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 18.

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 accessibility to all of the tools to propose and debate ideas. Indeed, 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 on there gave me an opportunity to travel around British Columbia and to really diversify my perspective around what B.C. has to offer, especially in rural areas, and to see the challenges and difficulties and to hear different voices on the things we want to bring back.

I do want to say, putting all partisanship aside, I know many of my rural colleagues probably have a lot to offer. Then we have a lot of urban colleagues who have a lot of different perspectives. I also want to take a moment and say that with different cultural backgrounds, different gender backgrounds, different sexual orientations, every MLA who comes in here representing, with a family, maybe a single parent…. We all come here trying to be a voice.

One of the things I want to express my gratitude to is the idea of forming this committee. I know, in the past, that private members’ time was really based upon a good agreement. It was based upon all parties’ goodwill and desire to work together and give private members a voice. I think, unfortunately, in the past, there are moments that made us question whether good will is still established. That maybe we need, actually, an update of the standing orders to allow us to really have a regular rigid structure so that we can protect the institution from political agendas.

Speaking of political agendas, I want to go back to the Finance Committee that we had. Of course, the reality is that we know for a fact that somebody is sitting opposite from us, and we’re sitting on the government side. It’s the fact that we have different perspectives, different experiences and different objectives. That’s the sort of thing that’s more important to one of us and maybe not as important to others.

I know many people were commenting on why some of us have so much time talking about speeches that others may not find relevant. But I think for a society that wants to be modernized and civilized, we have to understand the right of self determination. What’s associated with that is to understand everybody has a different perspective and everything has different priorities.

As a youth worker, I often mentioned this once. To a youth, an embarrassment could mean the world to them. But, as adults, sometimes we might not fully appreciate the challenge they have. I’m very glad that on the Motion 18, it gives a chance to really force us to sit down, to have a discussion.

I remember some of our colleagues from the opposite and us, we actually had dinner together as a Finance Committee. We actually had a conversation talking about topics. One thing I really want to emphasize, especially with the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who just left, is that when we’re doing committee stage, we don’t see any more character assassination. It’s often out of the picture. We have more discussion about topics, objectives, how things impact the circumstances.

We still will have challenges with one another. We will still have difference of opinions, but committees give us a chance to really embrace the opportunity to share, to understand and appreciate. That is the reason why I’m very glad.

Again, I’m new to this chamber. I’ve been here two years, unlike the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General who has extensive history. And of course, I’ve got a colleague sitting opposite over there who has extensive experience as well.

[3:40 p.m.]

It’s how this historically come together and how we have a historically different party, one being government and one being the opposition. I also heard the House Leader talk about what it feels to be in opposition, what it feels like to be governing MLAs.

But I do want to also remind everyone that the goal, the objective in the end, isn’t about how we get there but that we get there. We can create private members’ time that gives private members an opportunity to share our perspective, to share our discussions, to share our goals. I think it is what we owe to our constituents, for them to know where we stand on different issues.

I think it’s interesting in some of the comments made earlier…. I don’t want it to come across as criticism, but I do want to emphasize and want to be clear about it — that when we keep on talking about it, we all agree. Let’s follow on that. Well, I’m pretty sure we all agree on this bill as well. But to the member for Saanich North and the Islands, I just want to express gratitude for his phenomenal perspective of him sharing his passion for democracy.

I want to be sitting here talking about how much I appreciate being able to join with my colleagues from the government side and colleagues from opposition, to be able to have a dinner over and have a discussion around important topics on the Finance committee, where we have good healthy discussion without going down to the point of character assassination. Instead, there were a couple of times when the discussion got heated. We took a break and still walked around with each other and had a conversation and enjoyed each other’s company.

Why is a private member, in my opinion, important? I think some of our colleagues echoed about it already, and I’m pretty sure a future speaker will say that too. Every one of us comes from a different riding. Every one of us represents a different community. Every one of us has a different life experience.

Again, I want to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. She shared her complex, challenging history, where she overcame so many difficulties and reached a point, the highest point an Indigenous female has ever reached in our province.

To us, it is an important story to remind us what single parents are experiencing. It’s our institutions welcoming single parents. We’re talking about people of Indigenous background. It’s our institutions finding a way to encourage people with an Indigenous background. It’s our institutions finding different ways to allow different people speaking different languages to be part of the conversation.

If you truly believe in multicultural diversity, how are we allowing voices to be heard? Being able to have this community coming together to have a conversation — a conversation around private members’ opportunities to share, exchange and really have comfort, saying that the Standing Orders will now protect us. Therefore, we can focus on doing what is right instead of playing political games. It’s important for all of us.

As an independent colleague mentioned earlier, too, this conversation was meant to be a conversation earlier, but it was sort of through procedural, through discussions and through political games…. We waited till now. I think all of our private members, including the government and opposition sides…. We all want to have a strong, healthy British Columbia that we can all work together towards.

We all agree we are facing global challenges right now. We all agree we’re facing different crises in our province. We all agree there are many, many potential ideas that have been shared around. Some are good. Some are bad. Some are being repeated multiple times, and some of them might not be feasible when we actually add it into the complexity of the Legislature, but I think it’s important for us to share.

I think, as a private member, that’s why we’re here. Sometimes we want to be part of the decision-making process. Sometimes we’ll solve problems of our constituents, and sometimes we want to be here, because we want to feel like our constituents put their energy and time to send us here. We are making sure the time we’re spending on their behalf is well spent, that I’m doing my best to fight for their best interests, fighting for their families’ best interests and to ensure things that need to be talked about aren’t avoided.

I think one of the things that truly helped me was to be reminded about, as a private member, communities coming together, for us to actually have a discussion on how we can have this conversation on empowering private members. It’s also to realize that if you look at this chamber, we have one of the most diverse governments in British Columbia’s history. We now have far stronger gender equity in our Legislature. We’re trying to find more ways to bring more individuals from different backgrounds to be part of our conversation.

[3:45 p.m.]

I think it would be unhealthy for any government to assume we don’t need to hear from opposition. I think it would be unhealthy for any government to assume we know everything we’re doing.

That’s why I’m glad our House Leader is working with the other House Leaders, as well, to come up with a way to ensure that we can have this committee, so we can thoroughly and appropriately discuss how we can ensure that important and respectful voices are heard, and constructive voices are heard.

Voices, ideas that have been sharpened, criticized and forged through discussion can be utilized to better British Columbia together. I know that I keep going back to my Finance Committee days. I’m still part of Finance Committee. I shouldn’t say: “Back to my Finance Committee days.” But we had dinner with opposition members. We had a lot of sit-down conversations. We travelled together. We often had a lot of jokes along the way.

It’s a completely different atmosphere than what we have here. I think that’s what’s needed. People will need to be able to come together and realize that what we say will not be used against us, so we can truly express the challenges, the difficulty and the perspective on how we can better shape our private members’ time.

I want to echo, again, the member for Saanich North and the Islands. It’s the importance of democracy. Democracy is what kept us here together. Our society is facing a lot of different threats from false information, fake news. We are dealing with threats of dictatorships invading sovereign countries. We have people now having confusing information. We have people going around giving different misinformation to different community groups to cause conflicts and friction.

