British Columbia Hansard — 10 June 2021, p.m., Issue 91 (42nd Parliament, 2nd Session)

20210610pm-Hansard-n91

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 42nd Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday, June 10, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 91 THE HONOURABLE RAJ CHOUHAN, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Second Session, 42nd Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Raj Chouhan EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training...........................................................................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries......................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Housing .............................................................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................................Hon.

Mitzi Dean Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.....................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Education .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Jennifer Whiteside Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation ........................................................................................Hon. Bruce Ralston, QC Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon. George Heyman Minister of Finance .......................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Selina Robinson Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Lands and Natural Resource Operations................................................................................. Hon. Nathan Cullen Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs.............................................................................Hon.

Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation .......................................................................................... Hon. Murray Rankin, QC Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation....................................................................................................... Hon. Ravi Kahlon Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon.

George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.............................................................................................................. Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Minister of Municipal Affairs ............................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Josie Osborne Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon. Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction........................................................................................... Hon. Nicholas Simons Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport .................................................................................................................. Hon.

Melanie Mark Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of State for Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bowinn Ma LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition...................................................................................................................................................Shirley Bond Leader of the Third Party .......................................................................................................................................................... Sonia Furstenau Deputy Speaker..........................................................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Assistant Deputy Speaker..............................................................................................................................................................Norm Letnick Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole .......................................................................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...........................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.............................................................................................................................. Seunghee Suzie Seo Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services........................................................................................................................... Artour Sogomonian Clerk of Committees.......................................................................................................................................................................

Jennifer Arril Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..............................................................................................Susan Sourial Senior Research Analyst ................................................................................................................................................................... Karan Riarh Acting Sergeant-at-Arms..................................................................................................................................................................Greg Nelson

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Alexis, Pam (BC NDP) ............................................................Abbotsford-Mission Anderson, Brittny (BC NDP) .........................................................Nelson-Creston Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal Party) ............................................................... Penticton Babchuk, Michele (BC NDP)...............................................................North Island Bailey, Brenda (BC NDP).................................................. Vancouver–False Creek Bains, Hon. Harry (BC NDP).........................................................

Surrey-Newton Banman, Bruce (BC Liberal Party) ............................................ Abbotsford South Beare, Hon. Lisa (BC NDP) .......................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (BC NDP).................................................................Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ...............................................Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal Party).................................Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (BC NDP) ................................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal Party) .............................................

Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (BC NDP).................................Vancouver–West End Chant, Susie (BC NDP) ..............................................North Vancouver–Seymour Chen, Hon. Katrina (BC NDP) ............................................... Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Hon. Raj (BC NDP).................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon. George (BC NDP) ..........................................Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal Party)........................Columbia River–Revelstoke Conroy, Hon.

Katrine (BC NDP) ....................................................Kootenay West Coulter, Dan (BC NDP) .......................................................................... Chilliwack Cullen, Hon. Nathan (BC NDP) ................................................................... Stikine Davies, Dan (BC Liberal Party)................................................. Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal Party)....................................Abbotsford West Dean, Hon. Mitzi (BC NDP) ...............................................

Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (BC NDP) .........................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (BC NDP) ................................................ Vancouver-Kingsway Doerkson, Lorne (BC Liberal Party) ........................................Cariboo-Chilcotin Donnelly, Fin (BC NDP) .......................................... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Dykeman, Megan (BC NDP)............................................................... Langley East Eby, Hon. David, QC (BC NDP).......................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (BC NDP) ..................................................Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (BC NDP) .................................................Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (BC NDP) ...............................................

Victoria–Swan Lake Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) .............................................Cowichan Valley Glumac, Rick (BC NDP) ..................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Greene, Kelly (BC NDP) ........................................................Richmond-Steveston Halford, Trevor (BC Liberal Party) .........................................Surrey–White Rock Heyman, Hon. George (BC NDP) .........................................Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (BC NDP) ......................................... Langford–Juan de Fuca Kahlon, Hon.

Ravi (BC NDP) .............................................................. Delta North Kang, Hon. Anne (BC NDP) .................................................. Burnaby–Deer Lake Kirkpatrick, Karin (BC Liberal Party) ........................West Vancouver–Capilano Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal Party)....................................................................Shuswap Lee, Michael (BC Liberal Party) ..............................................Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (BC NDP)...............................................

Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal Party) .................................. Kelowna–Lake Country Lore, Grace (BC NDP)........................................................... Victoria–Beacon Hill Ma, Hon. Bowinn (BC NDP).....................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Hon. Sheila (BC NDP)........................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (BC NDP).................................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Mercier, Andrew (BC NDP) ........................................................................

Langley Merrifield, Renee (BC Liberal Party)......................................... Kelowna-Mission Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal Party) .......................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ................................. Prince George–Mackenzie Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal Party).................................................. Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)............................ Saanich North and the Islands Osborne, Hon.

Josie (BC NDP)........................................Mid Island–Pacific Rim Paddon, Kelli (BC NDP) ................................................................Chilliwack-Kent Paton, Ian (BC Liberal Party) ............................................................... Delta South Popham, Hon. Lana (BC NDP)........................................................ Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce, QC (BC NDP) .............................................Surrey-Whalley Rankin, Hon.

Murray, QC (BC NDP) .............................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Rice, Jennifer (BC NDP) ...................................................................... North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (BC NDP)...................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal Party)......................................................................... Skeena Routledge, Janet (BC NDP) .............................................................Burnaby North Routley, Doug (BC NDP)...........................................

Nanaimo–North Cowichan Russell, Roly (BC NDP).................................................... Boundary-Similkameen Rustad, John (BC Liberal Party)......................................................Nechako Lakes Sandhu, Harwinder (BC NDP) .................................................Vernon-Monashee Sharma, Niki (BC NDP)..........................................................Vancouver-Hastings Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal Party) .................................................... Kootenay East Simons, Hon. Nicholas (BC NDP).........................

Powell River–Sunshine Coast Sims, Jinny (BC NDP) ................................................................. Surrey-Panorama Singh, Aman (BC NDP) .............................................Richmond-Queensborough Singh, Rachna (BC NDP)...................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Starchuk, Mike (BC NDP) ......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal Party) .......................................................

Kelowna West Stone, Todd (BC Liberal Party) ...............................Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal Party) ............................. West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal Party)....................................................... Fraser-Nicola Walker, Adam (BC NDP) ....................................................... Parksville-Qualicum Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal Party) ....................................... Richmond North Centre Whiteside, Hon. Jennifer (BC NDP) .........................................

New Westminster Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal Party)......................Vancouver-Quilchena Y ao, Henry (BC NDP) ..................................................... Richmond South Centre LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission................................................................................. Pam Alexis Abbotsford South...............................................................................Bruce Banman Abbotsford West......................................................................

Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen........................................................................ Roly Russell Burnaby–Deer Lake....................................................................... Hon. Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds......................................................................Hon. Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North .................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ..........................................................................Lorne Doerkson Cariboo North.................................................................................... Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ...............................................................................................Dan Coulter Chilliwack-Kent .................................................................................... Kelli Paddon Columbia River–Revelstoke .........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain...............................................................Fin Donnelly Coquitlam-Maillardville ...................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................. Sonia Furstenau Delta North................................................................................... Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Delta South ..................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Hon. Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola .........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson .............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson..................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country .....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission ...........................................................................

Renee Merrifield Kelowna West ..........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East.......................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West........................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca .............................................................. Hon.

John Horgan Langley .............................................................................................Andrew Mercier Langley East....................................................................................Megan Dykeman Maple Ridge–Mission.............................................................................. Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim............................................................ Hon.

Josie Osborne Nanaimo.............................................................................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan............................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes........................................................................................ John Rustad Nelson-Creston ............................................................................. Brittny Anderson New Westminster.............................................................. Hon.

Jennifer Whiteside North Coast ........................................................................................... Jennifer Rice North Island................................................................................... Michele Babchuk North Vancouver–Lonsdale......................................................... Hon. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour...................................................................Susie Chant Oak Bay–Gordon Head..................................................Hon.

Murray Rankin, QC Parksville-Qualicum........................................................................... Adam Walker Peace River North ................................................................................... Dan Davies Peace River South ................................................................................ Mike Bernier Penticton ................................................................................................. Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam...................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam.......................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast..............................................Hon. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie....................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ..................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre..........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough..................................................................Aman Singh Richmond South Centre .......................................................................... Henry Y ao Richmond-Steveston ............................................................................

Kelly Greene Saanich North and the Islands .............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South .............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap...................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena........................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine........................................................................................ Hon.

Nathan Cullen Surrey-Cloverdale .............................................................................. Mike Starchuk Surrey-Fleetwood.....................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers........................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford......................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ..............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ...................................................................................... Jinny Sims Surrey South ................................................................................ Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley ................................................................. Hon. Bruce Ralston, QC Surrey–White Rock .......................................................................... Trevor Halford Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek...................................................................... Brenda Bailey Vancouver-Fraserview...............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ..............................................................................Niki Sharma Vancouver-Kensington....................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara................................................................................ Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant..................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey ............................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena........................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End .....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee .....................................................................

Harwinder Sandhu Victoria–Beacon Hill............................................................................... Grace Lore Victoria–Swan Lake.................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Karin Kirkpatrick West Vancouver–Sea to Sky................................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC NDP 57; BC Liberal Party 28; BC Green Party 2

CONTENTS Thursday, June 10, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Tributes ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2835 Frank and Danse Williams Hon. M. Mark Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 2835 Bill 7 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021 Hon. D. Eby M. de Jong E. Ross M. Bernier T. Shypitka C.

Oakes G. Kyllo Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 2855 Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Economic Innovation and Recovery(continued) Tributes ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2856 Sarah Robinson Hon. M.

Rankin Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 2856 Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation(continued) T. Stone Hon. R.

Kahlon Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 2858 Bill 7 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021 (continued) Reporting of Bills..................................................................................................................................................................... 2859 Bill 7 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021 Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 2859 Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development(continued) J.

