

I've had 200 days to prepare for parliamentary reform, and I've got, on the order paper today, two bills. I have the good fortune in this debate to be discussing them, which I may not have had the opportunity to do otherwise. So I thank the Government House Leader for the sessional change.

But I've put together, with the assistance of my colleagues, a parliamentary calendar act — it's on the order paper, and I'll be introducing it shortly — that would institutionalize fall sittings of this Legislature. So new members wouldn't have to go back to their constituencies and say: "Well, I thought you elected me to go to Victoria, but apparently that's not the Premier and the cabinet's idea." Their idea is to say: "We have a fixed calendar. Aren't you proud of us? What good boys and girls are we, but we're not going to sit in the fall if we choose not to."

My private member's bill, supported by those on this side of the House, would make constitutional changes to insist on fall sittings. That's parliamentary reform, not getting out of town early on a Thursday.

[1025]

A second bill. Hon. Speaker, you will know that there are standing committees that are named on the first day. The Premier stood just on Tuesday and read off an inventory of standing committees of this place. One would assume, watching the proceedings either in the galleries or on television, that those committees actually function. They don't. Members on this side certainly know that.

There are a handful of committees that do very, very good work. The Finance Committee, a bipartisan committee, travels the province every year to give advice to the Minister of Finance. I've been on that committee, and my colleague from Port Coquitlam is the vice-Chair. There have been a number of people. For those on the back bench, try and become the Chair of the Finance Committee. It's the launch pad to cabinet, unless you give a report that offers up the advice that you hear from constituents. Then not so much. Blair Lekstrom did eventually get in cabinet, but it took an awfully long time.

The Standing Committee on Finance — a good example of bipartisan work on behalf of all British Columbians, serving all of us in our communities and in this place.

The Public Accounts Committee, ably chaired by…. I believe my colleague from Surrey-Whalley is proud to say that he's the longest-serving Chair of a Public Accounts Committee in the Commonwealth. I've never tested that assumption, but he likes to say it.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yeah. I don't disagree with the member across the way.

The Public Accounts Committee does very, very good work. There are members in the House now, new members, who are on that committee, and I think they feel a sense of satisfaction as legislators that they are doing the people's business. But beyond those two committees….

Of course, I would be remiss to leave out the Children and Youth Committee, which was an innovation from two parliaments ago, the 38th parliament, that ensures that the child advocate — the children's representative — has access to legislators on a regular basis. That's a positive thing. But the Crown Corporations Committee, of which I was a member half a decade ago, has not sat since 2008.

I don't know if the members on the other side have been paying attention, but certainly those on this side who dominate Vancouver Island have been spending a lot of time talking to our constituents about B.C. Ferries. If there were a standing committee, as would be prescribed by this legislation, that would sit year-round, charged by the Legislative Assembly Management Committee to do business 12 months of the year, we could be talking about ferry challenges right across Vancouver Island. We could talk about ferry rate increases and the consequences to the economy. We could be talking about a whole host of things if the Crown Corporations Committee would actually do its work.

Five years, not one single meeting. I think most British Columbians would find that shocking, because on Tuesday the Premier stood in this place and said that we're going to have a Crown Corporations Committee — and then sat down and completely forgot about it and will not think about it again until the next throne speech, when she stands up again and says: "We're going to have a Crown Corporations Committee." This piece of legislation is parliamentary reform. It's not getting out of town early on a Thursday.

That's what the government could have done with its time. They had 200 days. They could have done something useful to elevate all of us in this place, to elevate the perception the public has of parliaments here and across this country.

I would argue that the Senate scandal has put a scar on all of us. The absence of any activity in this place for 200 days has put a scar on all of us, and the first opportunity to try and make amends with the people who sent us here is: "I move that we shall leave after question period at ten o'clock on Thursday and get out of Dodge." I think that's unacceptable, and I'll be voting against the amendment for that reason alone.

I want to touch on a couple of points. The hon. Government House Leader very ably highlighted that Dave Barrett was the first to introduce Hansard to this place. It was also the B.C. NDP government of the 1970s that had question period, and the first oral question period was March 5, 1973 — 41 years ago. A motion to amend the orders of the day was moved by the hon. Ernie Hall on March 2 and was approved by the House. The fol-
[ Page 1249 ]
lowing discussion…. And off we went. We've been having question periods ever since, and that's a good thing.

They've been in the afternoon, and there's a reason for that. There's a good example that we can use today. At about 11 o'clock in Vancouver, the Premier and her Deputy Minister are going to release a report on the tragedy in Burns Lake, the Babine fire that killed individuals and British Columbians. They're going to be releasing that report at 11:15.

[1030]

Next week, if this standing order passes — the last day of the week's work — question period will begin at ten o'clock. That report will come after question period. We will not have an opportunity as legislators to engage in a discussion of the consequences of that report. So that's why we meet in the afternoon.

There are officers of this Legislature that traditionally release their reports in the morning. That's an opportunity for the opposition to poke the government in the eye. We'll be candid about that.

It's not that we wait for question period so that we can engage in banter. We wait for question period to hold the government accountable. To do that, we require not just our wits and our goodwill, but we require information from the public, information from officers of this Legislature and organizations that work in the public interest, that produce material after discussing issues with their constituents and with their stakeholders.

They bring those forward in the midmorning, and we're able to discuss them later in the afternoon. That's the value of not changing the standing order, as is proposed in this sessional order. If we sit in the afternoon, it gives us all day not to prepare to poke the government in the eye but prepare to have a discussion about the issues of the day, the issues that are important to British Columbians. That's what we should be doing. We should be talking about genuine parliamentary reform to lift us all up.

I know that the new members of this place had a vision of what it was going to be like when they got elected. Whether it be the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head or our independent friend from Delta South or the new members of the Liberal caucus or my colleagues here on the opposition side, you all came here with a bit of inspiration in your step. Your peers, your neighbours had said: "We want you to go and represent us in Victoria."