Democracy isn’t perfect. We all understand that. But it’s the best system we have that we can work with at this point to ensure that powers are checked and balanced and ideas are shared. Of course, I understand where…. The independent member mentioned earlier that we all want to continue to serve our constituencies. We all are taking this position of privilege with honour, with dignity and with respect and are humbled by the tradition and heritage associated with our job title. I want to continue that.

Of course, hon. Speaker, as we keep on calling you honourable…. We respect you for your non-partisanship, helping us keep this meeting in order and have a conversation. That’s what we would love to see in our committee as well.

As we continue to talk about the different forums too, we also heard different ideas being shared, and sometimes, for theatrical needs of the chamber, ideas, I think, are exaggerated. I’m not doing this just to pick on the member from South Thompson. I just want to have a mathematical correction. We’re 11 days into 43 days. That’s 25 percent, not 30 percent. I’ll just put that out there. But it is a good example that sometimes, for the sake of presentation, for the sake of conflict, for the sake of our political benefit, we lose sight of how we can work better together.

So I am enthusiastically supporting our House Leaders coming together to really put together this private members’ committee, to really force us to really ask ourselves what we can do to share some of the challenges, to really ask ourselves how we can ensure that our voices are properly heard.

Interjection.

H. Yao: My apologies. I wasn’t sure what was going on. Thank you so much.

I do want to emphasize that, even, for example…. If you don’t mind me going back to talk about lunar new year, many people know that I talk a lot of lunar new year in the month of January. It is also a reminder that even a simple holiday…. Maybe to other people it’s a simple sort of holiday. Yet different cultures have different practices, different zodiac animals, different language usage and different perspectives. Yet, at the same time, according to my speech back then, we all share the same principles, same desire for peace, hope and prosperity.

I’m hoping — I sincerely hope, and I do believe I am facing into this — that our private members’ committee will also bring this diversity back together through Motion 18 and that we might all have a different language, different perspectives, different experiences, yet at the same time, share the same hope to ensure that private members, whether they’re opposition or government side, are able to continuously find different ways to share good ideas.

[3:50 p.m.]

I know the member for Prince George–Valemount has pointed out that in our mandate letters for the ministers, we are asking for ways to reach out across the aisle to truly appreciate what could be considered, what could be explored and what could be used.

As we are continuously moving forward, we will continue facing various different challenges as a government, as British Columbians. We’re now facing climate change. We’re facing a lot of social challenges. We’re dealing with a lot of fake news on social media as well. We are also dealing with a lot of droughts, forest fires. We have different kinds of ministries popping up to support one another.

But I think the ultimate goal is…. The more complex, the more unpredictable or the more unprecedented our future is, the more we rely upon the creativity, diversity and innovation of our colleagues here to come together to really find a solution to protect, serve and help British Columbians to prosper.

I also want to take a moment to really talk about the importance of us looking at different, potential private member motions, private member statements, private member bills. I understand that our hope is really to find ideas. Of course, there are different perspectives, and they will create friction and challenges.

I do know that one of the opportunities I do enjoy as an MLA in this Legislature, for the last two years, is being able to speak at private members’ time. I have spoken to many, many issues. I think of one of the things that I truly, deeply wanted to champion back then was the importance of combatting gender-based violence. In private members’ time, I know I’ve mentioned many things about how cross-cultural challenges are associated with gender-based violence and how many individuals who I used to work with, who I know, do not understand that what they express is a form of gender-based violence.

It’s important for us to continue to bring that into government’s awareness, to different ministers, to really help us find ways of how we can advance important strategies for equity, fairness and justice. It is also one of the few times I really get to sit down and do some really good homework.

I’m looking forward to the opportunity to learn how to also do a private member’s bill. I want to take a moment to thank our government of 2017, to the Attorney General back then, currently the Premier, for sharing the drafters with all of us so that we can develop a new skill set that previously was not available to private members.

I know this private members’ time has historically built agreement, consensus and willingness to cooperate and collaborate, and it has faced some challenges in the past. I’m glad that, through this multiparty collaboration, we are now finding the value behind supporting private members.

I know the member opposite mentioned earlier too…. Assuming that this government is swapping back and forth…. Will it happen in the future? We don’t know. But I really, sincerely hope that no matter which way we’re switching around, this private member spirit, the spirit of allowing private members to be a strong, well-heard voice will be kept, and we’ll continue to find ways to really say: “We need voices of diversity.”

We need to find different perspectives, different angles, different individual voices to ensure that no matter how our challenges become diverse, complex, difficult, we will have a robust system to say: “We will find a way to find the strength, creativity and courage, collectively, to address issues so all British Columbians can benefit from our willingness to collaborate and cooperate.”

Whether this is a proper committee or the other committee, I think the final spirit is the same thing. The spirit of doing this Motion 18 is to ensure that elected officials who represent a constituency, as I represent Richmond South Centre, will be given a great opportunity to truly, appropriately and continuously be a voice for Richmond South Centre. I think my colleague from Surrey-Panorama mentioned earlier, very clearly, that we all have a right to speak about anything or everything.

I do encourage everybody who has an opportunity…. Whether it is a common consensus that we are all agreed upon, we should still be speaking about it, so that our constituents can have a voice and understand where we stand, whether or not they feel like they have elected the right person to represent them.

[3:55 p.m.]

The last thing I do also want to emphasize, too, is that when I used to be a youth worker — I want to go back to this conversation — I used to have a youth leadership team where they would come up with projects. I, as an individual, would look at it and say: “Wow, this is way too difficult. I don’t think you guys can pull it off.” That’s a differentconversation, from a different discussion.

Even though I was uncertain, I wanted them to have the opportunity to try it out, to really explore and to really understand what it’s like, potentially, to fail or succeed. Often my best amazement is to be proven wrong — having them telling me, “I might not know everything I do,” and proving to me, through their dedication and commitment, that they were able to do something that I had perceived as not doable.

Why am I bringing this up? I think it’s important for us to realize that through conversation, through dialogue, through strategy, through explorations, we will see greater depths. Just because we all agree on this topic, it doesn’t mean that I understand the opposition member’s concept, or that I alter my colleague’s perspective or that I understand a different individual, who might actually have a different tone, on why they support the policy.

I again go back to Motion 18, and I want to emphasize again why I’m supportive of a committee to review private members’ business. It’s to really ask ourselves how we can support private members, but mostly how we can ensure that British Columbians can be heard through every elected official, to really understand that we’re here to represent.

Through conversation and discussion, we don’t just simply represent a voice, but we represent the desire to make British Columbia better. We represent a desire to bring peace and prosperity to British Columbians. We represent a desire to bring fairness and justice for British Columbians, a desire to forge dialogue, forge conversation, and forge bridges of communication — and yes, to empower individuals to have the right to self-determination.

This is the kind of strength built through understanding and through conversation. I don’t think any one of us will be as powerful as we can be collectively through our conversation and dialogue. That’s the reason why I’m encouraged that our government is opening up the opportunity for a private member to be not just simply a voice in the background but to have a voice to truly and properly, through the records of Hansard, to be shared, to be heard and to be understood by the community.

It is through an exchange of ideas that we may better ourselves to understand more of a comprehensive, more in-depth understanding of the complex situation that, ultimately, we, as British Columbians, are going to have to face. It’s not acceptable for us to assume that any one of us knows everything, but if we keep on having an open mind, a willingness to learn and to listen and, of course, I will say, shedding off a lot of the partisan character attacks and to really have conversations, I think we can reach a consensus on how we can better British Columbia and better use our private members’ time to serve British Columbians.

