Jeff Sandes is a freelance contributor based in the Vancouver area.The head of a Canadian think tank focused on shaping public discussion around governance, economic policy, and social issues has expressed alarm from a new practice in the BC Legislature where opposition voices are being stifled from presenting bills during first readings.Frontier Centre for Public Policy President and CEO David Leis argued centuries of tradition and parliamentary rules are being abandoned by a provincial government focused on eliminating debate challenging their legislative approach and direction.“It’s very important our institutions stick to those time honoured traditions of respecting, regardless of whether we agree with them or not, the opportunity to introduce and debate them,” he said. “This is all part of our 900-year old tradition, and it goes back even longer to have debate on things we don’t necessarily agree with."“Every MLA has been elected," he added. "They are entitled on behalf of the people to present their petitions and their motions. This is our tradition, and not to do so is unparliamentary, undemocratic and dangerous. That’s the point.”.Leis believes a cultural shift has been brewing in Canada for years, where universities, politics, media and other societal fixtures have advocated for a victim-based perspective, where much of its ideological success can be measured in recent government policies and legislation, including efforts to curb speech and debate.“What we have now are revolutionaries in power who don’t believe that having debate is appropriate because it is deemed as offensive to their worldview,” Leis said. “And they believe that changing the parliamentary rules or suppressing debate and discussion is appropriate because the ends justify the means."“The real story, I would argue, is that the effort to put up roadblocks or to undermine public discussion is a long held tactic by radical totalitarian regimes of all stripes because they don’t want to have debate where there may be, in fact, a recognition that what is being proposed is actually reasonable," he added.The controversy stems from several attempts by opposition MLAs to present legislation this year, beginning in April when then BC Conservative leader John Rustad introduced a private member’s bill, the Fairness in Women’s and Girls’ Sports Act. While still recorded as being introduced, it was voted down by the majority NDP, the Green Party, and two Independents, denying MLAs in the Legislative Assembly any opportunity to know what was in the bill, let alone debate it..At the time, NDP house leader, Ravi Kahlon, defended the action even though he admitted killing a bill at first reading is rare.“Historically, most first bills go through this place, regardless if you support them or not,” he said. “What we had in front of us...was a piece of legislation that we believe is hateful and discriminatory. This was a matter of principle for my colleagues.”Since then, several other opposition bills have faced the same fate during this past fall's sitting, including:Protecting Minors from Gender Transition Act, introduced October 8 by Tara Armstrong. Land Acknowledgement Prohibition Act, introduced October 23 by Dallas Brodie. Property Rights Protection Act, introduced October 29 by Brodie. New Resident Health Cost Recovery Act, introduced October 30 by Armstrong. DRIPA Repeal and Reset Act, introduced November 19 by Jordan Kealy. Repeal of National Day for Truth and Reconciliation Act, introduced November 20 by Brodie.Another bill by Brodie, introduced in April when she sat as an Independent, the Tax Relief and Tariff Relief Bill, was ruled out of order by Kahlon because he said it violated legislative rules which affect Constitutional matters, and could infringe on indigenous rights.Vancouver Sun political commentator, Vaughn Palmer, initially put a spotlight on the new protocol in a column published November 20. "The practice is getting out of hand,” he wrote after Kealy’s bill to repeal DRIPA was struck down at first reading, particularly because recent attention on Indigenous land claims is putting pressure on the government to act, he said, and suggested constituents would like their MLAs to revisit the issue. “The decision to strike Kealy’s legislation from the record suggests panic among the New Democrats and their allies,” Palmer added. “They are also setting a precedent that could be abused by future governments.”.Indeed, Kealy felt he exposed a messaging weakness with the government by introducing his legislation, even though it was shot down. “I know for a fact the NDP do not want that (DRIPA) repealed, and they’ve got the numbers to vote it down,” he said in an interview. “Currently, the Conservative Party is pushing to try and have the Legislature recalled. The Premier made it clear that he’s not going to do that (although) he’d look at doing a couple of amendments to it.”Kealy noted the procedural moves to strike down private member’s bills at first reading isn’t illegal, but goes against traditional, Legislative courtesy. This denies MLAs to show the people in their riding what they are trying to accomplish, put ideas on the public record, and potentially force the government to take a position on the issue, he said.“Ultimately, what it does is it shuts down any communication or discourse they can have in the house,” Kealy said. “And it shows the public very clearly that the NDP doesn’t care what anybody really thinks, that they have their agenda that they’re going to do, and that’s what they’re going to do.”.Marvin Hunt is a former BC MLA who served both while his party held power, and when they were in opposition. He doesn’t recall his party denying opposition bills from reaching the Legislative Assembly floor, but recalls when the NDP formed a coalition with the Green Party and killed two BC Liberal bills at first reading to wrestle control of the province from them in 2017. As well as the groundwork for ignoring opposition input, he said, which eventually became more prominent in 2025.“That became very clear in the committee meetings themselves,” Hunt said. “You can say anything you want to, but it’s not going anywhere."“There is a bit of arrogance that happens with you being in government," he added. "There’s a generality that the opposition are all a pile of idiots. Whether they are or not is irrelevant, but that’s how it’s treated. Which is one of the things I really find disappointing in provincial politics.""There was a real attitude within the NDP that now that they were in power, we were the ones that didn’t know anything, and they were finally going to get things straightened out because we had made such a mess,” he concluded.The BC NDP was contacted multiple times for an interview or a statement, but did not respond.Jeff Sandes is a freelance contributor based in the Vancouver area.