You came in the summer when you really wanted to be on holiday, and you watched all of the hurly-burly. You watched the debate go back and forth. You saw a little bit of downside on our side and a little bit of upbeat on the cabinet side, because they're getting paid an extra couple of bucks. They've got a big office. They have to wait all day and prepare for question period. But other than that, it's a pretty good gig.

That was your first introduction. Then you went home, and people said, "So how's it going in Victoria?" and you went: "Well, I don't really go to Victoria very much." That's kind of hard to do. You have a Christmas open house. "How was the fall session?"

How many of the members on the other side…? I know this isn't a call-and-respond situation, but I would suggest that many members on the other side had a Christmas open house. Their neighbours came, and their constituents came, and they wanted to know: "How did it go? What was it like in Victoria?" "Well, we were there in July." "July? I was at Sooke Potholes in July, swimming and enjoying the summer with my family. You're supposed to be working in the fall. It says so in the standing orders."

We have standing orders that we don't abide by. We don't have a fall session institutionalized as part of our parliamentary process, other than it being in the rule book, the rules of which, of course, don't apply if you don't want to play by them.

This sessional order will make it easier for the government to diminish the proposals that we put forward on this side of the House. It will also, I would argue, make it more difficult for the backbench on the government side to justify their existence. Sorry to say that. I know it's tough watching all the other guys make all the big decisions while you go, "I have a question," but we'll get to that question later on, and then the day flies by.

I want to touch on the first question period recorded or at least that we were able to find in our research department. It was in the House of Lords in 1721 — 293 years ago. If the former Clerk Consultant was here, he could have probably told us exactly what happened there. But….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: He might, and I'd look forward to it. His experience is vast. We all know that.

The question went as follows: "Earl Cowper asked the government whether there was any truth to the report that the chief cashier of the South Sea Company, Robert Knight, had fled the country and had been arrested in Brussels." A reply provided the facts of the case and was given to the Earl of Sunderland.

Good parliamentary work. Someone made off with the cash box, and they were able to ask a question in the House of Lords to determine what the facts of the matter were. That's really what we're trying to do in this place. It may appear, and I know…. I see my friend from Richmond-Steveston. He may not feel this is the case, but we are usually trying to get the facts out.

I know when the government members were on this side of the House, there was the fun you would have in question period, the jocularity and so on. But at the end of the day you wanted to get the facts out, and so do we, not in our own personal partisan interest but in the public interest.
[ Page 1250 ]

[1035]

Getting the facts out requires preparation time on this side of the House, and I will concede the minister's point that it requires preparation time on the government side of the House. But the challenge we have today is that the proposal that's before us, in my opinion, diminishes our ability to get the facts out in the public interest. It diminishes our ability as parliamentarians to make the case to our constituents and our stakeholders that we're doing our level best to hold executive council accountable, not just for us but for government backbenchers as well, who are equally responsible for the work that goes on in this place.

As I understand it, the proposal before us is to amend the standing orders. I would like to move an amendment myself, which I've provided to the Government House Leader. We are moving to what is now the Westminster model of early morning question time, and so I'm moving the following:

[By inserting as an addition to the motion the following text highlighted by underline:

(g) That the Westminster model of Prime Minister's Time be adapted for the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and that one day a week, a thirty-minute Premier's Time Question Period be adopted in the House.]

Madame Speaker: Minister of Transportation. The minister is speaking on the amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, the amendment that the hon. member has moved is an interesting idea. I certainly think that I speak on behalf of government that it's an idea that's worthy of consideration. It certainly is a new concept. It hasn't been brought forward here for consideration in British Columbia before, but it is something that I think is worthy of consideration.

As I think the Government House Leader mentioned in his comments earlier, we are certainly open to any ideas that the members opposite have and that government members have as to how we can make this place function better.

That's all I would like to say about the amendment to the motion. If I may move to the main motion….

Interjections.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, on the amendment, it's a new idea that's been presented. We're certainly willing to consider it. As the Government House Leader has said, we welcome any thoughts that the members opposite have, including this one. We'd be happy to discuss it further.

D. Eby: I rise to speak in support of the amendment. As many of the members here will know, I ran against the Premier in the constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey in a by-election in 2011 and then in the general election in May.

During the 2011 by-election, which was the only election taking place in the entire province at the time, the Premier did not attend a single all-candidates debate. In the subsequent election, similarly, the Premier failed to attend a single all-candidates debate. I note simply as a point of comparison that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway attended his community all-candidates debate.

I raise this point in light of the amendment simply to note the remarkable similarity between the Premier's conduct during the elections in which I participated in Vancouver–Point Grey, where the Premier would attend her own events and speak but not attend the community debates. Yesterday in this House we saw a remarkable performance in which the Premier refused to stand up and defend her government's record in provoking a full-scale strike that hurt parents, that hurt children, and yet was willing to go to a Liberal fundraiser to discuss that exact issue.

It's that similarity in conduct — being willing to go to the friendly events to talk to the friendly people who are supporting her party and not to come to this House and answer the hard questions and not to go to the community debates — that causes me to rise and support this amendment. It's the idea that the Premier should be held accountable. It's a very modest ask. It's one day a week. It's for a brief period of time — but to defend her government's record.

[1040]

It's very clear what happens on the other side of the House. It's that the decisions for this government are coming out of the Premier's office and the cabinet. I think that it's high time that the Premier has to stand up and answer the difficult questions and that she stop using other members of this House as stunt doubles. We heard about the theatrics of question period. Well, the Premier is using stunt doubles to take the hits in question period. She should have to stand up and answer the hard questions. She should stop avoiding the accountability in this House.

That is why I'm supporting this amendment, and that's why I think it's a wonderful idea. I thank the member for Juan de Fuca for bringing it forward.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the Opposition House Leader believed that the Minister of Transportation was interested in making an introduction and yielded the floor. That was incorrect, and indeed I will allow the member to resume his remarks.