I’m going to go back to the Finance Committee again, and I want to take a moment to thank all my colleagues on the government side and all my colleagues on the opposite side.

The Finance Committee also was a difficult, exhausting time. It was also a time when we could humanize one another — to really have a conversation, to listen to one another, to really appreciate the individuals standing in front of us, to respect the individuals as human beings — and to take away these personal attacks and character assassinations and to focus on topics, evidence, ideas and sharing them back and forth. In the end, there’s an understanding that we still need a governing structure to allow us to make decisions. Whether there’s division or whether there are differences, we still need to have a conclusion at the end of the day.

One thing I just want to go back to, for example, is the Health Committee. Even though I didn’t sit on it, I have been hearing so many good things. There’s a desire for all parties to come up with conclusions, where we all have a desire to save lives. We all desire to find a way to fight against stigmatization, the desire to really allow us to find strategies to embrace and bring people into British Columbia and to have a health care system that can serve the most vulnerable among us.

And also, from what I heard from the Finance Committee, to break away from our generalizations that don’t match the realities we have to deal with, because the conversation and discussion experienced through committee stage helps us to understand that sometimes we might hold perceptions based upon logic, based on our experience, but when you put it against real-life examples, sometimes it turns our paradigm upside down.

[4:00 p.m.]

As an individual, as someone who is a private member on the government side, I’m excited that this committee will empower the private members for both the government and opposition and the Third Party and independents to be able to come together, to be able to say: what can we do to create a system that is fair, constructive and productive to support our government, support British Columbians, to ensure all kinds of ideas and voices are heard, shared, exchanged, forged and prepared to utilize to serve our British Columbians through our government?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Of course, at the end of this time, I do want to take a moment to again thank Richmond South Centre for sending me here today. I’m privileged to be able to have an opportunity to spend 30 minutes standing up here and to express my support for Motion 18, and I know my opposition colleagues are going through the exact same thing.

I know the opposition has been calling the member from Saanich North their Green friend. We’ll just call him a Green colleague. But I appreciate that even the Third Party and independents will all come together to really say, “We want to do this,” not because it fulfils some kind of hidden agenda, but we know this is what we can do to ensure British Columbians can have the best voice being heard through different ideas.

That way we, as private members, can use our time wisely to serve British Columbians. As private members — of course, the opposition side is different for opposition members — we all have a desire to find different ways to better the lives of British Columbians, our loved ones and our future generations. We face different kinds of challenges, such as climate change, natural disasters. We have floods; we have droughts. We’ll have even greater threats.

As I mentioned earlier in my previous speech, one of my biggest concerns for Richmond South Centre — which I believe some of my Richmond colleagues have shared a similar concern — is potential flood and potential water drought.

Deputy Speaker: Just trying to understand the relevance to this specific bill.

H. Yao: Yes. My apologies. I’ll get back to it, to talk about water floods and drought. That is an important voice to be heard. Why I’m talking about private member Motion 18? It’s to ensure that this kind of voice might be heard. My little corner of Richmond was brought to a bigger picture of a part of our government.

I think one thing we have to continuously respect is the fact that every member has a completely different experience when they serve their constituency. We often joke that Richmond is a small, insignificant cousin of Vancouver because, quite frankly, it has so many great things happening. But Richmond is a phenomenal city. I do want to say that. I do enjoy it. All my three colleagues are here, and we all love representing Richmond. But we all know Richmond has a unique perspective and many challenges as well.

As I mentioned earlier, through my time with the Finance Committee, I also learned interesting things about rural parts of British Columbia that I didn’t have a privilege to understand and appreciate before. I would love to see private members’ time, private members’ motions to really understand and to hear and to absorb, to better myself, so that we will understand that decisions made in this chamber impact everybody in this province. Yet we have to find the balance, we have to find a fine-tuning, we have to find perfection to ensure that we can actually serve everyone without leaving people behind.

I’m glad our government is devoted to the idea that we will only prosper when we all prosper together. We’ll be successful when we all succeed together, which means it doesn’t matter which part of British Columbia — whether it’s rural, urban, Island, Mainland or any other part of British Columbia — those voices can be heard. That is why private members’ time is so important to be fine-tuned, understood.

I know my colleague from Surrey-Panorama mentioned very clearly that if a discussion is done, we find something ready to go, maybe they can present it earlier. But I’m a big believer. I’m a big believer that Motion 18, private members’ business, is extremely important to all of us. A discussion in the committee stage won’t be long, won’t be extensive, and it won’t be very detail-oriented because we must understand how we can better British Columbia together without partisanship.

I want to take a moment to, again, thank Richmond South Centre for sending me here. I’m glad we now have a new platform, potentially, to allow me to represent Richmond South Centre in a different angle, different way and different strategy.

I want to thank all my colleagues for sharing their perspectives. I will encourage all my colleagues: let us together make private members’ time one of the most functional, constructive times in Canada.

[4:05 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further…. Oh, I do see a speaker now.

A. Singh: Mr. Speaker, I was just giving my good friends over there the opportunity to rise, but thank you. Good to see you in the chair again.

I rise in support of Motion 18, this motion. Improving not only the way that we work but also the lives of British Columbians and the lives of the people that I represent in Richmond-Queensborough is extremely important to us, important to me and has always been. You can see that on our side there’s a great zeal for that work. It’s been far too long since this House has had time to meaningfully review private members’ time — Monday mornings, essentially. So I welcome this bill.

As an advocate — I’m new here — there are a few things that I understand and that I take responsibility for. My role here is to not only represent the people of Richmond-Queensborough but, when I’m here and they’re watching me, to inform them of what we’re doing here and to inform them of the legislation that we’re passing. It’s to inform them if a private member does bring a bill forward, what the rationale is behind that bill, why we’re debating it, whether it’s a bill or a motion or even when it’s a statement that we’re making — what the reasoning or rationale is for us for being here.

That does two things. It strengthens democracy, because when people out there see their views and their concerns being represented and being talked about and being looked at, it bolsters democracy. It bolsters the idea that we’re actually here looking at what the people of Richmond-Queensborough, or whatever constituency you represent — that we’re looking at their views. Informing the public is a responsibility that I don’t take lightly.

I’ll be speaking about the motion, but because the opposition did take some time speaking about this, I feel compelled to answer a few things about the way that this House has been running. That ties into why we are standing here debating this motion again. Even if you agree with it, it’s my responsibility to explain to the public that elected me and sent me here why we’re doing this. Much was said about a two-clause bill and why we are taking so long explaining that. Much was said about closure and other things.

Sometimes I sit here and I’m quite astounded that those words can be spoken, especially coming from…. When they were on this side of the House, they cancelled the whole fall sitting, and there are complaints about “We’re taking some time to explain our bills.” A bill is very important. It may be two clauses, but it’s very important to what’s happening here. Money laundering, right?

When we’re sitting here, whether it’s a private motion or whether it’s private members’ time and statements, you see that a lot of the time in this House is taken up on housing and crime. That two-clause bill that they were complaining about dealt with money laundering. Money laundering, really, out of recklessness or wilful blindness, contributed to those two things more than anything else.