Rustad I. Paton Hon. K. Conroy R. Merrifield D. Davies J. Sturdy S. Bond L. Doerkson S. Furstenau A. Olsen Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 2874 Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued) M. Morris Hon. M. Farnworth S. Bond G. Kyllo C. Oakes

THURSDAY , JUNE 10, 2021 The House met at 1:02 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Tributes FRANK AND DANSE WILLIAMS Hon. M. Mark: I rise today to honour the memories of Frank Williams and Randy Williams, or Frank and Danse, as most of us in Commercial Drive knew them. The broth- ers were renowned on the Drive for their beautiful carvings and their generous spirit. Many of us benefited from a humorous anecdote, a kind word or helpful advice from Frank and Danse over the years. Sadly, in a short two months, both men lost their lives. They will be very much missed.

Their path to our community on Commercial Drive wasn’t an easy one. It began in Ahousat. They are Nuu- chah-nulth. As children, they were taken away to residen- tial school and, after that, passed through various foster homes. Entering adulthood, they and their sisters and brothers had little of the opportunity many of us in this chamber would have taken for granted. Throughout their lives, Frank and Danse endured what many in this cham- ber will never know. In spite of that, they loved and were loved, had an eager- ness to connect with people and, as I’ve already said, a generosity second to none.

To Merrilee, Justin, Frankie, Dylan, Ashley and extended family, we are together in your grief. Their death certificates don’t say it, but these two remarkable men died victims of systemic anti-Indigenous racism. Recently this House has taken its first steps in accounting for the profound harms that racism inflicted on Frank and Danse and the thousands more who suffered early, heartbreaking deaths and those thousands who live amongst us in our communities. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act was only the starting point.

I urge all members to every day remind themselves that there is much more to our journey, to every day ask themselves: what more can we do to realize the promise that we’ve made? [1:05 p.m.] Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage Bill 7, Electoral Boundaries Act. In the Douglas Fir Room, I call the continued estimates for the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Oper- ations and Rural Development. In the Birch Room, I call continued debate on the estim- ates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Committee of the Whole House BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 7; N. Letnick in the chair. The committee met at 1:06 p.m. On clause 1. The Chair: Attorney General, do you have some intro- ductions to make, maybe? Hon. D. Eby: Ready to go. M. de Jong: Well, I guess the obvious question on sec- tion 1, without much fanfare, is: why 93? Hon. D. Eby: I have to admit to the member that I was briefly distracted by my technical setup here and missed his question. I wonder if he could repeat it. The Chair: The question was: why 93? But if Abbotsford West wants to repeat it, go ahead. M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Chair.

I merely asked the Attorney whether he could explain why the government settled on 93 as the number. Hon. D. Eby: A couple of things. B.C. ’s population has grown by approximately half a million people since the last commission process in 2014-15. Six was an additional number of seats previously permitted for an electoral com- mission to add.

So between those factors, looking at the reasonable MLA-to-constituent ratio based on this popu- lation growth and mitigating some of the pressure on the commission, which they might feel, to reduce the num- ber of electoral districts in less populated regions of the province led us to allow them to recommend up to six additional seats at their discretion. M. de Jong: The Attorney, in the past stages of the dis- cussion, has referred to the population growth, which is a fact. I may, in a moment, come back to the impact of the current census.

But I’ll come back to that in a moment. [1:10 p.m.] It sounds, though, as if the Attorney and the govern- ment have settled somewhat, in their mind, that based on the population growth that we know about today, there is a number or an optimum ratio or a ratio beyond which 2835

the government is hesitant to go in terms of the number of people an MLA might be representing. When the Attorney says, “We’ve got population growth of X, and for that reason we thought the commission should have the option of increasing the number of MLAs by Y , ” that does suggest that there is some notion of a ratio. Is that so, and if so, what is that ratio? Hon. D. Eby: The member is right to note that the ratio of the average electoral district population, the ratio of seats to the overall population, dictates the average elector- al district population.

So with our population growth, if we look at the last Electoral Boundaries Commission with 87 seats, the average electoral district population at the time of the last commission was 53,119 constituents on average per MLA. In order to maintain that ratio, we would need to add somewhere in the neighbourhood of 11 additional seats. So that’s not what we’re putting forward. Looking at his- toric commissions — the ’98-99 Wood commission, which allowed up to six additional seats; the 2005-2008 Cohen commission allowed six additional seats — it seemed to make sense to us.

But the member is right to note that this does have implications for the number of constituents per MLA. If the Electoral Boundaries Commission elects to add one additional seat, that will be 59,171 constituents per MLA on average. Drawing another example, if they decide to add enough seats to get us to 91 members in this place, there will be 57,221 constituents per MLA. If they add all six, it would be 55,990 constituents per MLA. All of these numbers, the committee will note, are sig- nificantly in excess of the ratio from the last Electoral Boundaries Commission.

If we look further back, in ’98-99, there were 47,146 constituents per MLA in Brit- ish Columbia. When we look next door to Alberta, they have an average of 46,803 constituents per MLA. British Columbia is the third most populous province, but it has the second highest number of constituents per MLA after Ontario. M. de Jong: That is helpful and relevant information. So it was a purposeful decision to allow the overall ratio to increase. Holding it at present levels would, as the Attor- ney has mentioned, have required providing the commis- sion with the option of adding more than six seats.

I think he mentioned 11. The government, by purposeful decision, deemed that to be — maybe excessive isn’t the right word — more than it wished to authorize, recognizing that the average ratio between an elected MLA and the number of constituents would increase by the numbers that the Attorney has men- tioned. Is that all a fair

summary? Hon. D. Eby: That sounds accurate. [1:15 p.m.] M. de Jong: Can I ask the Attorney…? We’re in the midst, I guess, of a national census. This has been touched upon in various stages, earlier stages of the debate. But I’m not sure this has been addressed definitively on the record. Two questions, really. Will the commission be conduct- ing its work, when the commission is commissioned, on the basis of the 2021 census data? In that regard, if it is — I guess even if it isn’t — has the government, in making some of the decisions that went into drafting Bill 7…?

Did it make any assumptions about what that census will show for the population of the province? Hon. D. Eby: So two parts to the member’s question. The first, in terms of the commission itself, it’s entirely at their discretion which population numbers they choose to use in doing their work. The first scheduled 2021 census release of data is, we understand, going to be in February of 2022. That’s while the commission is still in progress. They could theoretically do some preliminary work, while waiting for that data to be released, and then finalize it based on that data.

In the alternative, they could work with B.C. Stats to generate projections for population on a go- forward basis to complete their work, independent of the timing of the census. As far as what the team and the ministry used in their work — their policy work related to the bill — I’m advised that they base their work on B.C. Statistics published data, population projections, which are released quarterly. The most recent, we believe, was in February of this year. That was the data that informed the decision around the six additional seats.

M. de Jong: It sounds, therefore, as if the commission, once constituted, will have the opportunity…. Well, I guess I should back up. Is the commission provided at the onset with inform- ation from the ministry, from the vital statistics division, about those projections? First question. [1:20 p.m.] Then secondly, it sounds as if the commission will have an opportunity and the option, if they choose to exercise it, to compare those projections, if they are provided to them, with initial data from the national census that the Attorney is indicating will be available in February of 2022. Is that correct? Hon. D.

Eby: The act is not prescriptive at all in terms of how the commission obtains its data or from where, in terms of population statistics. It is entirely within their dis- cretion to obtain data from B.C. Stats and compare it with the February census data release and make determinations based on that. So they certainly could do that. Typically, I’m advised, the commission itself directly obtains the information that it needs from B.C. Stats or from Statistics Canada, rather than going through the ministry. Although they could, I understand the practice 2836 British Columbia Debates Thursday, June 10, 2021

is that they tend to go directly to these sources to get that data. I’m also advised that the previous Electoral Boundaries Commission was faced with a situation of a fairly stale set of census data from 2011, because their work was happen- ing in 2014-15. I’m advised that they obtained projections around population directly from B.C. Stats in order to do their work. M. de Jong: I think one final question in this area.

Have the Attorney or the members of the ministry who have been working through this become aware of demographic trends today that they believe are noteworthy or signific- ant and that they would hope and wish the commission takes account of in conducting their work over the next period of months and years? Hon. D. Eby:Staff have advised me that when they were looking at the data, the census data around percent Indi- genous members of a community or people who have Eng- lish as a learning language relies on data from the 2011 census.

So in terms of the immediate data available to the Electoral Boundaries Commission, that is obviously…. It was dated for the purposes of the commission in 2014-15, but now that’s about a decade old. Although I do not seek to influence at all the independence of the commission, I’m sure that the census data, as it’s released, will be of interest to the commission in their work. [1:25 p.m.] Worth noting, I think, the dated nature of the Statistics Canada data coming from 2011, and again, just underlin- ing for the member the independence that the commis- sion has in how they use the information that B.C.

Stats is able to provide to them, as well as the information they can obtain directly from Statistics Canada. What they may find influential or not, I suspect we’ll go through in some of the discussion in relation to sections of the act, where they’re asked to look specifically at certain considerations. But other than that, it really is in their hands. Clause 1 approved. On clause 2. M. de Jong: Maybe what I can do is give the Attorney a little bit of an outline of how I hope we can meander our way through clause 2 — broadly, in two sections. I do so as much for his assistance as the staff that are helping him.

The Attorney will know that some members of the House, certainly members on the opposition side of the House, have articulated in a fairly passionate way concern around the decisions the government has made with respect to the language around governing principles. Some of my colleagues would like, and will have an opportunity through the course of the committee stage debate on sec- tion 2, to particularize those concerns and seek the Attor- ney’s response, reaction, answers to some of those ques- tions. We’ll come to that momentarily. I’ d like to take a moment.

I’m going to be assisted by my colleague from Skeena in a few moments. I want to lay out for the Attorney, right at the forefront, the nature of the examination. I don’t want him to be concerned that I’m trying to sandbag him or surprise him. I’m going to lay out for him the nature of my query, and then we’ll break it down and go through some of the component parts. The bill, in its entirety — it’s a short bill — provides instructions, guiding principles, a mandate to the Electoral Boundaries Commission that will be created in accord- ance with existing laws.