J. Horgan: I thank the Speaker for her indulgence, and I thank the minister for his comments on the amendment.

I want to just continue on and follow on the comments of my colleague for Vancouver–Point Grey. The reason that I put forward this amendment as part of the sessional
[ Page 1251 ]
debate is very much along the lines of what my colleague from Point Grey has highlighted.

In my experience in the eight, coming on nine, years that I've been a member of this place, it has been very rare that the Premier of the day, whether it be the previous Premier or the current Premier, has responded to questions, particularly within her — or his, in the case of Mr. Campbell — area of responsibility as the head of the government and the President of the Executive Council.

The notion that on a particular day we have half an hour devoted exclusively to questions from the opposition side to the head of the government, where the head of the government is prepared to respond in a comprehensive way to questions of public policy, to questions of expenditure, to questions that go to the very fabric of life here in British Columbia, is, I think, a positive amendment.

I think it's one that certainly will be supported by all members of this side of the House. I'm hopeful that the Premier and her executive council and members of the Liberal caucus will see the value in this, not just for today and this session, but if we do find, should this order pass — although we will be voting against it….

Should the main motion pass, this would be something that we should be able to do on a trial basis so that the public knows that the leader of the government of British Columbia is prepared on a weekly basis to stand for half an hour — and not take questions outside of her office.

There's been a diminishment over time of access for the media to the Premier. There's been a diminishment over time of access by members of this place. There was a time — and my colleague from Port Coquitlam will remember it very well — when the estimates process went on and on and on.

Hon. Speaker, you'll remember very well, having been a member of this place since 1991, that the estimates process was gruelling, absolutely gruelling, for government members and opposition members as well.

They had to work very hard. I know that my friend the Government House Leader was one of the most adept questioners in the estimates process, as well as in the question time. But we had access for long periods of time — we, as legislators — to the head of the government.

Now because of the constraints we have, with a fixed calendar that we don't abide by…. We have a fixed calendar that says: "Well, we'll come back in the fall. Don't worry about not having enough time to debate. We'll load you up with legislation, and we'll pass the budget as a secondary activity." Back in the day — back in the '90s, the '80s, the '70s and the '60s — the estimates process was the time when you went line by line through every single expenditure in government.

W.A.C. Bennett used to keep the money in the basement. When I have time on my hands — which I've had for the past 200 days, when I haven't been putting forward real, genuine proposals for parliamentary reform — I take school kids from my constituency here on southern Vancouver Island for tours. I show them the safe in the basement where the former Premier, Mr. Bennett, used to keep all the money not that long ago. Sixty years ago we kept all the cash for the Crown in a vault in the basement. That's extraordinary.

That Premier, the first of the Bennetts, was proud to defend his fiscal responsibility by debating those issues for extended periods of time in the Premier's estimates. We don't do that anymore. In the summer, of course, it was an unusual position because we didn't have an elected Premier at the time and it was the Deputy Premier from Fort Langley–Aldergrove that answered questions on behalf of the Premier's budget. But it had been winnowed down to — I think it was — eight hours of debate. In the 1990s the Premier's estimates went on for days.

[1045]

I don't think it's an outrageous proposal to put forward in the 21st century the notion that the head of a government, the Premier, who should be confident in the policy positions and confident in the expenditures and revenue projections of their budgets, would be able to stand in this place for 30 minutes, one-half of an hour, and defend those positions.

That's the motivation for this amendment, and I'm encouraging all members of this House to support it in a positive way so that we can, again, try and take that stain off of legislators — try and erase, if we can, a little bit of the shame that's been brought upon parliaments by the scandals in the Senate and scandals across the country that emerge periodically that distract us from the genuine business.

I take the Government House Leader at his word. I know the challenges that members of executive council have. They have extraordinarily busy schedules, with an enormous amount of information coming at them each and every day. Minute by minute by minute there's a new issue that's breaking.

I understand that and I appreciate it, but that doesn't absolve you from the responsibility to be accountable in this place — not at ten in the morning on a Thursday so you can catch the 12 ferry, if you have got enough change in your pocket to do that, of course. With the ministerial stipend, it's easier to do. I know you backbenchers have a bit of a more difficult time with that. I have the luxury of not having to get on the ferry. I drive home.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: As does my friend from Comox Valley.

Nonetheless, I'll give way the floor. I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to conclude my remarks on the amendment. It was gracious of her and the Table Officers to recognize my misunderstanding of the member from Kamloops.
[ Page 1252 ]

S. Robinson: I rise in the House today supporting the amendment to this motion. I come from local government, and I know that a lot of my colleagues from across the way come from local government as well.

One of the things I loved about local government was regular access and regular comment from the mayor, as head of the council. The mayor regularly spoke to decisions. Sometimes I didn't agree with what he had to say — actually, often I didn't agree with what he had to say — but he certainly was available for comment and available to defend his position on a whole bunch of different issues.

I think there's really some merit to the public to hear exactly what the Premier has to say about things that are going on in this House. Making sure that she is here for 30 minutes every week is one way to do that.

Now, I also think that we all deserve the opportunity to hear from the leader of any government in this room, in this House. We certainly hear out in the hallway. We certainly hear in the newspapers. And we certainly hear at events. But there's something about being accountable to this House and to these members who have all been sent here by the electorate to pay attention to what's going on. So I was very excited to hear that our House Leader was proposing this amendment, and I fully support it.

The other thing that I just want to point out is that if this system was good enough for Margaret Thatcher, it ought to be good enough for our Premier.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and to speak to this very thoughtful amendment proposed by the Opposition House Leader, one which I'm pleased to rise and speak in favour of. It was interesting to hear the remarks of the Government House Leader as to why the change to move question period, because I think some of that change relates to the need of why we need to support this particular motion.