Deputy Speaker: Of course, Member, debate on other bills has occurred during those debates, so we should stick to the motion at hand.

A. Singh: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I’m just responding to what they had said in terms of time and in terms of the importance of speaking and informing the public on these things.

A bill or a motion may be short or long, but how short or long it is, is not necessarily reflected by the importance of that. Private members’ motions — I’m really happy that this is happening. I’m happy that this motion is proposing a special committee to review this and to really look at what the most effective way to proceed is to make private members’ motions, to make private members’ time and to actually democratize this institution and make its responsibility to democracy greater.

[4:10 p.m.]

As my friend from Surrey-Panorama said, we have, in Canada itself and across the Commonwealth, other jurisdictions that have a different way or different methodology of including everybody in the House, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re effective or that they actually do any effective change. They may just be performative.

The importance of actually setting a special committee, just like we did on Health last year to take a look at the toxic drug supply and other things, to look…. Because if we’re going to change the way that this institution works, the one thing that I have learned in my short two years here…. Well, two and a bit, I guess, now. Is it almost two and a half? It is, isn’t it? Time flies pretty fast here. But in my short 2½ years here, trying to change things takes time.

So if you’re going to make a change, you better take your time. You know, you better take a few weeks ahead of time and really look at the situation before you make that change, because that change may be permanent for some time.

Very important that we empower a small group of people made up of the opposition, the government and the Third Party and, I guess, an fourth party, now, in this House…. Am I correct? Yes. So not an independent anymore, a fourth party. We have four parties in this House now.

Interjection.

A. Singh: Just three? Just three now. Okay. Right, it’s not official. My apologies again. Again, I’m new to this.

Three parties and an independent, possibly colouring into a party. That we sit and we look at this situation…. Because it’s very important for democracy, for our constituents, that their representative gets a say here. Right?

You know, as a private member, I enjoy private members’ time. I enjoy getting up and speaking about the issues that matter to me, and I welcome this change. I welcome the idea that…. I’m sure that all 87 of us have some special interests that our constituents have brought to us that may not affect everybody else, like my good friend from — I want to get this right, because there are two of you — Peace River North who brought up this morning something that will get rid of that exact problem. I will never have to double-check that. I’ll know what the name is.

Each one of us may have some special things that we want to bring forward. But if we are going to change standing orders, if we are going to change the mechanism of how this House operates, it’s really important that we don’t make that a performative change.

What is a performative change as opposed to a substantial change? My friend from Prince George–Valemount had mentioned the Equal Pay Act, I think it was called, that one of their colleagues has put forward — again, a really good idea. But in the end, unless there has been work done on it behind it, it could just end up being a performative change.

On the government side, we’re doing that work. We have a Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity. We’re actually doing that work, and we’re going to be bringing forward legislation on that and other things.

Same thing with the anti-racism stuff. The covenants. The racist covenants that exist in our land title system. And my friend is here who has brought that forward sometimes. Do we take those away? Because I don’t remember who mentioned it, but they were saying that most British Columbians don’t know that they exist. Well if we take them away, they won’t know that they exist at all.

Do we take away that part of history or do we…? Because it is offensive. I don’t want to see it on there, but if you take it away, no one will ever know about it. What do we do? Do we just take it away? Do we put a placard somewhere showing that there was this history? Do we put a little footnote in the Land Title Act saying that there was this history and it was taken away because of this?

It’s not a simple measure of introducing something and taking it away, because that’s just performative. We wanted to have some real change. That’s why we have anti-racism data legislation. That’s why we’re going to bring in an anti-racism act and things like that. Things like the covenants.

[4:15 p.m.]

It has to be examined carefully so that you’re actually making effective change. Again, I welcome a special committee to review the private members’ business time, because what that will do is the committee will be empowered not only to look at what we’ve done here and how wrong that is, or how right that is….

As my friend from Surrey-Panorama said, we’ll be able to, with the power of the Internet, which has been around for some time now…. We’ve had that power for a little while, so I’m surprised we haven’t been able to do that before, but we can look at other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth. New Zealand has been mentioned before, and Australia, India, Pakistan. I mean, the Commonwealth is quite expansive.

We should be looking at all of the different places and see how effective they are. Not only that; we should look outside the Commonwealth and look at other systems and also look at what…. Not only take ideas from our constituents but also look at look at what academics, political science academics, have said about this.

There may be some incredible ideas out there that are hidden somewhere in an academic paper where someone, possibly in the opposition, knows someone who knows someone who’s a professor who is able to bring that to us, who is able to bring it to that special committee. It may be a brilliant idea that completely democratizes further and changes the way that this House runs.

So having a special committee to look at that, having a separate special committee that’s empowered just to do that and is given a finite time to do that I think is a phenomenal idea. I think it’ll make the workings of this chamber not only more efficient and more inclusive….

That is one of the things that our government has been very proud of — how it’s moving towards a more inclusive government. You just have to look at the representation that we have. It’s substantially different from what it was, say, a decade ago.

Private members’ time has traditionally been an opportunity for private members from all sides, the three parties and the independent, again, as I said, to raise important issues that not only may affect all British Columbians but that may specifically affect their constituents or may, in the case of my friend, displace the confusion that happens because there are two Peace Rivers.

It’s a really important time for private members, for members who have been elected by their constituents to be able to bring those views forward. That’s why it’s really important — the special committee, which would be made up of people from all of the different parties in the Legislature — that we get the input and we get the perspective from all the different sides so that we can have a better debate about this. We can have an opportunity to consider all the different angles.

We come here, and it has been said on many occasions…. We all come here with sort of the same intent: to solemnly represent the people that elected us. But we have vastly different viewpoints. We have vastly different world views, and those inform us. So what I necessarily think may be corrected may actually…. I may be educated by my friends on the other side or by my friends from the Third Party in a way that I would not have even expected, and I want to be able to share those views.

My friend from Richmond South Centre talked about his time on the Finance Committee and how that was a very educational time for him, spending time with other private members and others, listening not only to the constituents but also….

What I took from his talk there was the importance of listening to the other people. We necessarily have an adversarial system here, because that’s the way it works. We’ve set it up that way. But you’re not my enemy on the other side. We’re all in here together.

[4:20 p.m.]

There’s nothing wrong with the adversarial system. There’s a real effectiveness to it, right? There’s a real effectiveness to that dialectical battle that happens, because it’s a battle of ideas. But sometimes it’s good to set aside that little dialectical battle and sit down and take ideas from each other. My friend spoke about it very eloquently on several occasions, how, when he was able to travel and commune with members from the other side and members from the Third Party, his eyes were opened, in some ways. And possibly, their eyes were opened.

A special committee that’s made up of everybody in this House, really, representatives from different sides, would be able to do that and would be able to put some fresh eyes on this — again, it’s not really a problem — on an issue, on something that could be changed and something that could be changed for the better. As my friends have said, they’re in favour of this. This is a good idea, but it’s really vital for us to talk about why this is a good idea, why we’re doing this, and to look at other jurisdictions.

One of our roles here — I think our sole role here, really — is to do business on behalf of the people and to make the lives of British Columbians better. That really is the crux of what our government has been doing for the last little while, right? All the bills and legislation that have been passed are to make people’s lives better, in the short five, almost six, years that we’ve been here. Again, I’m going back to what has already happened here in the last two or three weeks. I think seven pieces of legislation have passed.