The proposition that the opposi- tion has been advancing is that by virtue of how the prin- cipal

section of the legislation is being changed, it’s going to have an impact. The opposition says a negative impact. And by the way, I share that perception. I’m not at the moment…. I don’t want to become bogged down in the details of that argument. But I do want to ask the Attorney to consider this proposition: that, in dealing with questions of rural representation — parts of the province that heretofore have enjoyed an element of protection under Boundary Commission legislation — there will be an impact.

There has been an argument in the House about the magnitude of the impact and the nature of that impact and the manner in which one deals with that impact. But there will be an impact. I’ll go further. I will suggest that with the removal of the protections that have existed thus far, the likelihood is that ridings in certain parts of the province are going to grow much larger. Some may disappear. [1:30 p.m.] I will concede at the outset that none of us knows for certain how the commission will deal with these matters.

But given the decision to remove the protections that were in place, it is far likelier than not that the impact will be to grow the size of constituencies, and to that extent, alter the nature of the representation or the manner in which certain communities are represented. The Attorney, if he wishes to take issue with that, will certainly have an oppor- tunity to do so. I say that because for the first part of the exchange, I’ d like to focus on, in particular, the degree to which that is significant for Aboriginal communities.

It won’t surprise the Attorney to know that we are still trying to ascertain — I think as an opposition, I think as a society — the degree to which the passage of Bill 41 in the fall of 2019 is impact- ing upon the development, introduction and passage of legislation in this place. I want to say this right up front. I say it, and I hope I don’t get anyone into any trouble, saying this. I was grate- ful that the Attorney made his staff available for a briefing when the bill was introduced. They provided helpful infor- mation and, I think, answered forthrightly.

One of the questions that I put to them in that briefing was around the consultation that would have taken place with First Thursday, June 10, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2837

Nations around Bill 7, prior to its introduction in the House. The reply I received was that there hadn’t been any — that that was the role of the commission. Now, I appreciated the forthright answer. It did surprise me. It did surprise me that on a piece of legislation that deals with political institutions and the manner in which Indigenous communities are represented…. It certainly affects other communities as well.

In rural parts of the province, where there are particular sensitivities around this, and given what we had heard from the minister’s colleague at the time that Bill 41 was being discussed, I was surprised that the government would appear to be taking the view that the responsibility for conducting consultation could be delegated to a com- mission that was about to be established, albeit established pursuant to statutory provisions.

It was my impression — and, I thought, the govern- ment’s impression — that when change of this mag- nitude was being proposed and the triggering mechan- ism for that change was affecting, as it will, First Nations, Indigenous communities, the obligation rested with the Crown, and that that obligation existed prior to the introduction and passage of the legislation that would ultimately lead to the change. I’m going to explore that a little bit with the Attorney, what I’ve said a lot, and this may be an appropriate spot for him to offer some initial response to what I’ve said. Hon. D.

Eby: It sounds like we’ll be on this for a little bit, so maybe, at this point, it might just suffice to clarify something for the member. [1:35 p.m.] I welcome the opportunity to be able to brief the mem- ber in advance of a bill coming into the House, through staff, for two reasons. One is it makes for a better discus- sion when we get here. Also, it enables staff to dig a little bit deeper into the areas of interest to the opposition and, therefore, better inform the public about our intent.

I can tell the member that, as is our approach with bills that we believe relate even broadly to the interests of Indi- genous People, we do reach out to the First Nations Lead- ership Council. We did do that in the case of this bill. They did not indicate an interest in having further information nor consultation about the bill. We did provide notice and an opportunity for a further information briefing and so on to the First Nations Leadership Council. The member rightly notes that it properly is the practice of commissions to consider Indigenous Peoples’ interests in setting boundaries and in their work.

I have little doubt that that will be front of mind for this commission as well. M. de Jong: All right. Well, thank you. I think that’s a good place to start. It sounds like the Attorney has indic- ated to the committee that in this case, in the case of Bill 7, prior to its introduction in the House, the government alerted or contacted the leadership council. I’m not sure if they provided a draft copy of the bill or if it was a general invitation to engage on the question of electoral boundary reconfiguration.

I’m not sure what the government proposed or invited the leadership council to participate in, and I am interested in that. I hope the Attor- ney can provide a little bit more information and whether that was in the form of a letter, as I say, or whether the draft legislation was provided. He’s indicated that the leadership council either declined to participate or somehow signaled that they had no interest in participating. So I’ d be interested in a little more detail around both sides of that transaction. Hon. D. Eby: Initially the leadership council received the information by email.

There was a follow-up email with staff. Then our ADM spoke to policy staff directly, walked staff through the proposed changes in the bill. So to the best of our knowledge, the First Nations Leadership Council had the full set of information about what was proposed to be done in the bill and declined further engagement on this. [1:40 p.m.] M. de Jong: Can I ask the Attorney whether he believes legislation of this sort — and that’s probably too general a question — whether this legislation, whether Bill 7, trig- gers any of the protections, guarantees contained within either articles 5 or 19 of the UN declaration.

Hon. D. Eby: The short answer is that we believe that the proposed legislation is consistent with the entirety of the declaration as adopted, including sections 5 and 19. With respect to

section 5, just note that the declar- ation does not reference electoral boundaries specific- ally, but it does say that Indigenous people have the right to strengthen their own political and cultural and social institutions. But when they do that, that doesn’t mean that they give up the right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the state. Should Indigenous people so choose, the opportunity to ensure that their right to participate fully in, in this case, the political life of the state in relation to the governance of our province is certainly at the time the commission does its work. With respect to

article 19, we believe that we do have the responsibility to engage with Indigenous people on this bill, even though one of the lenses you could put on this is whether Indigenous people are uniquely or differentially impacted by legislation. Y ou could make the argument that everybody in a rural area or everybody in an urban area is impacted by this type of legislation and that there’s not a unique or differential impact on Indigenous people. [1:45 p.m.] Even so, we went to the First Nations Leadership Coun- cil to advise them about the content of the bill and to see their interest in being involved at this stage. We do feel 2838 British Columbia Debates Thursday, June 10, 2021

the legislation is introduced consistent with our obliga- tions and that it is, itself, consistent with the obligations. M. de Jong: The second part of the Attorney’s answer was of particular interest to me. He didn’t use this term, to be fair to him, but it sounded like an argument to me that suggested the standard for consultation under the declar- ation and Bill 41, which adopts the declaration in B.C., may change depending upon whether or not we are deal- ing with a law of general application that applies across the fold. Now to be fair, he didn’t use that term.

But he did, I think, suggest that in situations where the impact on an Aboriginal community was not appreciably different than on other communities, that somehow influenced the nature of the obligation that accrued to the Crown. I say that because when we were debating the bill, I thought that at some point, we might begin to hear that argument. I put the question directly, with respect to art- icle 19, to the Attorney’s then colleague, the minister. I won’t read the quotes. Hopefully the Attorney trusts me enough to know that I’m…. He was adamant that…. The requirement, under

article 19, reads as follows: “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous Peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. ” At the time the declaration was adopted by Bill 41, the responsible minister made it clear that the obligation set out in

article 19, he said, applied to laws of general applic- ation, not just circumstances where there was a particular impact on a First Nation. I guess the first proposition I’m going to make to the Attorney is that the argument he is advancing for why it would not have been necessary to, for example, obtain free, prior and informed consent…. Maybe his position is that the Crown did acquire free, prior and informed consent with respect to Bill 7. But the obligation to engage in that consultation existed. Secondly, he is, I think, suggesting….

It seems to be that he’s suggesting to the committee that that obligation was discharged by notifying the leadership council. It won’t surprise him to know that a follow-up question now and subsequently will be…. There are individual First Nations and communities who are going to be impacted, as are other communities. It doesn’t sound like any attempt was made to speak or consult with them specifically. Whether it was the Kwadacha or the….

Well, we can go through the list. [1:50 p.m.] Is it the Attorney’s and the government’s view that, in circumstances where the level of representation in a pro- vincial institution — like this parliament — and the nature of the representation is going to be impacted, there was no obligation or there is no obligation on the part of the Crown to consult directly with the communities most dir- ectly impacted? Hon. D. Eby: There was a lot there in the member’s question.

First, let me say that it would not be govern- ment’s position that engaging with the First Nations Lead- ership Council discharged a legal obligation to consult and accommodate in relation to First Nations rights. However, we definitely believe — I believe, anyway — that consult- ing and engaging with the First Nations Leadership Coun- cil on a proposed law of general application, like this one is, is good practice and helps us identify issues that should be addressed in more detail and concerns that may lead us to take a different approach.

With respect to this particular legislation, these are high-level principles, pursuant to which the Electoral Boundaries Commission will do the work. We do not know what work the commission will do in terms of draw- ing boundaries — what impacts, if any, will be seen by any community. An outcome could be maintaining all of the existing constituencies in rural and northern areas. The time for the engagement with the Indigenous com- munities that might be affected is at the time that the com- mission is doing its work in considering where to draw the boundaries.

This is an established element of the com- mission’s work. It’s really a commonsense approach to the boundary setting and totally appropriate and consistent with the UNDRIP obligation that says that should an Indi- genous community wish to participate in that political activity in terms of drawing boundaries for seats in rela- tion to the state, they will be able to do that. That is when that right would be realized. M. de Jong: Well, there are a couple of things that flow from the Attorney’s response that I think are worthy of exploring.

Firstly, he introduced a term into the conversation that I found interesting. He talked about, in circumstances such as this, the idea of consulting with potentially impacted First Nations as good practice. [1:55 p.m.] I’m going to suggest to the Attorney that in these early days post-passage of Bill 41, we are interested in determ- ining more than just good practice — trying to ascertain what the legal requirement is.