The Government House Leader talked about the need to try new things, to change old traditions and put in place a new tradition and that this is what he wants to do. We understand that. We understand why he is trying to make those changes, as my colleague the Opposition House Leader pointed out.

There are certain advantages for the government; for example, reports being tabled on a Friday or on a Thursday now don't face the question of scrutiny. There is that saying in this place and in the media that Fridays are sometimes known as take-out-the-trash Fridays because there is no question period. Those reports or anything controversial that the government wants to get out the door before the weekend — nothing to see here — that will now extend to Thursday, because there is no question period on the Thursday.

What we're saying is: "Look, if you're genuinely serious about wanting to make an improvement, if you're genuinely serious about wanting to improve the ability of members to ask questions or you think this is a good idea, then why not make it a broader package?"

[1050]

Why not make it a broader package and look at something really unique — that we can look to another jurisdiction where it's worked, and not just worked but has become a focus of admiration by news agencies all over the world?

You can turn on CNN, and you will see Prime Minister's question time on an American news network, because the exchange in the House of Commons in London between a Prime Minister and a leader of the opposition for a full half an hour is really a remarkable sight. They often opine how the idea of something like that happening in the United States, in Washington, in the White House, was just unimaginable.

I once watched Anderson Cooper, I think it was, go: "Can you imagine George Bush having to face Prime Minister's question time or President's question time in a Congress? Can you imagine something like that?" It would be remarkable. Well, this amendment here allows us to do that.

One of the things I admire about the Premier — that I've always admired about the Premier — is her willingness to allow colleagues in cabinet to jump up and to ask a question or to state a policy position. She's selfless in allowing members of cabinet to rise and answer questions. Only thinking of them, never thinking of herself, denying herself the opportunity to rise and answer a question.

That's why I thought it was so great that the Minister of Transportation was up on his feet responding to this amendment — because he himself has experienced that.

One only has to look at the issue of the TransLink referendum. He has been up on his feet in this House on that, letting the House know the position of the government on the TransLink referendum. And yet the Premier will only answer outside the House. And yet somehow her position is slightly different.

Premier's question time would change that. It would allow the Minister of Transportation to resist the temptation to automatically ask the question that is put to him on a TransLink referendum. He could sit back and he could relax as opposition members rose on their feet and directed the question to the Premier, in full knowledge that on Premier's question time the Premier would selflessly rise to answer the question put to her from the opposition — the official opposition, the independents — and know that there would be a fulsome answer that would reflect the policy of the government.

What a unique opportunity to improve, as my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, says, the asking of questions and the providing of information.

The other thing that Premier's question time would address is an issue that the Government House Leader raised which I know he's very concerned about.

He said that ministers spend much of their time when
[ Page 1253 ]
they get here in the morning at seven or six, when it is into their offices, thinking, planning, plotting, dreading question period in the afternoon — are they going to be victim of the day? — and wondering: how are they going to look in front of their colleagues? And by having that in the morning, they are saved from that. They are saved from spending all that productive time that they could be doing on policy and focused on the real issues of the day.

J. Horgan: They get to keep their lunch down too.

M. Farnworth: They get to keep their lunch down, as my colleague says.

But the problem — I don't think the Government House Leader has truly thought this through — is that won't change. Instead of thinking, plotting, planning and dreading from eight in the morning till question period, they'll be thinking, plotting, planning, dreading and having nightmares from two in the morning till ten in the morning. They won't be getting any sleep. They will come here tired and haggard because they haven't had a good night's sleep.

Hon. Speaker, by adopting this motion, you will, for at least one day a week, solve that problem because they will go to bed that night and know full well, whether it is on the Tuesday or the Thursday morning, that it will be the Premier who carries the standard of the government, that it will be the Premier who selflessly rises in this House and takes the questions from the opposition. That in itself would be, I am convinced, why the Premier would support this amendment, because she fully supports her colleagues, as we see every day and as the Minister of Transportation can fully tell us.

[1055]

This is a unique opportunity to really do something innovative, in terms of accountability, in terms of an improvement in the way this place functions. Most importantly, I think the public would think that this is a change and an innovation that they could really get behind.

With that, I know that some of my other colleagues…. As I said, I wanted my remarks to be brief, because I think my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, has laid out the rationale very thoroughly. I think that this is a motion that all of us in this House can get behind to improve the tenor of question period and make a significant change that will improve this House. I ask all members to support it, because this side certainly will.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the members opposite and the Opposition House Leader, with respect to the amendment.

Well, it's tempting. It's tempting for a variety of reasons, but I must confess it was the hon. Finance critic's last argument that actually grabbed my attention most of all. What it did for me is to evoke the notion…. It works both ways.

We understand the dynamic of question period and Prime Minister's questions. Lots has been written about that by former Prime Ministers. Tony Blair's discussion of his anticipation of Prime Minister's questions is very compelling. Margaret Thatcher was very dismissive, a contrast in leadership styles.

But of course, the Prime Minister, or in this case the Premier, is on the receiving end of those questions. The Leader of the Opposition, of course, assumes the burden of carrying the mantle for the official opposition. If there's one thing that I, and I expect most of my colleagues, would enjoy, it's to revisit a stage in which this Premier and that Leader of the Opposition can present themselves one-on-one for the people of British Columbia.

Imagine that: a weekly replay of four historic weeks in the history of British Columbia. But it may be that the hon. Finance critic has a different lineup in mind.

Look, the government is not going to today support the motion, which isn't to say that the idea doesn't have some merit. I'm not going to dwell on the technicalities of the drafting. I understand the spirit of what is being conveyed here. We'd have to have a conversation about day.

I am, by the way, aware of the references made to the British parliamentary tradition. I think, as I recall from reading about that and understanding the tradition there, that it involves providing advance copy, written copies, of questions to the Prime Minister's office in Britain. So there are some additional dimensions to this kind of advancement that we'd have to talk about.