Passing those pieces of legislation is phenomenal, because — once they’re passed and they become law, once they get royal assent — they’ll have real-life impact going further, like the real-life impact that the legislation that we passed in the past banning big money in provincial, municipal and recall campaigns. Those are all parts of making this place, making British Columbia, a more democratic place and ensuring that people are at the centre of democracy, not just the wealthy and well connected.

Cracking down on dirty money. I spoke about money laundering earlier, and the importance of speaking about that bill. The money part — the financial reform and the election system — is important because it’s vital to democracy. We’ve seen what happens when private money and political action committees have control and power. We don’t have to look far, just down south. Again, these are all things that have been brought forward as part of government bills.

I can only imagine the number of ideas that will come forward through private members and having a special committee empowered to look at how we can effectively bring private members’ motions forward to better serve the people of British Columbia — to propose legislation that actually has some practical value and is not just performative or not just looking at a very, very shallow level. Really, it’s my biggest concern about private member’s motions and private members’ bills: will we just be moving forward with motions and bills that are performative and that don’t actually have some research behind them?

What this will do: having a special committee that is empowered to do this allows this committee to go out there for the next few months and do that really important work, so that it can be fully informed on the mechanism and the way that committee should be going forward.

One of the things that our government did is that we provided drafting-of-legislation services to opposition members and to private members. So we already have the mechanism. We already have the sort of administrative writing mechanism in place. We need to ensure, if we’re going to move forward and change the way that this House works, that that committee that this motion empowers does so in a way that’s really effective and that’s going to serve not only this chamber, this Legislature, but the people of British Columbia, for some time to come. It’s ensuring that this place is fundamentally more democratic.

[4:25 p.m.]

Again, the crux of this, and the crux of a lot of what we have done over here, is looking after the people of British Columbia in making this chamber more democratic and more responsible to our constituents, and making sure that the concerns of the constituents not only of Richmond-Queensborough but of all 87 different constituencies are taken care of. That’s really what’s at the heart of this motion.

A special committee to review private members’ bill time and private members’ business will effectively do that. It’ll empower…. That committee will be able to go out, do the research that’s necessary and look not only at other jurisdictions within Canada but all over the world. It’ll also look at academic papers and look at ideas that have not even been tested and say, “Hey, listen. Maybe that’s a really good idea. Maybe we should try that out over here as a pilot project.” or whatever it is.

Maybe we should do something here that’s a little bit different and see if it’s effective. If it makes sense and it serves the people of British Columbia, why not? So I support this motion fully.

R. Leonard: I rise today in support of Motion 18. I was going to read it out. I know that we began this session hearing from the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast reading it out. It’s the technical, dry language of this House. I’ll try and paraphrase it a little bit.

This is an opportunity for us to have a check-in about the use of our time for private members’ business — private members’ bills, private members’ motions, and all of that — that happens here in this Legislature as part of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. It’s a structure that has been in place for a long time.

I walk along the halls, and I look at how this place has grown and how this province has grown from a few seats with large expanses of red carpet to us jammed up into the back corners of this space and how we’re looking at changing that as we gain more members, as the population of British Columbia grows further and further. This structure has been in place for a long, long time. Following the upheavals of the pandemic, I think we’ve all learned that change can be for the better.

I’d like to point out the TV cameras that are in this room right now and how the virtual world has invaded this space. It has given opportunities for people who have a tickle in their throat or a bit of a fever to be able to continue to participate. It has allowed people who have some serious challenges with travel, like a snowstorm that makes you stuck in one corner of the world, to continue to participate and represent the people of British Columbia.

This motion is talking about those kinds of changes that we’re seeing in the world and being responsive to them. I think we’ve also learned from the pandemic that everything is worthy of a critical eye, to the view of being more resilient and preparing for future change. This is a time of growth for our democratic institutions. We have to recognize that there are changing dynamics in society.

I’ve talked about the growth in the population and the growth of the number of MLAs. There’s just so much more…. The challenges that we’re facing in British Columbia demand a greater response from us. This motion is an attempt to be responsive to those rising challenges and those new challenges. We need to build new ways to tackle those challenges.

[4:30 p.m.]

I’ve mentioned that there’s this space. We looked at many different configurations of this space. What was the point of that? The point of it was to build a space that was more democratic, something that works to build our democracy and not create divisions, which we have heard time and time again — how divisions are not productive, that we need to work together.

We also heard from the member from the Sunshine Coast about the structure of this institution itself. I remember when I was first elected in 2017. Former member Mary Polak made a point of pointing to us on the other side of the House and saying how we were not government, that private members are not government: “You have no more power than us over on the opposition benches.” Well they’re seats right now. One day they might be benches. But right now, they’re seats.

It’s a fact that the executive branch has privileges that private members don’t have. But it gives us opportunities, as private members, to have a different kind of say in this place and to be able to fully represent members of our communities, our constituents and our constituencies as a whole. It has been pointed out here that constituencies have personalities of their own. They have distinctions that are worthy of being explored and finding ways for us all to be able to work together.

Motion 18, around private members’ business, is intended to give us that space, trying for us to grow into that space. So how do we support all the MLAs, including the private members, to fully embody that representation? Well, it’s been mentioned numerous times here, which really speaks to the importance of it, I would say. The drafting of legislation — and in this case, we’re talking about private members’ bills — was never open to members in this House. We’ve changed that.

We heard from the member for Saanich North and the Islands how that helped them move forward with a couple of private members’ bills during a minority government. The intention of it was a good intention, to give voice to every corner of this province. We just have to find a way to build a structure that allows that to continue into the future.

I wanted to talk about all-party committees, because I see those structures as something that has value that can be brought to private members’ time. They’re structured to come to consensus. The goal of those standing committees…. They’re all-party committees, where there’s representation of every corner of this province, making progress on issues of importance to the people of British Columbia. I came from local government, and it’s a similar situation.

There’s fierce competition in campaigns. You’re striving to gain your position and get a place at the table. But once the election is over, you sit down at a table with everyone, regardless of whether you have agreed 24 hours before the polls were closed. The intention is for that building of community together.

Diversity of opinion is important. We come to better decisions when we are looking at things from all sides. That’s the kind of intention that I think we can bring to private members’ business. The purpose of this House should not be to only provide the public with a distinction between parties and independent members. We now have one in this House.

The public only goes to the polls once every four years. Democracy is about more than political parties posturing for position once every four years. It’s well and good that the House leaders spent time looking at the functioning of private members’ time. But this motion puts focus on the value of public engagement beyond partisan opinion.

[4:35 p.m.]

The matter of progressing a more democratic private members’ time deserves the light of day. Did the three party House Leaders contemplate independent members? What else might be of importance?

They may have done a jurisdictional scan, but I can tell you from experience on other standing committees that hearing from academics and the public brings fresh ideas, and that input helps build consensus and a more robust and representative report back to this Legislative Assembly — a more democratic process, for sure, one that I support and that I hope everyone in this House supports.

We can’t be afraid to be innovative. The COVID-19 pandemic proved that necessity is the mother of invention. British Columbia is growing. This assembly is growing. It’s time for us to explore that next stage of growth for private members’ time.

