This past Monday, Cariboo-North MLA Bob Simpson raised a Point of Order in the BC Legislature regarding allocation of time for Private Members Statements on Mondays'. The text of his Point of Order is as follows:
Monday mornings are supposed to be for private members' business. This is a specific time set aside for MLAs who are not in cabinet to act as free agents on issues of concern to them.
According to Standing Order 25A, the selection of private members' statements is supposed to be chosen by lot by the Speaker, not by agreement of the House Leaders and Whips, as is the practice.
Allowing House Leaders and Whips to determine which MLAs get to make statements defeats the purpose of private members' time and completely undermines its spirit and intent. Also, allowing Whips to submit preapproved lists of responses to statements and motions similarly undermines the intent of private members' time.
I ask the Speaker to rule in this chamber on three aspects of private members' time. What is the spirit and intent of this time? What process is to be used to determine which MLAs get time? And are speaker lists necessary for respondents, or do those lists undermine the spirit and intent of private members' time?
Earlier today, the House Speaker (Hon. Bill Barisoff) responded as follows:
Hon. Members, on Monday morning, May 16, the member for Cariboo North rose on a point of order pertaining to the conduct of private members' time and particularly directed his attention to Standing Order 25A. On raising his point of order, the hon. member asked for guidance from the Chair as to three questions: (1) What is the spirit and the intent of the private members' time? (2) What process is to be used to determine which MLAs get time? and (3) Are speakers lists necessary for respondents, or do these lists undermine the spirit of the intent of private members' time?
Firstly, there have been several Speaker's decisions on the nature and intent of private members' statements, and I refer hon. members to the fourth edition of the Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, pages 60 and 61. Basically, the intent was to provide a definite and certain time on Orders of the Day when members other than cabinet ministers could bring to the attention of the House matters of concern which did not fall into other proceedings of the House.
The second question the hon. member has put to the Chair is the relation to the process used to determine which MLAs get time during private members' statements. Standing Order 25A(2) suggests that such a determination is made by the Speaker after drawing lots. When this standing order was first used, it was discovered that random drawing of lots often produced an undesirable result, in that four random choices could produce the effect that all private members' statements on a particular day would go to one party or another.
Accordingly, the practice developed that the designated members on private members' day were chosen by agreement between the House Leaders, and this process has worked admirably over the years that Standing Order 25 has been in place. It was hoped that with the advent of independent members, their turn to be chosen for private members would be negotiated in the same spirit of fairness that has prevailed over the years.
As Speaker, I would hope that the existing processes would be continued and that independent members would be part of the process and would be prepared to accept the decision by the House Leaders of the majority parties. The Chair would suggest that the overriding principle is that of fairness. I have every reason to believe that the principle will be observed in allocating the time for private members' statements.
The final question put to the Chair was whether or not speakers lists are necessary or do they undermine the spirit and the intent of private members' time. In relation to this last question, it seems to the Chair that respondents lists add some certainty to the House proceedings and also provide time for preparation of replies when appropriate. Once the subject matter of the statement is known, research can be commenced on the reply, thereby adding, hopefully, to the quality of debate on the particular subject.
Failing this consensual approach to the allocation of time in private members' statements, an arbitrary mathematical decision could be devised, bearing in mind the number of members and the number of independent members.
After reading MLA B. Simpson's submission to the House Speaker and Mr. Speaker's ruling - if I was Mr. Simpson, I would not be exactly thrilled with the ruling as it appears that the status quo was defended but I sympatize with Mr. Simpson's position that he is on the outside looking in as far as how to get time for Private Members' Statements. Given 2 Independents in the BC Legislature, I believe the Speaker should be given the power to draw 3 MLA each week for Private Members' Statements and not political parties
And while I'm at it - I also believe the House should adopt the same legislative procedures that the Ontario Legislature/House of Commons uses to adopt Bills:
1) Bill introduced/read 1st time
2) Bill debated and approved for 2nd reading
3) Bill referred to Standing Committee of the House and members of the public can come before the Committee and give their views on a particular Bill
4) Standing Committee reports the Bill back, with amendments as necessary
5) House debates the Committee report (Bill with amendments or Bill as proposed at 2nd Reading) and adopts the Bill at "Report Stage"
6) House debates the Bill at 3rd Reading and adopts the Bill
No comments:
Post a Comment