I'm not offended that the Opposition House Leader would present it. It's, as I say, the possibility of change. It's clearly not part of the change the government, at least, is contemplating today, though I am happy to pursue the conversation on this and other matters.

[1100]

The Opposition House Leader has raised some other questions regarding the use of committees that I think have some merit and are worth exploring around possible other innovation. But for today the government's position is that we should be focused on the main motion and therefore won't be supporting the suggestion in the amendment that has been tabled by the opposition.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, seeing no additional speakers to the amendment, I'll call the question.

[1105]

Hon. Members, we will be voting on the amendment put forward by the member for Juan de Fuca, which reads as follows: "That the Westminster model of Prime Minister's Time be adapted for the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and that one day a week a thirty-minute Premier's Time Question Period be adopted in the House."
[ Page 1254 ]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On the main motion.

M. Karagianis: I rise to speak to the main motion, and I'd like to urge the House to vote against this motion.

The arguments laid out earlier by my friend the member for Juan de Fuca, I think, are all very solid, very viable debate on why this motion should fail. But I really want to talk about the fact that question period is a tool of the Legislature that is there for this side of the House, for opposition members. Unlike many of the other parliamentary tools that we use for debate, that, very specifically, is a tool of opposition and has traditionally been one of the very few tools we have in which to create debate from this side of the House.

I believe that it is really important for us to continue to honour this part of the parliamentary structure, which is a question period. If there are going to be amendments or parliamentary changes, they should be, in fact, led by opposition members, as this is one of our primary tools. That change in parliament, any kind of change and parliamentary reform here, should be led by this side of the House. We have not initiated that. We have not felt any need or desire to change, in any way, the way the question period has operated up to this point.

[1110]

I think, certainly, if we're going to talk about parliamentary reform, as the member for Juan de Fuca, our House Leader, mentioned in his comments, there are a great number of other things that we could start off with that seem to me much more important than altering the time in which we sit for question period.

I have had the great privilege of sitting on the Children and Youth Committee for most of the time that I have sat in this Legislature, going on nine years now. We have done some really exceptional work. We have done some great bipartisan work. We have done work on behalf of children and families in this province that was not about partisan politics but was, in fact, about families and about children and about the work of the children's representative.

Not all of our committees function or work in the same way. Many of our committees don't sit at all. It would seem to me that if the government wants to initiate some kind of parliamentary reform, we should start first and foremost with something as fundamental as committees that have been put in place that do not do the work of the people but could, in fact, help elevate the debate in this House, could help us craft better legislation and could deal with and address some of the crises we face as a province.

No question, the issues around inequality, the issues that are facing us around lack of skills training, the issues that are facing us around how we manage our resources and still honour and fairly treat our First Nations…. There are a whole number of things that we could be addressing under parliamentary reform that seem to me to be much more imperative than this idea of somehow switching question period around between mornings and afternoons.

It seems to me in the time that I've sat in this House — and I would expect members of my side of the House would agree with this — we have seen, under the guise of modernizing traditions, a diminishment in the capacity of the public to see democratic process take place in this Legislature. We have certainly seen the hours diminished in this House. Again, as much as I agree with the concept of us having more family-friendly hours, because I think that is important, nonetheless, we have lost the number of hours that we have debated in this House.

We have also split debate into three different houses at various times in this Legislature, making it very difficult not only for members of this House to participate fully in the parliamentary processes of this Legislature but, in fact, for the public to also have an opportunity to see and hear what their elected members are doing in this House.

Each and every time we appear to be diminishing the opportunity for real democratic debate, for opportunities for the people of the province of British Columbia to see
[ Page 1255 ]
their legislators doing the business of this House, then I think it is fundamentally wrong.

Now, I realize we're not reducing the number of minutes that we have for question period, but I think that by moving it around — different hours, different times of the day on different days — in fact, we are discouraging the public from, again, following what we are doing in this House and paying attention to it. I think that the criticism for us will be that we continue to diminish the opportunity for the public to see us doing the people's business.

My next point is really about that. We should not only be doing the people's business here but we should be seen to be doing the people's business here. I believe, fundamentally, that for us to begin to change how this House operates, we are in fact marginalizing the ability for people to see us doing the people's business.

Now, anybody who sits in here in the morning will know that there are no viewers here in the gallery — very few. A handful of real diehards come here, will be sitting in this House, but for the most part, we do not see anywhere near the kind of participation in this legislative activity here that we will see later in the day.

There are a whole number of reasons for that. First of all, people who are from away, who don't live on Vancouver Island, need to find a way to get here. It is much harder to get here to see us doing the people's business at ten o'clock in the morning than it is at 1:30 in the afternoon. I would say on that basis alone that we are immediately marginalizing the ability for many people and many groups to come and participate here.

Now, anybody who has to take a ferry will know that in order to have a group of stakeholders who have an interest in the legislation that's being debated here or the questions that are being asked in question period or who come here to be introduced and acknowledged for the work they are doing out in communities, for them to arrive here at ten o'clock in the morning is a hardship.

[1115]

Certainly, it's not going to get better once we see ferry services cut. It's already expensive to get here and going to be more so. Now we're going to tell people that you have to get up at five o'clock in the morning to take a ferry in order to get over here to be introduced, to have your question asked in question period so that you can see this House do the people's business.

I think that's just fundamentally wrong. We should be making it easier for people to come and participate in this process. We have already seen that voters continue to diminish each and every election because they feel shut out of the parliamentary process, out of the electoral process, and now we are going to once again diminish the ability for people to participate wholly and easily in this process. I think we're going backwards, not forwards, in this, and I think that it's anything but modernizing the process.

We should be making it much easier for people to come and participate here. I mean, I think of school groups that like to come and listen to question period. I think of all the great work that community activists do to make sure that their issues are raised here in the House, are raised in question period.

Things that are very vital, often critical to people's lives, are raised here. Are they going to be able to get up at five o'clock in the morning to catch a ferry to drive here so that they can be here for ten o'clock to hear their question asked, to support the members that are asking that, to hold the government accountable? I think it's less likely.