We have made changes that support a more representative democracy, and we’ve explored, with the people of B.C., other changes to this system like testing the waters for proportional representation, as the member for Saanich North and the Islands brought up.

We continue to work toward more equitable access to public services and supports, and we’re building a fairer and more just province that lifts everyone up. It’s time to pay attention to this one part of our democratic system, the private members’ time.

We know that people want to see more cooperation in this assembly. I’ve heard from more members, and I’ve heard from members of the public who sit up in the gallery, who talk about spending time observing this floor and how disconnected they feel from what happens here. We can do better than that. We can build a system that they can see works for them and something that they can be proud of and that they can take home and see how it relates.

One of the big things we struggle with is getting people out to elections because they don’t see how this place matters to them. If we build a system that makes it matter to them, then we are going to have better elections. We’re going to build our democracy even better for the next generation and the generation after that.

I was mentioning all-party committees, and that’s one of the things that we do. We get to connect more with community, and that just nurtures that cooperative effort. I know that it’s hard. It’s hard for us to speak in this House without growing divisions, but we can create space where we can be more cooperative, where we can be more productive for the people of British Columbia. The people of British Columbia deserve that. I think it’s time we consider if and how we can extend that sentiment to private members’ business for the sake of all our constituents.

I know the member from Sunshine Coast mentioned the private member’s bill that I put forward to name — I’ll name it — the elasmosaur as the official fossil of British Columbia. I’m looking forward to an opportunity to see that come forward. I’m also interested to see what other members might bring forward, that we can find places where we can start to build that support. Other jurisdictions, as we know, have been able to work towards that kind of system. I think that’s where we need to go for the sake of all British Columbians.

People don’t necessarily understand a lot about how we work, and it’s important for us to take that time to introduce people to where they can have an influence and where their efforts will help them move forward on the initiatives that they have. Most of us, every day, get up….

When we’re here, we’re very disconnected from our communities. Then we go home, and we hear from constituents about what they want, whether it’s individuals or whether it’s groups, and we keep trying to find new ways to bring it forward.

[4:40 p.m.]

If we can change that system…. Words I’m going to keep repeating and that we’ll hear over and over again in this House are: how do we maybe have a more representative democracy? Democracy didn’t always look like this. It’s not a static thing. It’s a growing and a dynamic thing, or it can be a devolving one. We have seen how our democracy can devolve. We’ve seen where the people’s voices get trampled on. I think this is something that, perhaps, is an opportunity for us to grow an appreciation for what we do have and how we can make it better. You have to know where you came from before you can make it better.

When I had time, I used to do genealogy. I had an interest in where my forefathers came from, how they settled in Canada, and my foremothers; they’re harder to research. At the time, there was this thing called the Family Compact, and very few people got to have any influence. Very few people got to have a say in how their democracy was building, including to the effect that there was a revolution in 1837, as people tried to bring a more democratic process where everyday people got to have a say in how their government functioned.

This is a small corner of our democracy, private members’ time, and it’s not irrelevant; nor should it be. We need to find ways to build it up and make it stronger, make it more robust, make it more resilient and make it capable. Resilience means being capable of changing, and change has been so hard. We see a lot of the institutions of this place, and we respect them, and we honour them. Some of them still work and some of them, not so much.

Personally, if I was in charge of this space, I’d probably cover up the marble. I’m sorry, but you know, it’s a lot about that people get intimidated coming into this place, and I think the marble has something to do with it. I don’t know. Maybe it’s the pillars. I’m sounding trite, but it is about that we come into this space, and it is daunting.

Change has been hard, but as I said earlier, with the pandemic, we learned that sometimes you just have to change. Change can progress to the positive or it can change for the worse, and we’ve shown in British Columbia that we know how to change to the better. We did it. We did it successfully. There’s still a virus out there, but we have overcome so many trials and tribulations. We’ve suffered a lot. We’ve suffered together, and we have come forward together.

Private members’ time continued through all of that. We’ve seen that it needs to have a little bit of care given to it. I look forward to hearing from academics, people who have studied these systems, and how it can be better. I heard so many things that were new to me and spoken with great rationality so that I could see the different sides of things, and I could see why something was better than another.

One of the big things that I have lived with all of my life was that big party politics is kind of dangerous. You get lost in it. In fact, I learned very differently the value of party systems. Even though I talk about the divisiveness that can come with political parties, I also recognize how important they are to our system.

[4:45 p.m.]

Big-party politics works at becoming government. When you’re a big party, you are looking at how you can form government, how you can bring all the different interests together in a way that you can govern. That is what we bring to this House: that opportunity to have those diversity of opinions, to have that diversity represented and to grow into one place where we put forward the people of British Columbia.

I want to thank you for the opportunity. I’m very grateful that this motion has come forward. We normally get, as a private member…. Unless it’s a bill of government’s, we don’t get a chance to talk about what’s going on with private members’ time, except in small little bursts — five minutes here, seven minutes there, two minutes there. It’s an opportunity that I have felt very privileged to stand and support Motion 18.

I’ll just review it one more time, just so that the people back home know what I’m talking about: “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.”

The standing committee is an all-party committee. It’s an opportunity for all of us to come together, to hear the voices of British Columbians, and to make a difference for us as well as we continue our work and for the next generations to come.

R. Russell: It is most certainly my pleasure to rise in this House to speak to this bill, especially as someone who has come out of the world of local government into this place relatively recently.

I feel that the partisanship within these halls makes a lot of what we do very challenging and, frankly, diminishes the power of the work that we are able to do. I feel like this bill that is in front of us today is in place in order to provide another opportunity to reassess and study some of the potential scenarios that we could implement to advance and add value into that democratic process.

As we get elected in this place, we clearly know that we have a few different roles, one of which is our representative role, back in our home ridings, to come to this place and make sure that the concerns of those people are heard. Another is our legislative role, of course, which we all share. Then there is the role that some of us have and some of us don’t have, in government.

I think what this bill is designed to do is to provide us an opportunity to hone in on that legislative role and determine if there are not ways to do it better. I certainly am happy to speak in favour of this bill. I think part of the process, part of the value of this special committee, would be to properly assess those opportunities to improve the democratic process, whatever that might be.

I struggled, for example, coming out of local government, where we had active debate around the table. We would then bring something to a vote and have a question on it. The question was called, and a vote was taken. That would change from time to time — how and what people supported, how they voted. In a case like this, I feel like the nature of debate is even much different than what I expected, frankly.

I feel as if there is an enormous opportunity to have more legitimate debate, but we need to be able to look at what those models are in other places, in other jurisdictions, and be able to say what the pros and cons of those different scenarios are that we might want to capitalize on here and include in our operations for private members’ time.

[4:50 p.m.]

Likewise, there are questions of efficiency, certainly, that have come up recently, in this place, in trying to determine how we do the work that is in front of us, in terms of this legislative role, with the greatest efficiency. I think there’s a lot of opportunity to look into that and determine how we might be able to do it better than we are today. Hopefully, this committee would help us to advance those expectations.

I look even, for example, at a model like the U.S. government. I think there is certainly lots that we don’t necessarily want to learn from that system. Even in a case like that, the distinction between executive versus legislative powers and behaviours is, I think, an opportunity for us to explore and make sure that we’re capitalizing on the legislative role that we all hold when we come here and provide a better opportunity for us to utilize private members’ time as effectively as we all can on behalf of our constituents and the people we represent here.