If the Attorney’s view and the government’s view is that in respect to the realignment of political boundaries that capture and provide for rep- resentation of First Nations communities, the only obliga- tion that exists post–Bill 41 passage and the declaration is to engage in good practice — okay, I’m not sure I’ d agree. A lot of people will be interested to hear that. I hope the Attorney…. My suggestion to the Attorney is that the declaration in Bill 41 imposes a legal obligation. That is what we heard from the government. That is why the government touted Bill 41 in the first place.

But if now Thursday, June 10, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2839

what we’re dealing with in the Attorney and government’s mind is merely engaging in good practice — okay, that’s instructive. Secondly — and again, my purpose here is not to be needlessly argumentative — I do take issue with some- thing the Attorney just said, which is: “Well, we don’t know if there will be any changes. The commission could decide to maintain all of the existing boundaries. ” The Attorney knows that’s not the case. He and the government made a decision to remove the existing pro- visions of the legislation that could have required that to happen or could have led to that happening.

But the dis- appearance of those provisions guarantees that that will not happen. I’m happy to have a thoughtful conversation with the Attorney about the impact of these overlapping legislative instruments. But let’s, I hope, do so on the basis of reality. And the reality is that by virtue of the provisions that the government has introduced and the Attorney has included in the bill, there will be changes. There will be changes that directly impact communities in rural parts of British Col- umbia, including many, many Aboriginal communities.

I suppose, to be straightforward about the issue that I want to explore…. In introducing legislation that triggers a process that could lead to an isolated Aboriginal com- munity moving from one constituency to another or find- ing itself in a constituency that is a whole lot larger than the already large constituency it is in, I would have thought that there was an obligation on the government, prior to the introduction of that legislation, pursuant to the provi- sions of Bill 41 and the UN declaration, to speak directly with that community first.

The track we seem to be on from the government is: in that circumstance, the obligations under Bill 41 are met by notifying the leadership council and leaving the rest to the commission, and delegating to the commission responsib- ilities for further consultation. That seems to me to be the approach that the government is taking. I have concerns that that is inconsistent with Bill 41. But I guess the two questions that flow…. Is that the approach? Is that an accurate

summary of the process we’re on? Am I correct, in surmising from that, that the government doesn’t see any obligation to speak with an individual First Nation whose community might be dir- ectly impacted by the legislation that we are debating today in the House? [2:00 p.m.] [S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.] Hon. D. Eby: The member made a big deal about my use of the word “practice. ” I think, maybe to clarify, although I thought it was implicit, that it’s good practice, when partnering with Indigenous People, to go above and beyond what you believe your bare minimum obligations are under any law.

That’s what I think. The member can’t hear me. I’ll repeat myself. The member made a big deal about my use of the word “practice. ” I thought it was implicit in my statement. But just to be clear, in my opinion, when partnering with Indi- genous People and in terms of the commitments our gov- ernment has made, good practice is to go above and bey- ond what you believe your bare legal obligations might be. This bill legally does not implicate

section 35, consti- tutional treaty rights. So you could argue, which I had said in my original answer, that there was not an oblig- ation to reach out here. But reaching out to an umbrella organization that represents the three senior leadership organizations in the province is a good opportunity to identify issues or concerns that maybe you didn’t see, which is what we did. I was intrigued to hear the member say that the pro- posal of this bill, removing these, essentially, strictures on the ability of the commission to independently deter- mine effective representation and appropriate seats….

He said it guarantees a different result. Guarantees. So an independent commission charged with constitution- ally protecting people’s right to vote and ensuring effect- ive representation guarantees a different result than what his government put in place. Well, that’s interesting and may be instructive for the member about why we’re allowing the commission to operate independently of, of course, the opposition, the Third Party and the government. We believe that this is work that should be done independently. Finally, I don’t know if there’s a misunderstanding here, but this bill does not draw the boundaries.

This bill estab- lishes the body charged with going out and engaging with British Columbians, including Indigenous communities, including rural Indigenous communities that might be affected by their work, including urban Indigenous People — I know that Surrey, if they’re not currently, may be the largest urban Indigenous population in the province — about what those boundaries should be and what effective representation means for those communities and how best to accomplish that. We’re establishing the consultative body to do this work.

Whether or not a given Indigenous community wishes to engage with that work is up to those communities. That is their right protected under UNDRIP . [2:05 p.m.] I’m trying to respond to the member’s proper concern, in my opinion, about the rights of Indigenous People and our obligations under UNDRIP and our obligations con- stitutionally.

But I’m struggling a little bit about the idea that we know now — we already know — which com- munities will be affected and how they’ll be affected and that we should consult with them about that when, in fact, all we’re doing is establishing the body that is going to be doing that work. M. de Jong: I will resist the urge to engage further. I was 2840 British Columbia Debates Thursday, June 10, 2021

hopeful that the Attorney, although he clearly doesn’t agree with me, would understand the nature of my inquiries and submissions. But that’s fine. It has been partially helpful, I think, to have the exchange. My colleague from Skeena is standing by and has some questions that I’m hopeful the committee and the Attorney will entertain. E. Ross: To follow up on the previous questioning…. We’re talking about two different things here. I think it’s getting blurred between the words “engage- ment” versus “consultation, ” which are separate.

Y ou’re talking about the commission going out and doing some work, based on the bare minimum that this government actually had done in terms of what they call consultation, which nowhere comes near the definition either in case law or even in UNDRIP , the bill that the government just passed. In saying that, as well…. Maybe I’ll just cut right to the chase here with the Attor- ney General. I’m missing something here. I think the Attorney General clearly laid out how they would not be delegating the responsibility of consultation on Bill 7 to the commission. I hope I got that right.

So there will be no consultation from the commission. All they’ll do is the engagement. In saying that, the honour of the Crown to consult and the duty of the Crown still lie with the provincial govern- ment. On the flip side of that, in terms of the Crown’s due diligence, is the Crown aware of any legal authority given from the 203 communities across B.C., on behalf of their communities, that hold the rights and title?

Is the Crown aware of any authorization that came from these rights and title holders to the leadership council that expressly authorizes them to act, in terms of responding to con- sultative measures? Hon. D. Eby: I think the member is right that we, per- haps, have not been as clear as we should have been in our discussion about the difference between

section 35, rights and title, treaty rights, and engagement with respect to the leadership council, in respect of this bill. With respect to rights and title, protected by

section 35, treaty rights…. This bill does not affect those rights. There is not a legal obligation on the part of government to con- sult and accommodate, as there would be if those rights were implicated by what the bill proposed. [2:10 p.m.] However, I believe, and I think it’s a good idea, that government go above and beyond our bare legal oblig- ations in engaging with Indigenous Peoples, so whether or not, and to what extent, the First Nations Leadership Council has a mandate from the nations across B.C. is a fair question for the member to ask.

However, they do have some mandate, and they do have some experi- ence and some insight to bring to government to help us identify blind spots that we may have or concerns that we may not have anticipated. That is why we still go forward to the First Nations Leadership Council and engage with them on bills like this. I hope that that clarifies for the member the distinc- tion between those two areas in terms of what I under- stand his question related to. E. Ross: No, it doesn’t answer the question. I truly understood what the Attorney General was talking about in terms of

section 35 and the pursuant case law. I under- stand that fully. What I don’t understand are the new obligations brought in under Bill 41, the UNDRIP bill, which actually, in my mind, was aimed at highering the obligations of the government in terms of addressing Aboriginal interests.

In this case here, my question was, if the government is going to use the leadership council for consultative pur- poses, is the Crown aware of a document between the 203 First Nations of B.C. and the leadership council that authorizes the leadership council to speak on behalf of 203 First Nations in respect of these types of measures? Hon. D. Eby: As I said to the member’s colleague, gov- ernment would not use the First Nations Leadership Council for the purposes of consultation and accommod- ation related to

section 35 protected rights. E. Ross: Y ou know, it kind of contradicts what you just said. Y ou said that you went to the leadership council and you got their blessing. Y ou were talking around the pur- pose of the commission versus consultation. I agree with the Attorney. Y ou keep citing

section 35 and Aboriginal case law. I agree with you 100 percent. But you’re neglecting your own UNDRIP bill in terms of the benchmarks that you set. The Chair: Through the Chair, Member. Thanks. E. Ross: Through the Chair. As well, it comes down to a number of the foundational principles that are actually laid down in case law, which I don’t see in UNDRIP . I actually heard it mentioned here a couple of times as well, in terms of how Aboriginal interests will be protected and, to that same extent, how they will be consulted.

There’s a phrase used that said, “Well, it’s open to argu- ment, ” where it might not affect First Nations in respect of their neighbours in rural areas. Well, that’s not true, whether you’re talking about UNDRIP or you’re talking about case law, because Aboriginal interests are unique. If the Attorney General wants to cite Aboriginal rights and title case law, please look up the term sui generis. This actually speaks to the honour of the Crown. It actually speaks to the relationship between the Crown and First Nations. It’s well documented. Thursday, June 10, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2841

But I get the feeling now that there are two things hap- pening here. The Crown — the B.C. government, in this case — wants to treat First Nations as just regular stake- holders. As well, they want to do one-stop shopping in every single legislative initiative that comes out of the House by going to the leadership council, with no idea on whether or not the leadership council has the authority to speak on behalf of 203 First Nations.

We’re talking about whether it be under UNDRIP or whether it be under Aboriginal rights and title case law. [2:15 p.m.] If the Attorney General truly believes that they’ve gone above and beyond to address Aboriginal interests, then how do they reconcile the fact that the Attorney General hasn’t really — or the Crown, for that matter, has not really — paid particular attention to the rights and special needs of Indigenous elders, women, youth, children and per- sons with disabilities in the implementation of this declar- ation? I’m talking about UNDRIP .