Now what we are doing is diminishing the four days of question period that we have now to two where people can easily and actively participate in this process. All members of this House have guests that come here, tour the Legislature, often have lunch with us and then participate in the part of the day where we do two-minute statements and questions. We are now reducing that by half, because that process will not occur at ten o'clock in the morning in the same way that it does at 1:30 in the afternoon.

I fundamentally disagree with this motion because it does continue to diminish and marginalize our ability to be seen to be doing the people's business in this House, for us to make sure that the citizens of British Columbia can participate wholly and fully in that.

I would urge the House to think seriously on the comments I've said, think about how accountable you're going to be to your constituents, who now cannot come to question period unless they make it on a Monday or a Wednesday or are prepared to get up very early in the morning to come here and participate. That is not fair to them. In fact, that's not what we were sent here to do — to reduce the access to democracy — so I would urge all members of this House to vote against this motion.

L. Krog: I want to thank the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads this morning. I think she made a very compelling case for the logic of retaining the existing practice with respect to question period in terms of the public participating, coming to this chamber, seeing how the people's business is done.

Notwithstanding the presence of cameras in this chamber, one does not get the full impression of what question period is like, what debate is really like in this House, unless you have the opportunity to physically be here, present, able to watch and see.

Now, I can understand, of course, that the government has the majority, and I suspect we might lose the vote this morning. Quite a shocker, but, nevertheless, I'm expecting that the same members opposite who stood up and supported the government will do so again in a few minutes when we close debate. However, that's the great thing about democracy: votes trump. If you get enough and get the majority, you win.
[ Page 1256 ]

If it were the case here this morning that it was based on the argument of the House Leader, I would respectfully suggest that I didn't hear a compelling argument this morning for the proposed change. I, generally, was trying to take notes of what those bits and nuggets were in the hon. member's remarks that would have convinced me that, in fact, this was a good idea, that this was a progressive idea, that this was a step forward, and I just didn't hear it.

In fairness, if this were a court — I know the Minister of Finance has certainly been a member of the bar; he may still presently be a member of the bar — I would suggest strongly that he would enjoy the same success rate in this chamber, if he were making it, as the government has enjoyed in courtrooms recently in the province of British Columbia. Not exactly a winning record.

[1120]

Other members have made the point that what is proposed diminishes what we do here. I am always reminded and sometimes in prayers, when I've had the opportunity to address this House, have reminded the members that, unlike the people of Syria who continue to die in the streets of their communities, fighting for the right to elect members to represent them in a legislature or parliament, we take for granted that right. Perhaps we have diminished the importance of this place by the way we conduct ourselves, by how we conduct the people's business in this very chamber.

Tinkering — and this is what is really being proposed by the government motion today — with what we do here, I would respectfully suggest, is not the way to go about parliamentary reform.

Our House Leader very eloquently referred to the fact that a number of committees have been referred to by the Premier at the start of this session, as they are every session. They will never sit. They will never be called to do any useful work. They will never be called — period. They won't even get together to elect a chair and a vice-chair.

Why, this morning, if the government is truly interested in reform or improvement, weren't we debating a motion to strike a formal committee composed of all members, including the independents, that could actually even potentially conduct public hearings to look at how this place operates?

I have been here a fairly long time now. I served here in the '90s. I've been here since 2005. I have often wondered at the process and what benefit is served by it. I get it for question period. I do. I get it. And the estimates process — if you can't understand why that's important, you don't deserve to be here.

But the kind of set approach around the throne speech debate and other things we do — the failure of committees to be called and to actually do useful work; the inability of members to really have an opportunity to advance a bill beyond simply first reading and actually having an opportunity to get it to second reading debate, all of those things…. If you were a member of the public — and we all are, of course — as opposed to being a member of this place, you would step back and say: "Well, what's the sense in that?"

I'm not suggesting we move to an American model, but the proposal this morning to shift question period doesn't enhance what we do here. It diminishes. Again, as the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads pointed out, the opportunity for people to be here, just to hear it, is diminished, and to what useful purpose?

Well, I guess we heard, perhaps, an interesting admission this morning from the Government House Leader. He said — I believe I've got the quote correct: "Ministers spend so much of their time preparing for question period."

Now, I'm not going to go on in the mocking tone of our House Leader, who I think did it so brilliantly that it would not be fair even to attempt to match that performance, because it so beautifully conveyed, I think, the feelings of many members of this House, including those on the opposite side.

If the Government House Leader was being even at all accurate to suggest, having sat here lo these many years as I have, that the answers we hear in this chamber every day are the result of a full morning's work, then I would propose a pay cut for the government benches. Is that the best we can do?

I listened with shock and surprise when our House Leader this morning mentioned that the public engagement office has 299 staff. Goodness gracious. I wasn't paying attention. I thought it was around 200. Now it's up to 299? Has the performance improved, hon. Speaker? Do you see any dramatic, significant improvement in the responses from the government benches during question period? Not one iota. There is no Sochi Winter Games over there collecting gold medals. There's not one of them that would pass muster.

We've got 299 people engaged in the public engagement office advising government, keeping them free of pesky reporters. I don't think they engage with any of the public that I'm aware of. What is it? The lines in Milton's On His Blindness, speaking of the Lord: "Thousands at his bidding speed, and post o'er land and ocean without rest." Well, I think 299 versus what Milton believed the Lord had available to him really does represent a disproportionate number of staff to present the kind of information we receive daily in question period.