I wanted to speak briefly on the value of parliamentary committees, as this bill is designed to identify a new special committee or establish a new special committee.

We had a number of us here that were at the fisheries event last night, on both sides of the aisle. I think one of the interesting commentaries that was shared there was by Corky Evans. He got up to wind up the night and spoke about the work that he had done, decades ago in this place, as the chairperson of a committee, to bring all sides of the House together to really dive deeply into the question of: how are we managing our forests, particularly, and what are the opportunities to improve that?

It was a good reminder, certainly for me, in terms of how that’s…. Part of the work of this place, which I feel like we could give a lot more attention to, is leveraging that collaborative effort of members from all sides of the political spectrum to be able to come to consensus about how we can move forward in a better way, in terms of bringing together subject-matter experts, bringing together different jurisdictional scans to identify what the pros and cons of those different models might be.

I think it’s pretty clear — certainly for me, as somebody that is relatively new in this place — that there is a lot of opportunity to improve the process here. There are a lot of things that certainly work well, but there’s a lot that there’s room to improve upon. I know it comes as a surprise to some.

I see this as one more step in that direction — to be able to explore those opportunities and bring back a suite of options and alternatives. Hopefully, there are some strong recommendations in terms of how to do this place better, even the conversations around time limits that we have. How do we do the business that we are here to do in the most effective and efficient way?

Again, I come back to the comment that I made at the beginning as well. I feel like the partisanship of this place really dramatically reduces the potential of some of the work that we would be able to accomplish. So for myself, any opportunity to explore, in a less partisan way, a shared understanding of how to improve the process within these halls is something that I am eager to support and eager to advance.

[4:55 p.m.]

I think that is the majority of what I really wanted to communicate, in terms of my support for, frankly, any opportunity, this one in particular, that is going to get us to a place where we can improve and advance the ability for us to represent our constituents, particularly in that legislative role that we carry into this place, in a way that works well for all of us and that moves us to more active debate and more consensus.

With that, I will take my seat.

M. Starchuk: It is my pleasure to rise to speak on this today in a favourable way. As a person who is the current Chair of the Special Committee to Appoint a Merit Commissioner, I know the value of what’s there.

Looking at one of the members, from North Vancouver–Seymour…. I think she shares that passion for what a special committee actually has the ability to do. You’re able to….

I think one of the keys is that you narrow down the scope of what this committee will take a look at. When I take a look at this…. I take a look at the five letters, which are there, that talk about what it can reach out to beyond the part of a select standing committee. I’ve had the pleasure, in 2½ years, of sitting on four of those select standing committees. So I’m appreciative of what the process has to come forward.

I want to read out…. The notice says: “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”— take a look at — “other parliamentary jurisdictions in Canada, and to make recommendations on possible improvements.”

I don’t know of any committee that we’ve had where we haven’t been able to do that. When I take a look at the most recent, the Select Standing Committee on Health, to deal with the overdose crisis, of which we have members that are here today — the member for Surrey South, the member for Peace River North and the Rockies, possibly, somewhere down the road…. I’m trying.

A report comes from those committees. The report comes from all the parties that are inside of there. It comes from all the private members that are there and brings all of their experience from across the province.

We’ve heard it in different tones, as to how we got here and who has elected us to be in this position and the job that we have to come forward. That’s where I take a look at our special committees and/or our select standing committees. It brings private members from all over the province. It brings the views from Peace River North and the Rockies to Surrey to the Island to the Kootenays. It brings all of those perspectives to the table.

With this motion in front of us, putting this special committee together…. Not only does it bring the regions together, but it brings the expertise that each and every one of us holds, the expertise and the knowledge and the skills and the abilities that all of us have who come to this House. We bring those biases with us.

When I take a look at the special committee to take a look at private members’ business and everything else that will come around to it…. I also like the fact that there’s a deadline. A special committee knows that when it’s struck, they have a limited window of time to report back to the House on the findings that they will have from this select standing committee.

I’m not standing here in support of it, trying to presuppose what the work will be. That’s the joy of having the committee. That’s the joy of having the terms of reference, which are there to help guide all of those committee members in a direction that is best for everyone in the province and the best use of our time that’s inside of here.

When you strike a committee of various people from various parts of the province and you give them the ability to take a look at best practices — best practices that come from other provinces, best practices that come from other Commonwealth countries that we have….

[5:00 p.m.]

Some of the things that we’ll see — and hopefully, when this committee is put together, that they will see — are the subject matter experts from other jurisdictions on how to make this work best for this House and for those private members — to give that say to that group of people that’s there, to best utilize their time in this House for all members and for their representation to the people that are here.

When we take a look at what’s on its way, the member for Courtenay-Comox pointed it out perfectly. We’re expanding the walls or expanding the chairs of this institution by six, which in all likelihood will be six more private members. So the timing of this is very good. The timing of this says that we need to get this ready. We need to get this done by October of this year so that we’re ready to go when those six extra spots go. As I look around the room, I’m not sure where those extra six seats go, but I’m sure that the people here will figure out where that goes.

When we take a look at the last time this was done, it has to go into a direction that was quite a while ago. Spending your Monday mornings here for a couple of hours, at times, makes you wonder whether or not you’re really being heard. I think the restructuring and putting a committee together with all three parties allows the structure to be done and to take a look at it.

Do we do a good job? I think those of us that are private members think that we do a great job. I’m pretty sure the constituents that we have are happy in what we do. But doing a great job and doing the best job is a fine line. To be able to do the best job, you have to have the input and put all of that common intellect into a room at the same time to take a look at what’s really there.

I think of my time spent on the various committees. We heard it from one of the members — I believe, from Prince George–Valemount. We don’t get to talk about the work of a committee as the committee is working its way through the certain issues that are there. We tend to only talk about the report that comes out as a result of the mandate or the terms of reference of what that committee is. But I can tell you that the process of getting to that report allows for all British Columbians to know that all parties, and an independent member, are looking out for the best interests of all British Columbians.

My time on the committees that I’ve sat — all we talk about is how to make it better, how to improve on what we have that’s there. What is that next step? Coming from local government to here, it was about: how do I take that portfolio of knowledge that I have from the past and bring it to this House and get that knowledge out of the box? Everybody here has the knowledge and the skills and ability of a set that could possibly be great, with a bill or with the committee that we’re talking about here, to take a look at those possible improvements for private members’ business.

Private members’ business has been there for all of time to allow both sides of the House to raise their issues on what’s important to them. We’ve also heard that it gives us the opportunity to make sure that our constituents that come to our offices are heard. It’s in the private members’ time that it gives us that ability.

When we take a look at the work that’s been either done on a special committee and/or a select standing committee, where it ends up is with the private members that are assigned to those committees. It’s the work and the ability of this committee to take a look at what is happening globally, to take a look at what’s working.

[5:05 p.m.]

We heard it in in other committees that we were on. In the Select Standing Committee on Health, we heard about different countries and how they were dealing with things. We heard about different provinces and how they were dealing with things. I think at this point in time, it would be foolish not to have this committee in place so that we’re prepared for what the eventuality is: more private members and more private members’ business that’s going to be done in this House.

The special committee, when it’s put together to deal with private members, will be focused on one thing and one thing only. Where you have other select standing committees that are out there, they tend to take a look at more than one subject. You know, as far as government finance, you take a look at all the finances that that are out there, and you try to bring a report that deals with multiple things. You’re hearing from, you know, 800 to 900 different people. This is a very narrow focus with the intent to make the business of private members and this House work far better.

When I take a look at the select standing committees that I have sat on and what work has been done, in fact, I look for the opportunity to hopefully be part of this this process, to be part of what’s there, to take a look at the terms of reference that are put in front of us so that I can bring those ideas that we have from our constituency in Surrey-Cloverdale. When I take a look at what the notice is that’s in front of us, the special committee has the same powers of the select standing committee, and it has some additional powers that are clearly listed, that are in front of us.

I think the last one, under (e), is “retain personnel as required to assist.” I make the assumption that that is getting the subject matter experts into the room to tell the group of people, or provide the information to the committee that is sitting at that time, what their opinion is and what the what the facts are. Because at the end of the day, you want to be able to take a look at what everybody’s bringing to the table in such a manner as to how it’s going to work.

I want to go back to what the member for Courtenay-Comox said. I really think that the focus of this committee really comes into play with the possibility of six additional seats that come into this room and that we need to make sure that the structure that we will have in place for, for all intents and purposes, six new private members, will be there for them for their next four years.

I think when we take a look at what the committee can do…. The committee will have the ability to examine how private members’ time can serve not only the needs of the private members but serve the needs of all British Columbians at the same time. We want to make sure that it’s all parties of the Legislature that are struck. We want to make sure that it’s the diverse views that we see in all of our other committees from all the other areas across the province of British Columbia. We want to make sure that all of those things that are there….

As I said at the beginning, I don’t want to predispose the work of the committee. I just want to be able to say that this is what excites me about the committee and how, as a private member, I have the ability to forecast, maybe, what can come out of this committee work that’s here and determine how it’s going to affect myself and affect the people of Surrey-Cloverdale that are my constituents.

I know that there are a few other speakers that are after me that would like to speak, so I’ll close it here with just the thought that I am so happy and so proud to stand here in this House to talk about the ability for a committee to be struck that’s going to deal with private members’ business, that will allow those private members that are here in the House today to have that opportunity to mould what’s going to come in the future, to have that ability to have some input and say.

[5:10 p.m.]

I really, truly believe, from my touches with the four select standing committees and the one special committee, that what comes out of striking this committee — with the deadline that’s in front of them, where they can clearly see that they have a couple of choices to make…. They’re making those choices with subject matter experts in place to provide them with that background and information.

With that, I will take my seat.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

S. Chant: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Motion 18, establishing a special committee to review private members’ business.

First off, just to acknowledge that I’m speaking from the territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ, the Esquimalt and Songhees people. I’m very, very grateful to have that opportunity to work on this land and learn on this land.

I also acknowledge that in my lovely riding of North Vancouver–Seymour, I’m in the territory of the Mus­queam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish. Again, I offer my sincere thanks to them for the stewardship of the land that they’ve been doing for so long and the willingness to help me learn how to do that stewarding in a much, much better and more effective way.

Since we’re saying how we feel today, a couple of times, I feel this has been a long time coming, this request to take a look at what the private members — how their business is run, how the motions work, how the bills happen, etc.

I did not have the opportunity or time, I guess, to be part of municipal politics before I came to a provincial role. I was very much involved, if you will, in the politics of a health authority. However, it had a very different face and a very different presentation than what we deal with here. Also, the structure, the organizational structure, was clearly very different. I also had the opportunity to be in the military for 42 years and see yet a different type of organizational structure. All of these structures, including here, have their good sides and their not-so-good sides.

One of the things that I came here feeling was that as a representative and an advocate for my constituency and my community, I had the opportunity to bring things forward to the floor. I’ll admit my rosy-coloured glasses and lack of knowledge and perhaps lack of doing my homework. It was a surprise to me that when I got here, I actually wasn’t a member of government. I was an MLA, yes, and I had a role, absolutely. However, I was not a member of government. I was not seen as a member of government.

However, if you were to speak to people in my constituency, especially anybody who knows me, they perceive me as a member of government, and they perceive me as having the power to bring anything forward, speak to anything and make change. That’s why they put me in this position: to speak to stuff, bring it forward and make change.

This bill, I believe, is going to give us the opportunity to look more closely at that function, to have a robust discussion, as has been referred to by my colleagues, and have people in who have looked at it across the country or in other countries that have used this time well and perhaps differently than we do, to see how effectively it can be used in other places and see if there are ways that we can improve.

You know, quality assurance is an important part of any function, of any system, to look at different aspects of things and go: is this going as well as it could be, or is there something we can change to make it better? In my mind, this committee is able to do just that. Let’s look at some of the processes that we’ve been doing, quite frankly, the same way for many, many years, and let’s see if there are things that we can do to make it better.

[5:15 p.m.]

A common saying in the military is: “We’ve been doing this. Why do we do it this way? Well, because we’ve always done it this way.” Well, maybe not. Maybe there are better ways to do that. I can tell you a story about that, but it doesn’t look like I’ve got time, so I won’t do that.

Anyway, I think, also, there have been references to the collective wisdom, passion and experience that our private members have to offer. Every one of the people that comes to this House comes with a willingness, with a momentum, with a motivation to be part of something that brings everybody forward, that brings the people in their riding forward, that brings the people in our province forward into a better place. The way that we can do that is the synergy that comes together with working together.

Again, to replicate one of my colleagues’ comments, I have been surprised at some of the divisiveness that is experienced and shown in this environment. I understand intellectually the reasons, the rationale for it, but at times when I listen to it and I watch and I think of people who are in the gallery watching or people who are watching channel 14, apparently the five — is it seven people that watch it? — maybe five…. My husband watches it sometimes. It’s a bad idea.

Interjection.

S. Chant: It’s like…. Oh yeah. Everybody wants to watch it. It goes on forever.

I find it really interesting that those people, they look at what we do, particularly during a particular session in this Legislature, and they go: “Really? People behave like that?” I certainly did. I certainly still do. However, I try to be really quiet most of the time.

I think if we were to bring this committee together and allow that collective passion, wisdom and experience to look analytically at what the private members do, I think we would get a great benefit from it. I think this whole environment and grouping would get a benefit from it.

The other part of it is…. I also have sat on other special committees, and the amazing stuff that the people that bring presentations bring to us, the information, the analysis, the research, the different ways of looking at things, the perspectives, everything that people bring forward has added so much. To have that opportunity is spectacular. Not only that, but we have the joy of having amazing analytical staff that bring everything together and distill it into the stuff that applies and can go forward in effective recommendations.

We are so lucky to have these resources, to have this possibility to do things in a way that we can work together and make things better, that we shouldn’t let that go by us. The reference to the electoral changes: six more people are going to come in here and be part of this. We need their voices too. They’re very important. Everybody who’s here — their voice is important.

Mr. Speaker, I have more pages of stuff, my scribbles. However, noting the hour, I reserve my place, and I move adjournment of the debate.

S. Chant moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix: I wish everyone a wonderful weekend.

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday.

The House adjourned at 5:19 p.m.