How can you be sure if you haven’t consulted with the 203 communities, if you haven’t heard their interests and you haven’t relayed that? Y ou haven’t had meaningful consultation. Hon. D. Eby: Well, the answer is quite straightfor- ward and is that the body that does the engagement work across the province, not just with Indigenous com- munities but with communities across the province and individuals who are interested in the political life of the state — that’s what this bill establishes. So I don’t say that the engagement that the member describes has been done.

I say that this bill establishes the body that will go out and do that work. E. Ross: Y es, I understand that, but with no consulta- tion, apart from the leadership council. So how are the remote communities supposed to know that this is actually even happening, unless you do the pre-consultative work that everybody encourages the private sector to do? Go out and do your pre-consultative work, and then make your applications. In this case, the government hasn’t even done that.

They just actually went to the leadership council who, in my opinion, do not represent the interests of First Nations in these types of measures. They definitely don’t represent rights and title. I know that for a fact. Like I say, I would have agreed with the Attorney Gen- eral, every word that you said under the rights and title case law. But the government’s UNDRIP bill has changed all that — the vagary, the confusion around the declara- tion. Most of this stuff has already been done in Canada.

But there are also a number of declarations that talk to highering the level of consultation that this government actually hasn’t done yet. There’s a difference. I’ll say it again. There’s a difference between engagement and con- sultation. In this case, the government is saying: “Okay, our consultative duty is only with the leadership council, no matter what the issue. ” We’ve heard this a number of times in terms of legislation that has got through the House. In terms of the real work to be done, that will be done through engagement. Maybe that gets back to the question.

If the Attorney General truly believes that they will do more than the bare minimum and do more of their due diligence to uphold and honour the Crown, can the Attorney Gener- al tell me: is there a document, an agreement that nor- mally goes with legal obligations, that says the leader- ship council, in this respect, has the right to say yes or no to consultative measures taken by the Crown on behalf of 203 First Nations of B.C.? Hon. D.

Eby: The member asked how rural Indigenous communities would know about the work of the commis- sion, them going out to consult with British Columbians, including Indigenous communities, about where bound- aries should be drawn and what effective representation means for those communities. There are a number of avenues. One of the most effect- ive, I’ll note, is the work of the local MLA letting com- munities know that this work is happening.

In addition to that, commissions historically have advertised in newslet- ters, newspapers, Internet and radio ads to let people know that this work is happening so that they can participate. [2:20 p.m.] Now, I would understand the member’s objection a little more clearly, I guess, if the Electoral Boundaries Commis- sion said: “We don’t need to talk to any Indigenous com- munities. We’ll just talk to the leadership council and then we’ll draw the boundaries based on that. ” Because that would obviously be incredibly problematic.

They need to go out and do their work, talk to British Columbians and also, as they have historically, engage with Indigenous communities, both on and off-reserve, talk to them about effective representation and the needs of their communities and where the boundaries should be and engage with those communities directly. What we’re doing here in the House today is we are setting up the body that’s going to go out and do that work. I hope that clarifies things for the member.

I don’t think that although the boundaries commission is inde- pendent, I don’t suggest that they would fulfil their obligations as a commission by simply talking to the leadership council about where the boundaries should be. I think they need to do that work directly, and his- torically, they have done that. E. Ross: To the Attorney General, that’s actually not the question.

Given the honour of the Crown and the duty of the Crown, and how the Attorney General keeps referring to how they will go above and beyond the due diligence based on the case law as well as UNDRIP , my question is: is the Crown aware of the delegated duty from 203 First Nations in B.C. to the leadership council to represent them 2842 British Columbia Debates Thursday, June 10, 2021

at the high-level consultations that the Attorney General is talking about? I’m not talking about the engagement on the ground. I’m talking about the work that the Attorney General says that they already did in consultation, which the govern- ment thinks went above and beyond, to address the con- sultative duties of the Crown. So my question is: does the Crown have proof that the authority was granted by 203 First Nations to the leadership council, and will that docu- ment be tabled? Hon. D. Eby: So to be totally clear, there is no legal con- sultative duty or obligation on the Crown in relation to this bill, because it is our legal position that there are no

section 35 treaty, constitutionally-protected rights that are implic- ated by this bill. The member keeps saying that there was this high-level consultation and accommodation discussion that the nations across B.C. were shut out of. That is not the case. There was no discussion like that, because there are no sec- tion 35 protected rights implicated by this bill. There was an engagement with the First Nations Lead- ership Council to say: “Hey, this bill is coming in front of the House. Do we have any blind spots here? Are there any particular concerns you want to draw to our attention? This is happening.

Do you want more information about it?” That’s an important thing, in my opinion, to do, inde- pendent of whether or not we believe that there are

section 35 protected rights implicated. I hope that clarifies things for the member. E. Ross: Like I said at the beginning, I agree with the Attorney General when he’s talking about

section 35 and the pursuant case law, but UNDRIP has highered that standard. In fact, the Attorney General refuses to men- tion their own commitments in the UNDRIP document itself. Now, vague as it may be, during the debates when this bill was first introduced, this was going to be the promise of everything to First Nations. Are we going to consult in every single piece of legislation? Y es. Are we going to con- sult in administrative issues? Y es. We’re going to make sure that in everything, we’re doing a partnership with First Nations.

Then we find out, through different departments in the government, that no, that’s not the case. We’re going to go through the leadership council. [2:25 p.m.] Maybe I’ll ask the one last time. In terms of UNDRIP and the higher expectations of due diligence from the Crown that the government themselves actually told us about…. They told us: “We’re going to get away from all of these agreements. We’re going to get away from these negotiations and all of this oppositional stuff. We’re going to include First Nations in everything, legislation. We’re going to do reports, annual reports.

We’re going to do all this stuff. It’s going to be great. ” So all I’m asking is…. When the Crown consults with the First Nations Leadership Council — and it’s up to the Crown to do its due diligence — is there an understanding or an agreement or some kind of written paper that says: “Y es, the leadership council, in these matters, had the right to speak on behalf of 203 First Nations in B.C. ”? Hon. D. Eby: To clarify, government does not believe that consultation with the First Nations Leadership Coun- cil substitutes for consultation with affected Indigenous communities in relation to any

section 35 protected rights. When establishing a body like this, our expectation is — and it is the historical practice of these bodies, who are independent of government — to go out and engage with people across the province, including Indigenous com- munities, and to consider their interests in drawing boundaries. So we’re establishing the body that will go out and do that engagement. If the commission went out and only talked to the lead- ership council and only said, “Hey, leadership council, where should these boundaries be? Okay. We don’t need to talk to Indigenous communities across the province now.

We’ve talked to the leadership council, ” we would have to fix that. But of course, that would never happen, because that’s not how these commissions work. We’re setting up the commission that is going to go out and do exactly the work the member says needs to hap- pen. It needs to happen. We need to set up the commis- sion. And not only that, we need to give the commission the independence to make the right decision, independent of what the political parties in this place think the bound- aries should be.

We’re setting up an independent commis- sion with this legislation, with no restrictions on where they can draw the lines, sending them out, charging them to do exactly the work the member says we need to do. I hope that clarifies things. E. Ross: I take exception to that, with no restrictions. Aboriginal rights and title, whether you describe it in your UNDRIP document or case law, is unique. But you keep coming back to this idea that everybody will be treated equally, and we’ll get the interest on the table.

But at the same time, when I heard the member from Abbotsford question you, you were saying: “Oh, we already sent a let- ter to the leadership council, and we got no response. ” The Chair: Through the Chair, Member. Thank you. E. Ross: So what is it? Y ou go on and talk about…. Sorry, through the Chair. Members of this House want to talk about the distinction between rights and title versus the politics, while I’m trying to get to the core of the issue in terms of rights and title and Aboriginal interests and how it’s being handled. Thursday, June 10, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2843

I do understand, clearly, the rights and title and case law. I know the infringements. I know all that. What I don’t know is government. Are you going to live up to commit- ments that you made in your own UNDRIP document? That’s all I’m asking. If so, where is the authorization from 203 bands to the leadership council that actually gives the authorization to say: “Okay, they had no interest. We’re just going to move along then. ” That is not how rights and title works. That’s not how consultation works. It might have worked 20 years ago. But times have changed. I’m not talking politics here.

I’m talking something fundamental to Canada. I’m talk- ing about the constitution. I’m talking about 40 years of court cases that led us to today, previous to UNDRIP being introduced. I’m asking a straightforward question. Is there a docu- ment between 203 First Nation bands that authorizes the leadership council to act on their behalf in terms of Abori- ginal interests? [2:30 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby:Just because the member says his question is straightforward does not make it so.

The member repeatedly says: “Rights and title, the sui generis rights, all the litigation…. ” He says: “How come government can trample over those with this?” It is government’s position that there are no

section 35 rights implicated in this bill. That is our position. The member has said now two or three times he agrees with me 100 percent on that. It might be his position that that’s not the case — even though he has said that several times — but I think he agrees with me 100 percent. I believe him when he says that. So if we both agree that there are no sec- tion 35 rights and title rights implicated in this bill, then we’re exclusively talking about what the UNDRIP piece, layered on top of that, obligates government to do. There is actually a provision in the UNDRIP legisla- tion that talks about this.

It says that Indigenous Peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their own political and cultural systems and that that doesn’t come at the expense of their right to participate in the politic- al, economic, social and cultural life of the state, British Columbia. This bill is exactly the mechanism by which Indigenous People will have the opportunity, if they choose, including nations, including individuals, including urban Indigen- ous People, people who live in rural communities…. If they choose, they can participate in this process.

We are setting up the engagement process by which those com- munities and individuals can participate fully, as is their protected right under

article 5 of UNDRIP . The member could rightly say: “Hey, you didn’t need UNDRIP to do that. ” No, we didn’t. But it’s consistent with UNDRIP . It’s consistent with our obligations under UNDRIP , and that is the process that we’re setting up. M. de Jong: I’ll just probe this momentarily. By the way, I understand that there are frustrations on all sides here. I actually find the conversation useful in terms of getting a sense of the government’s approach and response to these matters. The Attorney just referred to

article 5 in UNDRIP . Fine. He, I think, purposely chose not to address

article 19, which makes it clear: “States” — the province — “shall consult and cooperate in good faith with Indigenous Peoples concerned through their own representative insti- tutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. ” I hope that we have established that Bill 7 may affect Aboriginal communities, First Nations communities. I hope that is not an issue. When we discussed the impact, the significance of

article 19 at the time of its incorpora- tion into the laws of B.C. via Bill 41, the government — through its representative, the minister — made it clear that

article 19 applies to laws of general application. It’s intended to apply to British Columbia’s provincial legis- lation. Then the minister said this: “I think it’s safe to say that there’s going to be deeper and more involved consultation between the province and First Nations — or those nations affected, certainly, or if nations are affected as a whole. That is what’s contemplated within the bill. The province is expected to ‘consult and cooperate in good faith, ’ as called for in the UN declaration…. ” — referring to

article 19. What my colleague, I think, has been pursuing with the Attorney is the enhanced obligation that the government assumed and said it was assuming at the time of Bill 41 and whether or not that has been discharged. As I understand the Attorney’s response, it is that obligation…. I’m not sure if he disputes the obligation, but that obligation will be ful- filled by the commission. [2:35 p.m.] I think that’s what he’s saying: “We have assigned that responsibility, or we have delegated that responsibility, to the commission. ” To the Attorney’s mind….

It seems to me what he is arguing before the committee is that that is sufficient. That the creation of that body — with, by the way, no require- ment…. The Attorney chastised me a few moments ago for speculating about outcomes and processes. He was pretty willing a few moments ago to speculate on his own about what would take place on the basis of past activities. I’m not sure the Crown can delegate. If the obligation has been assumed by the Crown with respect to this legis- lation, can the Crown delegate that responsibility to an agency over which it will have no ongoing…?

It will be independent, as the Attorney said. Is that the Attorney’s position? That the obligations that were assumed under Bill 41 —

article 19, the enhanced obligation to consult — the Crown can satisfy them by passing a piece of legislation that says to another agency, 2844 British Columbia Debates Thursday, June 10, 2021

“Y ou go out and talk to British Columbians”? And I guess it’s just an unspoken assumption — because I can’t find it anywhere in this bill, and I certainly don’t see it anywhere in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act — that the obligations assumed via Bill 41 must be satisfied. I’m trying to keep the editorializing to the minimum. That seems to me to be the Attorney’s argument — that whatever obligations were assumed by government under Bill 41 will presumably be satisfied by the commission, we hope. Is that it? [2:40 p.m.] Hon. D.

Eby: The member asked a really interesting question about delegation of responsibility in terms of the Declaration Act. As interesting as the question is, it is not, in my opinion, implicated here. Government is of the pos- ition that we have introduced a bill that is consistent with our obligations under the Declaration Act.

Our expectation is — like all government-delegated authorities, whether to a tribunal or otherwise — that the commission would take notice of the law in British Col- umbia in doing their work, including the Declaration Act, that they would conduct their work accordingly and that they would be aware of — in my opinion — their need to engage with Indigenous communities that might be affected by the boundaries that they draw. The process is that they go out. They engage with communities across the province. They draw up a map, and then they seek further comment on those maps.

Let’s say that the commission just failed to recognize that there was an Indigenous community that was affected by a boundary. I have no doubt that a local MLA would identify that and bring it forward, but really, we’re choos- ing people who are independent, who understand the importance of the work and who understand their need to operate within the law of British Columbia — which includes the Declaration Act and concern about the rights and interests of Indigenous people. This is the body that will be going out and doing the work to draw the bound- aries, independent of government.

Just one further piece: it’s important to know that what this bill proposes to do is to make the rules of engagement for the commission broader and more flexible than they were previously, so that these types of rights can be accom- modated. M. de Jong: Just two things. Whether the Attorney accepts this or not, I have found the exchange informative. I disagree with the Attorney. I disagree with the proposi- tion that the government, the Crown, has discharged and is discharging the responsibilities it assumed via Bill 41, but I have found the exchange on the matter to be inform- ative nonetheless. Hon.

Chair, my colleague from Peace River South has some questions for the Attorney. M. Bernier: Thank you to the Attorney for taking my questions and to my colleague from Abbotsford West for allowing me a few moments here. I think the Attorney probably has heard some of my comments already on this issue in the House, so it’s going to be no surprise to him on some of the questions. If he’ll indulge me, some of them may even appear to be personal in nature, but it’s more just to set the stage on an understanding of the diversity that we have within this province.

Let me start by just saying, look, we all understand how diverse the province is, I believe, in the chamber — and the uniqueness of the different parts of the province. I’m born and raised in Vancouver, and I moved to the Peace region. Maybe the first question that I’ll ask of the Attorney, just to kind of set the stage here, for some of the differences that I want to talk about: can the minister, for the record, explain to the House: how many square kilometres is his riding of Vancouver–Point Grey? [2:45 p.m.] The Chair: Member, if you might help me understand the connection to clause 2 on the bill.

I’m just wanting to make sure we have relevance here. M. Bernier: My questions will all make sense, Mr. Chair, as I’m just formulating a couple of questions, obvi- ously, that go to the heart of clause 2 to make my point around unique circumstances — if that’ll help — as I get through further questions. The Chair: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we’re not getting into personal background of how many blocks someone walks to the coffee shop or something like that, given that we’re talking about legislation. Hon. D. Eby: The short answer is: I don’t know how big it is.

To the member’s point that I think he’s trying to make, I suspect that driving across it, if there were no traffic, would take me probably about 15 minutes at a regular urb- an driving speed. I say “urban driving speed” because it is an urban constituency. M. Bernier: Thank you to the Attorney for that. Obvi- ously, we want to talk about some of these maybe unique challenges or circumstances. The reason why I ask is because the Attorney is the one speaking to this bill. It’s just to help paint the picture. I’m not trying to insult the Attorney, by any means, in doing this.

I just quickly looked on his website, just to look. It’s around 23 square kilometres for Vancouver–Point Grey and representing pretty close to the average of around 55,000. The reason why I mentioned this is I’m just curi- ous. To the minister, could tell me, has he had the priv- ilege…? When was the last time he was at a place like Fort Nelson? How did he get there? Has he been lucky enough Thursday, June 10, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2845

or fortunate enough to have been up to the Peace region before? Hon. D. Eby:Y es, I have had the privilege to be up to the Peace a few times, in opposition and in government. I was in Fort Ware…. Was it last summer? Oh, COVID time. It was the last summer that we were allowed to travel. I spent some time with the chief and council and the circuit court in Kwadacha there. It’s a beautiful part of the world, the Peace, and I do understand the remoteness of some Indi- genous communities in the province. I wonder if the member has been to the University of British Columbia lately.

I’ d welcome him to come down and say hi, post-COVID. M. Bernier: I appreciate the offer and, I guess, the banter back and forth on that. Y es, I have been there — many times, in fact — as I grew up just around the corner from there. I want to acknowledge, then…. I appreciate that the minister said that he has been up there. But I think one of the things we want to acknowledge, for instance…. I’m going to speak specifically to the Peace region because under clause 2, with removal of the protections…. Let’s not kid ourselves again.

There were protections put in place for certain parts of the province, I would argue, for very valid reasons — to avoid this actual debate that we’re hav- ing right now of determination for a commission to guess what a “special geographic consideration” is. Let me paint the picture for the Attorney, if he will indulge me in that. The Attorney’s riding is 23 square kilo- metres. The Peace region is represented by two MLAs right now.

Based on population — depending on how the com- mission does their work; I’ll ask the Attorney about that, maybe, in a minute — it would probably justify being only one MLA, based on the number of people who live in the area. Population density in the Attorney’s riding is around 2,500 per square kilometre; in the Peace region, it’s 0.2 per square kilometre. Y ou can see a little bit of the uniqueness that we have up here. [2:50 p.m.] If we were to look at the Attorney’s riding of 23 square kilometres and the Peace region at 200,000….

With my quick math, that would be 9,000, so 9,000 of the Attorney’s ridings would fit into the Peace region. That could be, under the removal of the protection that the Attorney seems to support, obviously, one MLA for the equivalent geographical size of 9,000 of the Attorney’s ridings. Maybe I’ll ask…. This is not by any means expected to trap the minister. This is, again, just for me and to help paint a picture for the House. This is not for any other reas- on, just to do that. Has the minister ever driven from his riding to Prince George? Hon. D. Eby: I have.

It’s interesting that the member thinks that by the pre- vious government establishing these specific areas with guaranteed seats, they were somehow avoiding a debate. They weren’t. They were just having a different debate, which is about whether or not politicians or an independ- ent commission should be drawing boundaries. The late Dermod Travis spoke on this in January of 2014. He said: “So in essence what they’re saying to the commission is: ‘Don’t touch those 17 seats. ’ Anything you have to do, you’re going to have to do to the other 68 seats, and it will, in fact, create two classes of ridings.

It’s going to have 17 first-class ridings if this goes through, with, on average, about 26,000 voters each, and then it’s going to have 68 second-class ridings, with over 40,000 voters each. ” The Electoral Boundaries Commission themselves, in 2015, commented on how difficult the admonition was to not impact the number of seats in those areas while, at the same time, not adding any other seats. They were “drawn inexorably to recommend electoral districts with growing population inequality. ” That’s not just a bad public policy thing, population inequality between constituencies. That’s an unconstitutional thing.

When people like Hamish Telford, University of the Fraser Valley, with respect to those previous amendments by the previous administration, say things like, “It appears the government may be giving the commission too much direction and not giving them the independence to estab- lish the ridings themselves…. ” There was a debate. There was a very significant debate about those changes made by the previous government.

The situation has only gotten worse in terms of people’s votes counting for more in some areas of the province and less in other areas, to the point of being in a constitution- al warning zone, I’ll say generously. This cannot contin- ue. Something has to give. What we propose to do is give the commission the ability to add up to six additional seats and to have the independence to go out and ensure effect- ive representation. I’ll say this. I respect very much the work of rural MLAs.

I don’t think, with respect, that people who live in more densely populated areas should have to have their vote count for so much dramatically less in order to recognize that work. This bill attempts to address both issues by allowing the addition of six further seats, to take the pres- sure off the need to reduce the number of rural seats for the commission — if they want to add those six seats, they can — and giving the commission the direction that we need to have effective representation for communities. Rural MLAs have a difficult job. Keep that in mind when you’re drawing these boundaries.

Y ou’re allowed to depart, for the sake of effective representation, from the 25 percent standard. I have confidence in the independence of the commis- sion that they will draw the boundaries that are best for the province, that are constitutionally compliant, that ensure effective representation, that recognize the hard work of 2846 British Columbia Debates Thursday, June 10, 2021

rural MLAs and that recognize the fact that people who live in more densely populated parts of the province have a constitutional right to have their vote count. M. Bernier: I guess the Attorney and I will differ on a few things. It’s unfortunate that he tries to paint a picture that right now people’s votes don’t count. [2:55 p.m.] It sounds like he’s trying to say people in urban British Columbia are not being represented in the Legislature and their votes don’t count. I would argue there’s a difference. This is what we’re trying to talk about here. There’s a differ- ence.

I don’t want to create a rural-urban divide, as the minis- ter, apparently, through this bill, looks like he’s going to try to achieve. I think we have to acknowledge the rural and urban difference. I asked the minister at the onset…. He did answer this question: has he ever driven from his riding to Prince George? The reason why I asked that is…. Even though the minister will try to keep going back to his position, which is, obviously, representation by population only….

That, at the end of the day, means 95 percent of the province, which is in the rural parts of British Columbia, represented, I believe, by around 18 or so MLAs…. That, based on population, could drop, maybe, down to ten or 12 MLAs, further reducing the ability for people to access their MLA. Now, the reason why I asked the question is no secret. The Attorney is a smart person. He knows where I’m going with this. From his riding to Prince George is the same driving distance as the Peace region. Does the minister think that it’s actually fair and equit- able representation that he is setting up with this bill?

I’m not trying to be combative with this. I’m trying to, actu- ally, be quite realistic in the sense of a person that repres- ents that riding area. Does he feel it is practical to drive 12 hours in the same riding to visit your MLA? This is not just about, I would argue, the MLA. Parties come and go. MLAs come and go. This is about the person, the people in those ridings and their access to their voice in Victoria. Does he believe that 12 hours away is, actually, fair for a person to have to travel to see their MLA? That’s what it would be like. Would the Attorney like to drive to Prince George to visit his MLA?

Does he think that’s reas- onable? Hon. D. Eby: Here’s the good news. The good news is it doesn’t matter what my opinion is. It only matters what the Electoral Boundaries Commission’s opinion is in relation to effective representation. The member, I think, has a wonderful presentation to make to the Electoral Boundaries Commission about the challenges of representing his community, about the size of it, about the work that he needs to do in order to do that. Here’s where I think my opinion does matter. Why this is happening is that we have a constitutional problem.

We have a growing number of seats in the province where the electoral districts are further and further apart, well bey- ond plus or minus 10 percent. We had, as of the 2015 com- mission — and things have only gotten worse — three constituencies where their vote power was worth essen- tially half of the lesser populated constituencies that were protected. Y our vote is worth half. The member might think that that’s okay, but it doesn’t matter what the member thinks. It doesn’t matter really what I think either on this one. It matters what the courts think about that.

Each Canadian has a guarantee of a not exactly equal but a relatively equal weight of their vote in terms of determining the makeup of this place. We have an MLA system. We’re MLAs. We have a party system as well. If your vote is worth half as much…. If a person in one constituency needs to get two voters to have the same impact to choose a party representative for their seat as another MLA that only has to get one voter, that is not a sustainable situation. The situation has only gotten worse since 2015. We need to solve this problem. [3:00 p.m.] [N.

Letnick in the chair.] These are important considerations the member raises that the bill specifically instructs the commission to think about when drawing boundaries. Can there be effective representation? The member used a bunch of different words that I didn’t use — equal representation; should it be fair representation? No — effective. The commission has directed, “Will these boundaries provide effective repres- entation?” which is adopted from the case law that is also constitutional litigation related to representation by popu- lation.

The member incorrectly says that representation by population is the only factor — he attributed that to me, but I think he meant the government — in this bill, because the bill is very clear: “Y ou can depart from repres- entation by population considerations. Y ou can go beyond the 25 percent standard in order to ensure effective repres- entation. ” I do understand that the member has an argument to make, but the argument is not with this bill. The argument is to be presented to the commission: “This is what’s needed to effectively represent my constituency.

This is why the boundaries should be in this area. ” I think he should bring that forward. M. Bernier: I’ll indulge the Attorney by just saying that of course I will be making that conversation and argument on behalf of the constituents in the Peace region, who already feel, being the furthest away from Victoria, cover- ing the largest part of the province…. Let me just explain again why this is important. I know Thursday, June 10, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2847

the minister is going to go back to his points. We’re not going to, probably, change each other’s minds — guaran- teed — during this course of the debate, but I think it’s important to still express some of these opinions, not only on behalf of my riding but of the entire Peace region and of my colleague in Peace River North, when we’re talk- ing about 200,000 square kilometres that could possibly be one riding, based on population.

I will acknowledge to the minister his comments that under clause 2 — under the act, subsection 9(3)(a), I believe — is where it talks about “special geographic considerations. ” But think about that. If it doesn’t hap- pen the way…. The Attorney seems to have such faith, I guess, that they’ve left everything up to the commission, but that’s almost one-quarter of the land mass in the province of British Columbia that could be represented by one MLA — four large mines, representing most of the province’s metallurgical coal; six mills; three hydro dams.

By the way, the majority of the power for the province comes from my riding. And 100 percent of the oil and gas rev- enue activity that comes to the province comes from my area. The majority, the largest amount of ALR land, is in the Peace region. I know the Attorney knows this, but I’m flagging that again because I think most would argue that those are spe- cial circumstances.

To ask people in an area that doesn’t have cell service or Internet service in a good portion of the ridings — mine and my colleague’s to the north of me — who already struggle in a lot of ways to have access to an MLA because of that, and to be told that now it’s going to be even worse…. I guess maybe I’ll just ask this as a closing comment. I know there are others who want to speak to the minister. I’m just curious because I have not heard him…. I apo- logize if he’s acknowledged this already, or any of his col- leagues. They’ve given a mandate to the commission to come back with a report on number of MLAs.

Based on population, the Attorney is basically acknowledging that rural British Columbia could be cut drastically — the amount of MLAs — if the commission were to look at population only.

Y es, there is that special clause in there. [3:05 p.m.] If the commission comes back and says, “Look, we’re going to be having to remove a lot of MLAs in rural British Columbia, based on the decisions that the commission has made, and the majority of those are going to be put now into urban British Columbia, ” to the Attorney’s point of trying to achieve a more, as he says, equitable — I believe that was the word he used — vote in the House, does the Attorney, the Premier and cabinet have the opportunity, then, to deviate? Are they going to just, carte blanche, accept the full report?

Or are they going to look at that and put in their own determinations and considerations around what they feel is equitable, fair representation — and yes, I’m using my words, to the Attorney — depending on how that report looks? Because the last thing I think anybody wants to see, including urban MLAs…. Most of my friends on the screen and in the Legislature in urban areas, I believe, want to see things in the province work equitably and fairly from border to border, from sea to border. Does the Attorney…?

Have they left this open where they can throw in their own determination and decision-making after they’ve seen the report? Hon. D. Eby: There have only been three Electoral Boundaries Commissions since this act was established in 1989. To the best of staff ’s knowledge — this is not my knowledge; I’m reliant on them for the history — the Legislature has accepted the recommendations of the com- mission with the exception of the 2005 commission, in which there were two sets of…. Ultimately, they presented a map that reduced the number of rural constituencies, I believe, by four. There was a lot of concern raised.

They presented a second set of maps and then handed both sets to the Legis- lature, and the Legislature chose the set that was not recommended by the commission, although that map was still drawn by the commission. Just in terms of the member’s question on process…. I should have probably done that first. The commission provides recommendations to government. So they go out, and they do their study, and they do their work for a year. Then they prepare a preliminary report and a pre- liminary set of maps, and they publish those for the pub- lic to examine.

Then based on the feedback they receive from that first round, they can do — they’re not oblig- ated to, but they can do — a second round to do refine- ments or changes as needed. Once that second round is done, they provide a report to government, which is tabled in this place, and again, that report is recommendations only. So then it’s up to government to incorporate the recommendations into law.

Obviously, that process does allow the possibility of the legislators in this place departing from those recommend- ations and putting in place different boundaries. [3:10 p.m.] I will caveat that with the fact that the reason why we’re setting up this independent commission and asking them to do this work independently is so that people have con- fidence that the maps are being drawn by a disinterested group rather than by an interested group. By that I don’t mean “that’s interesting” but that you have a stake in the outcome of the recommendations.

Y es, technically, there is an opportunity for the Legis- lature to amend, ignore or change the recommendations of the commission. T. Shypitka: I’m going to cut to the chase here. We understand the diversity we have in the province. We heard from Peace River South just a few seconds ago. I 2848 British Columbia Debates Thursday, June 10, 2021

won’t get into that. My question is going to be around school districts. The first question to the minister is: can the minister tell me how school districts are decided? Hon. D. Eby: I don’t do this often, but I do wonder about the relevance of the question to the electoral bound- aries bill. T. Shypitka: Well, this bill seeks to remove statutory protections to three regions — Cariboo-Thompson, Col- umbia-Kootenay and the North. I represent the Koo- tenay region. The relevance of the question…. I’ll jump ahead here. There are 12 school districts on Vancouver Island, representing a population of about 800,000.

There are six school districts in the Kootenays represent- ing about 180,000. So should we be worrying that per- haps we’ll be reducing our school districts to represent our population? Hon. D. Eby: This bill does not affect school districts. T. Shypitka: Absolutely not, but it does threaten the view of protected regions and the view that the Attorney General may have that representation should be by popu- lation. We argue the opposite. We say there are geograph- ical barriers.

We recognize regional boundaries and dif- ficulties of geography when it comes to regional districts and school districts, but this government wants to remove any recognition of geography from the province in our electoral system. That’s the relevance. Maybe the Attorney General can comment on that. Hon. D. Eby: It’s instructive to know that the member is arguing against representation by population. This is not my opinion, as the member suggested. This is the consti- tution of the country of Canada and the guarantee that is offered to Canadian citizens under their voting rights. T.

Shypitka: In the electoral boundaries setup, the plan is an average of 60,000 per electoral region. There are con- ditions by the Electoral Boundaries Commission to pro- tect certain areas that don’t meet the threshold of 60,000, in special situations. There are 17 electoral areas that are protected for geographical boundary reasons. This is the same rationale that we draw up our regional districts on. This is the same rationale that we draw up our school dis- tricts on, as I’ve highlighted.

Why the removal of these protected regions, when the commission has already said that it meets special geo- graphical conditions? The question is: why would we want to remove that, when it has already been constituted and it has already been through the process already? Hon. D. Eby: Well, this is just it. It hasn’t been through the commission, because the commission’s hands were tied.

They were instructed by the previous set of strictures put in place by the previous government that interfered with their independence in drawing the boundaries and balancing the important values of representation by popu- lation with effective representation. We don’t argue against one of these values because we don’t like them. [3:15 p.m.] These are values that need to be incorporated and con- sidered by an independent commission. So I agree with the member.

I think the commission should be given the ability to consider this — how to balance those values that we all have — and come to an effective determination. But he is not correct in saying that the commission has already done this, because they’ve not been able to do this. In fact, that was pointed out by the 2015 commission in some detail. T. Shypitka: Thank you to the Attorney General for that. The uniqueness of our regions has to be enshrined somehow. We do it with regional districts; we do it with school districts.

I sat in these same chambers, although not virtually, with the Attorney General not too long ago on the

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019, on time change. These are the unique challenges that we face in these small rural ridings that we need to identify and protect. Just a quick question to the Attorney General: how many time zones are there in the Kootenays? Hon. D. Eby: Y ou know, I take the member’s point that he’s got a big constituency. I get it; it brings challenges. So does representing a lot of people; so does representing 55,000 people. It brings different challenges. I don’t take anything away from the hard work that he does.

In fact, the bill recognizes that the hard work that he does and that he has to do is part of their considerations, and that effective representation is part of this. Now, the member is interested in the boundaries of a lot of different things — regional districts, school districts, and so on. Certainly, regional districts, for example, are influential on Electoral Boundaries Commissions. Likely, school districts and the boundaries drawn for school dis- tricts could be influential.

There’s some discussion about community of interest in the case law and making sure that people have shared understandings, where possible. This is all part of what the member should be raising with the commission. But it doesn’t take away from what, I would say, are the two animating principles here that we might disagree on. One is that the constitution, in terms of guarantees of representation by population, is something that we need to take really seriously. We are a long way from there under our current map.

The second is that it is important that the boundaries be drawn by a group of people who are not personally invested in the outcome, that they are inde- pendent of the opposition, the Third Party and the govern- ment, and that they draw the boundaries according to a set of values that we put out for them. Thursday, June 10, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2849

It might be that we disagree on that. We don’t disagree about the size of the member’s constituency, that he works hard, that people in his community work hard and that they’re an important part of our province. We don’t dis- agree about those things. That might focus some of our discussion. T. Shypitka: Nobody is debating who works harder. We all do. Nobody is debating that we need to redraw maps with growth, with what our province is going through — absolutely, 100 percent.

We agree on that, for sure. [3:20 p.m.] The Attorney General didn’t answer my question on how many time zones there are in B.C., even though we went through a long debate, on a very short bill, on just this. He didn’t get it then; I don’t think he gets it now. When we went through the Bill 40,

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019, it was a big rollout, a big survey across the province. As a matter of fact, the Premier said after: “British Columbians have said loud and clear…. ” I’ll say that again: “British Columbians have said loud and clear that they want to do away with the practice of chan- ging our clocks twice year, and our government is taking action. This bill creates a clear path forward for the trans- ition while ensuring we take into account every detail dur- ing the implementation. ” The only problem was that the people in my region weren’t part of it.

He talks about British Columbians yet doesn’t recognize the unique challenges in our province and that we actually have three time zones. I thought maybe the Attorney General had said two, but technically speaking, we have three time zones. My riding, if expanded, could technically stretch through those three time zones: Pacific Daylight savings time, which we’ve got right now; Mountain Standard Time, the Creston region, which never changes their clocks, ever, throughout the year; and then my region, my area, is Mountain Daylight savings time.

So we’ve tech- nically got three time zones but only two different times throughout the year. So if the Premier can’t understand that and the Attorney General can’t understand that, then what chance do we have of government recognizing the fact that we have unique challenges in this province that should be identi- fied? Protecting these 17 regions does exactly that. I think with that, my time is up. But I think this needs to be considered. We’re lucky where we live. We have a great place, but we need to ensure there is proper representa- tion, just like school districts do, just like school boards do.

They take geographical considerations into all of that. We should be doing that and protecting that here in British Columbia. The Chair: Attorney, do you plan to respond, or shall I go to the next speaker? Cariboo North. C. Oakes: It is truly an honour to rise and ask some questions on this

section of the bill. What I’ d like to focus on for a moment is some of the opening comments that the minister made as he introduced the bill into this House. I think what is critically important for me to put on record in the debate…. There’s been lots of discussion around MLAs and representation, but I think it’s critically important that we talk about our constituents — constitu- ents all over British Columbia. I do want to be on record that I do think it’s critically important that urban constitu- ents have access to effective representation.

I certainly do not have any concern with the segment of this bill that ensures that urban populations have access to effective representation. I think that’s critically important. What I would like to turn the minister’s attention to and ask a few questions on, on his response in the opening comments, is this notion of: what is effective represent- ation, and what does it look like? In his opening com- ments, he commented that MLAs face unique challenges in ensuring their constituents are well represented and connected to the work MLAs do on behalf of their con- stituents in this House.

For the purpose of the next few questions, perhaps, could the minister expand on these comments and just talk about what, in his mind, that constituency work and that connection to the MLA really, truly is? [3:25 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: The member has asked me about effective representation. She’s right to note that it is not defined in the act. The concept of effective representation comes from the Canadian case law on electoral boundaries. The courts have said that effective representation requires relative parity of voting power.

The plain language way of saying that is that everyone’s vote should be reason- ably equal in strength in terms of influencing who makes up this place. Effective representation, the courts have also said, requires recognition of factors like geography — I think I’ve heard the member speak about that in her speech — community history, community interests and demographic circumstances. Some colour may also be offered by other provinces that use terms that are similar but different. For example, “communities of interest” is a term that is used in other provinces, similarly not defined.

But effective represent- ation is considered to be related to ensuring that com- munities of interest have a voice in the Legislature. C. Oakes: I think it’s also important that…. I think the context to…. Not to put words in the minister’s mouth, but I think the phrase that I was actually directing his open- ing comments to was this idea that as MLAs, it’s critically important that we connect to our constituents in our con- stituency offices. That’s critically important to how we con- nect with one another. All members of this House value 2850 British Columbia Debates Thursday, June 10, 2021

our constituents and want to make sure that our constitu- ents have access to us, whether they have questions navig- ating government services, programs or being represented bringing issues forward in this House. The next line in the minister’s opening comments, to the idea that in order to be effective representation…. That whole idea of connecting the work that MLAs do back to their constituents is based on this notion that the min- ister put forward in his very own opening comments — that technology has mitigated the geographic barriers to MLAs connecting with their constituents.

He talked about the fact that he certainly recognized that not all of the province enjoys high-speed Internet access yet. Perhaps I can ask, because the minister did introduce that in his opening comments about…. Obviously, they looked at high-speed Internet as an important piece of connecting with constituents in British Columbia. What is the geographic coverage — not the population coverage — of high-speed Internet in the province of British Colum- bia? [3:30 p.m.] Hon. D.

Eby: Well, like the member, I’m certainly inter- ested in that issue, and I know that the Minister of Jobs and the Minister of Citizens’ Services are working really hard on expanding the availability of Internet and high-speed Internet across the province. It is actually a question that we propose under this bill to direct the commission to consider.

In subsection 9(2)(a)(iii), the commission should consider “the avail- ability and means of communication and transportation between various parts of British Columbia. ” And then sub 9(3)(a), not squarely on point but definitely related: “any special geographic considerations, including a manageable geographic size for electoral districts. ” Now, just with respect to the member’s lead-up to her question about high-speed Internet, I think that the mem- ber may be conflating effective representative with effect- ive representation.

An effective representative engages in the kinds of activities that the member described — being available, being there for the community, communicating with people about what government is up to, getting their feedback, bringing it back to Victoria. That’s an effective representative. Simply because you’ve elected someone doesn’t mean that person is going to be an effective repre- sentative for you. For the purposes of this bill, we’re talking about the right to effective representation, the right to have the potential for an effective representative.

To that end, the factors aren’t what the MLAs’ activities are. The factors are: what is your relative voting power compared to other people in the province? The other is: what is the com- munity you live in? What are the special features of that community that might need departure from that first prin- ciple in order to ensure the possibility for effective rep- resentation, both because of the strength of your vote and because of the nature of your community? It’s an issue that the member spent a lot of time on in her remarks on this bill. I hope that that’s some clarity, both on the high-speed Internet

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20210610pm-Hansard-n91
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20210610pm Hansard n91
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1a15600d89a51c31108efd8eeeb8d6de63668ca9

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).