[1125]

Given that the government performs so poorly in question period now, why would we want to diminish its importance by moving it further up in the morning so that people, the public, can't come here and hear what's said? They won't have that opportunity. Some will say, "Well, they can watch it on television," but as I said earlier, we all understand that television doesn't begin to convey what goes on in this place.
[ Page 1257 ]

The diminishing of the importance of this place is not something we should take lightly. It is not something we should take lightly. When this place becomes the subject of derision, when the members who work here become the subject of public derision…. My own uncle said to me only a few weeks ago — my flesh and blood, my late father's youngest brother — "God, it must be nice to have a job where you only work 36 days a year." When your own family…. He was making a joke, but he was emphasizing what is felt by many of the public.

When you don't come back here for over 200 days — 200 days — what does it say about our importance, our usefulness to the people? What does it say about the importance of this chamber and what goes on here? What does it say about the state of our democracy? What does it say — and the question has already been asked this morning — when after 200 days the best we get from the government of British Columbia, after nearly 13 years of power in this province, is a motion to fiddle with question period, to shift the time? Is that the best they can do?

It's pathetic, hon. Speaker, and it's pathetic that the government wouldn't take up the opportunity to engage in some real reform. None of us want to come here and feel that what we do is not important. We want to come to this place to represent our constituents. We want to raise the issues that are important to them, were important to us, things we campaigned on, things that are important to the people of British Columbia.

Instead, what we have is a Legislature that is now notorious for sitting the least, or close to it, of any legislature in the country. We have a government that, after 200 days, wants to play with question period. Well, I'm sorry. It isn't good enough.

I come back to my initial remarks. I didn't hear a compelling argument or, indeed, any argument at all from the Government House Leader. Charming fellow he may be, and witty and in love with this place and his own performance, but it wasn't convincing — didn't work, didn't fly. I think anyone who had the opportunity to be in the gallery this morning or watch this at home on TV would say: "So what was that all about? Was that important? Did that have any value?" If this were a courtroom, I think at this point I'd be tempted to say, were I the judge: "Case dismissed; next case, please."

That's what we're going to do this morning. We're going to have a vote. Government's going to win. Nothing's going to change, nothing's going to improve, and the public will not be better served after today as a result of the vote and the decision that this government has taken to play with the one significant opportunity that the opposition has to hold the government to account. It is our fundamental and greatest responsibility.

This government, if it wanted to do this, should have put it to a legislative committee, should have discussed it during the last election and been prepared to hear the public on this instead of arrogantly telling the opposition how we get to run this place from our perspective as the representative of the people.

It's shameful, hon. Speaker. They should be ashamed, but they're going to vote in favour of it, as they always do, and thus is democracy.

Hon. T. Stone: It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the government's motion this morning. I think if the comments that we have heard this morning from members opposite are any indication of what we can expect in the mornings on days when there is question period, clearly there is no question that we will have a lively debate, a lively discussion in those morning question periods.

[1130]

What really gets me is the righteous indignation, the shock and dismay, the horror that we hear from members opposite, as if we are reducing the amount of question period time or taking a day away from question period. This indignation, this shock was something I think British Columbians became all too used to in the recent election campaign — every single reason why you can't do something, every single reason why you should say no — no to this, no to that — as opposed to: "How can we get to yes?"

What is being proposed by the government here this morning is simply a pilot. We're not suggesting that the standing orders be changed. We're suggesting that this be a sessional order, that we give it a try on a pilot basis, and we'll see how it goes.

I think the Government House Leader was very clear in saying that he is more than prepared on behalf of government to sit down with the Opposition House Leader and, in fact, any member of this House — including the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast — to talk about any suggestions, any ideas that members have on how we can make this place work better.

Again, it's worth reminding that since this government has been in office, we have introduced a number of modernizations. We were the government that brought in a parliamentary calendar. We were the government that brought in the fixed election date. We were the government that extended question period from 15 minutes to 30 minutes.

I would suggest that doubling the amount of question period time in any given week is certainly more advantageous in many respects to the opposition than it is, perhaps, to the government. But that was a demonstration of this government's commitment to making this place work better.

Obviously, these modernizations follow on the heels of a wide range of other modernizations that have taken place over the years. I listened with a great deal of interest to the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads, who said earlier that moving question period to the morning is not going to make it possible. It's not going to make it easy
[ Page 1258 ]
to bring people in, to introduce them in the galleries, to make mention of special people and so forth.

I'm not sure if the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads is aware, but the proceedings are actually streamed on the Internet. I'm not sure if she is aware, but the proceedings are available on television as well. These are modernizations that are available.

We're proposing a pilot project. We're suggesting that we give it a try, we see how it works and we reassess at the end of the session. I will say that as a new member, as a new minister, I for one have been quite surprised at the volume of information that, indeed, is thrown at me on any given day, particularly in preparation for question period. I'm not sure that the amount of preparation that is still going to be undertaken by me or my team is going to change. If it means getting up a couple of hours earlier to do the preparation, certainly, that's what you'll do.

But I'm not sure what the members opposite do with the rest of their time. Certainly, I know on the government side we are meeting with stakeholders regularly. We are engaged in briefings. We are working on important legislation.

We were sent here by British Columbians to get a job done. We were sent here by British Columbians to continue to grow the economy. We were sent here by British Columbians to put a framework — an environmental and a tax framework — around the LNG opportunity, the generational opportunity that it is. We were sent by British Columbians here to get the water sustainability act work done.

[1135]

We were sent by British Columbians here to optimize B.C. Ferries. We were sent by British Columbians to undertake the business that they elected us to do, and that means we're engaged in discussions with British Columbians all the time. We have delegations in our offices here all the time. We are out speaking to British Columbians all the time, and while question period absolutely acknowledges a critical feature of our parliamentary democracy….

It's absolutely critical, and that's why we're not suggesting any change to the amount of time. We're not suggesting that any of the question period days be taken away. We're suggesting a simple move of the question period two days a week. We're not even suggesting that we do it for the entire four days of question period. It's a very modest proposal, hon. Speaker. But in balancing that critical component of our parliamentary democracy with the fact that we also have a lot of critical work to do for the balance of the day, we think that this is worth consideration. This is worth a try.

I will end on that note. I know that change is very difficult for the opposition. I know that change is extremely difficult — dare I say so difficult that they were willing to stay in the opposition through the last election. But we're prepared to work with members opposite. We're prepared to work with members opposite on making this place work better, and we think that this change we're proposing here today, this change to the sessional order, will enable us to do just that. So I strongly support this motion this morning.

V. Huntington: The Government House Leader said he would listen to members' remarks carefully, and I hope he does, because this place is, to use his own words, steeped in tradition and history.

The standing orders work, and like many elements of the democratic process, they can be inconvenient at times. So be it, and perhaps the Minister of Transportation, who is now leaving, would like to hear my comments — no — because change that is unnecessary and self-serving does a disservice to this place, the work of the members of this House and to democracy.

The proposed changes do give opposition MLAs and researchers less time to process news and to prepare questions. That is simultaneously obvious and disturbing. It is yet another government dismissal of the value of the democratic opposition and tradition. It is a motion that introduces suspicion and distrust, just when we need the opposite. Yes, Ontario moved to morning QP. But they did it just as this government will, by flexing their majority muscle, ignoring the opposition arguments. It is a use of power that manipulates tradition to their own benefit.

Madame Speaker, this motion serves only the government interest and serves to reduce democratic opposition. On behalf of the people of Delta South, I will not be supporting it.

A. Weaver: I rise today to propose an amendment to the motion we have before us. The amendment is:

[Replace "for the duration of the Second Session of the Fortieth Parliament, which commenced February 11, 2014" with "for the duration of the Third Session of the Fortieth Parliament when it commences."]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: And if I might, the reason why I raise this is I have listened to the arguments of the government. I have listened to the arguments of the opposition, and frankly, I agree with the opposition's arguments. This is patently unfair to those people now who have prepared for this session, those people with families, who have made arrangements for child care, who are part of the teams involved in the opposition who must prepare for question period.

Some of us have invited people already to attend specific days of this session, based on our understanding that question period was going to be in the afternoon. We were given so little notice of this it will be difficult for these people to change their plans.

[1140]

While I recognize that the government would like to
[ Page 1259 ]
try this as a pilot project, if it were to do so, I would have thought it would have given the opposition more time to contemplate this and work out how they could accommodate those visitors, those guests, those school groups who have already made arrangements to come to this House in this session — to change their plans.

We weren't given such notice. As such, I cannot support the government in this motion and therefore offer the amendment to give us, the opposition, time for those people who work in communications, in research, and the opportunity to make plans when the new school year starts in the fall for their child care and give us, for the new school year when it starts in the fall, time for those groups to make arrangements, where they've actually known in advance what the schedule will be for question period.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for his contribution to the debate and the amendment.

I would only make this observation. The House is under the existing orders and, under the proposed change, was and will continue to sit at the same time. Whilst I understand and have not tried to diminish the fact that it represents a change in the procedure and the orders of the day and the order in which they are presented, the requirement that members be on deck and available to perform duties at ten o'clock in the morning on those days has not changed.

V. Huntington: I think the Government House Leader isn't quite understanding the opposition or the amendment itself. Question period is what the public come to see. We all know that in this House. It is part of the drama of the democratic process, especially in British Columbia.

People make their way to this House on the morning ferries. They prepare schools. Schools come on the morning ferries for question period. The hon. member knows that schools will not be able to come. They're not going to come on the five o'clock ferry or seven o'clock ferry.

I just feel that the words of the hon. member and his amendment are honest ones, and I think they're logical ones. I think the amendment should be considered by the government. It is something that the public have the right to see, to be part of and to listen to. I think the government has to take that into account.

J. Horgan: On the amendment, I thank my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head for bringing this forward. Of course, in my remarks and the remarks of the official opposition, we were focusing on what we consider to be the less than adequate arguments by the government for these changes. They appear quite arbitrary. They don't have any context for the public to understand. My colleague from Nanaimo made reference to that.

My friend from Oak Bay–Gordon Head makes reference to the people who work in this place, who have made plans and have, as he highlighted, child care obligations and a whole host of other things that will complicate their lives as a result of these changes. Again, the proposal, I think, is a reasonable one — that we push this off to what has now been a promised fall session and that we continue on as we have now, the standing orders that we have approved yesterday, and proceed.

[1145]

I support the amendment. I'm hopeful that the members on the other side will support it as well.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the amendment reads as follows: "Replace 'for the duration of the Second Session of the Fortieth Parliament, which commenced on February 11, 2014,' with 'for the duration of the Third Session of the Fortieth Parliament when it commences.'"

[1150]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On the main motion.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to all of the members who participated in the debate and made their views clear.
[ Page 1260 ]

I will repeat what I indicated at the outset of the presentations and the discussion this morning. This has deliberately been proposed as a sessional proposition. Over the course of the next number of weeks, on the assumption that in a moment it passes, I will be, like other members, I'm sure, interested to know what the practical effect is, how it impacts on the debate that takes place in this chamber on that very, very important 30 minutes that is question period.

I will be anxious to learn, after it has been in operation for a few weeks, the thoughts of members, and certainly at the conclusion of the session, as we make a decision, hopefully, collectively about the future of this and other proposals that we have heard here today.

I regret that I have not persuaded the member for Nanaimo. That is a burden I shall bear at least….

L. Krog: I'll send you roses tomorrow.

Hon. M. de Jong: To quote Ms. Streisand, "You don't send me flowers anymore," Member for Nanaimo.

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's time we voted, Madame Speaker.

Madame Speaker: Agreement to waive time.

[1155]

Motion approved on the following division.

Hon. M. de Jong: Firstly, I neglected to mention and I presume there is no objection to the sessional order taking effect Monday to allow for question period to proceed as per normal. That is certainly the government's wish and expectation — that question period would proceed this afternoon in the chamber.

Seeing and hearing no objection, I'm going to move that the House adjourn.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada