British Columbia Hansard — 3 June 2021, p.m., Issue 84 (42nd Parliament, 2nd Session)

20210603pm-Hansard-n84

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 42nd Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday, June 3, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 84 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 3, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Tributes ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2487 Sarah Robinson G. Lore Tabling Documents................................................................................................................................................................. 2487 Letter from Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, B.C.

Command, dated June 3, 2021 Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 2487 Bill 6 — Accessible British Columbia Act(continued) S. Cadieux Hon. N. Simons D.

Davies Reporting of Bills..................................................................................................................................................................... 2494 Bill 6 — Accessible British Columbia Act Third Reading of Bills ............................................................................................................................................................. 2494 Bill 6 — Accessible British Columbia Act Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 2494 Bill 7 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021(continued) T.

Stone J. Tegart Hon. N. Cullen J. Sturdy Hon. M. Rankin T. Wat M. Lee Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 2517 Estimates: Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions(continued) T. Halford Hon. S. Malcolmson Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General B. Stewart Hon. D. Eby S.

Furstenau Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 2539 Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries(continued) M. de Jong Hon. L. Popham I. Paton

THURSDAY , JUNE 3, 2021 The House met at 1:03 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Tributes SARAH ROBINSON G. Lore: I am both grateful and heartbroken to rise today. I thank the House, the Speaker and the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation for the oppor- tunity. I’m rising to speak about Sarah Robinson. My work with Sarah, in her role on the Minister’s Advisory Council on Indigenous Women and mine as Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity, was new.

But I have had the gift of watching Sarah as a warrior and an advocate for Indigen- ous women and girls, reconciliation, and the learning and unlearning of our colonial history, past and present, for many years. The heartache and trauma of this work has hit many hard this past week. But it isn’t new, and it cannot be passing. As Sarah has said: “It’s that individual work that people need to do. And it’s tough work. It’s not easy. ” For those looking to do this necessary work, Sarah’s legacy includes The Walrus Talks speech from 2017, an incredible introduction to Indigenous and Canadian histories.

Sarah returned to her ancestors, but to quote, again, Sarah herself: “No life force, once given, can ever be lost or destroyed. ” Sarah’s work and life and presence have impacted so many across this province and in this House, including myself and, I know, also the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation, affecting hearts and changing minds and leading to concrete change. It is neither lost nor destroyed. [1:05 p.m.] Tabling Documents B. Banman: I seek leave to table the letter from the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada. It was mentioned during question period this morning. Leave granted.

Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:In this chamber, I call continued committee stage, Bill 6, the Accessible British Columbia Act. In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. Then in the Birch Room, I call the Ministry of Agricul- ture. Once the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions is finished, then I will be calling the Ministry of Attorney General. Committee of the Whole House BILL 6 — ACCESSIBLE BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair. The committee met at 1:07 p.m. Clauses 16 and 17 approved. On clause 18. S. Cadieux:This clause talks about how, in the develop- ment of standards, there must be consideration of all of the other relevant laws of British Columbia, relevant standards in other jurisdictions and the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Can the minister explain how relevance will be determined under this section? The Chair:Minister. Hon. N. Simons:Mr. Chair, welcome back for our after- noon session. [1:10 p.m.] Thanks for the question to the member opposite.

The minister, in conjunction with the accessibility commit- tee, will be ensuring that the standards are developed with the express interest in ensuring that there are no conflicts with any other laws, and “relevant” would be based on if it has relevance to the standards that we’re developing at the time. I just wanted to make sure that that’s why we’ve ensured that the technical committees for particular standards have representatives from other ministries or ministries particularly associated with that standard of development. S.

Cadieux: I guess I understand that, but I guess I also find that concerning, given that if the subject matter experts in ministries haven’t managed to erase the barriers themselves and if there’s a committee that now needs to come together to show them how to do that, where is the weighting between those who are needing to make the changes but have not yet made the changes, without being forced to by a standard that is coming into force as a result of this act? 2487

The UN convention, for example, requires that all “buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces, ” be accessible, but we know that isn’t the case. I would hope that that’s what we’re seeking to get to with this act.

Again, if the decision rests with government and with the minister on when and how to direct the committee to work on various pieces of this work and there is no stated requirement for all of these things to be working together, how do we feel confident that the principles, for example, in the UN convention will be enacted by the work? I guess the best way I can…. Is this just a box-ticking exercise? “Y es, we’ve considered it. We’ve looked at it. Check mark. ” Or is there something more concrete so that people can be assured [audio interrupted]? Hon. N.

Simons: Just to ensure that the member knows that this is in no way attempting to limit the breadth of our work. My notes on this

section remind me to mention that proposed accessibility standards draw on experience and best practices from current or proposed standards in other jurisdictions, for one thing. I hope that confirms her wishes. [1:15 p.m.]

Section 18(

c) signals our commitment to the United Nations convention and aims to ensure that the proposed accessibility standards align with the principles in that convention. S. Cadieux:Thank you, Minister. So let’s propose and suggest that at some point in the future the accessibility committee and the technical committee have proposed a standard, and it’s gone through the consultation period and the minister has approved it. LGIC has approved it. It is now part of the law.

Let’s suggest that standard provides greater access in some capacity than in existing law in British Columbia — just for argument’s sake, the building code. There is nothing in this bill, which we’re debating today to become law, that expressly states which standard will then win in a dispute between laws.

The AODA has a clause specific to this that basically states if there’s a con- flict between the AODA, including its standards, and any other provincial law, the final authority is the law that gives people with disabilities the most access to fully particip- ating in Ontario in the areas of goods, services, facilit- ies, employment, accommodation, buildings. That’s

part X,

section 38. Can the minister explain why this bill does not contain a similar provision? [1:20 p.m.] Hon. N. Simons:I’m assured and confident that a con- siderable amount of discussion went into all parts of this legislation. Of course, when we look at other jurisdictions, some do and some don’t have this kind of specific state- ment. But after the deliberations and ongoing consulta- tion, it was felt that this protects the integrity of the stand- ards by ensuring that when we create the standards, we proactively avoid the conflicts that the member refers to.

Under the very strange situation where there might be a conflict, we would expect the normal common-law prac- tice rules to apply. I don’t actually think it’s necessarily practical to simply say that one law will supersede the oth- er. That, I think, leads to a messy kind of legislative sys- tem. It’s also very difficult sometimes to determine which law supersedes the other. Our goal is to avoid any potential conflicts like that. If they do arise, we’ll deal with them, obviously, in favour of ensuring that British Columbia is the most accessible place and that all barriers that are iden- tified are removed. S.

Cadieux: Well, I can see already that this is going to be a challenge. For another attempt at clarification, is the minister then suggesting that the committee won’t be able to make changes to the building code or that gov- ernment will make changes to the building code to align with any standard that the accessibility committee might make, for example? Again, the building code is just an example, but our buildings are built to that code.

If the standard isn’t high enough in the building code and people are being ex- cluded, as they are today in some cases, then what is the purpose of the committee setting a standard that would actually provide access if, in fact, they can’t if the other law that exists on the books today provides a lesser standard? I need the minister to clear this up for me, please. I do not see how, without a statement or a commitment expressly from government, these changes are going to be made — that, in fact, anything will change. [1:25 p.m.] Hon. N.

Simons:I just want to point out that the legis- lation specifically is geared towards not just removing and preventing barriers but identifying where they exist. So if, during the process of standard development, we run across a place where a barrier exists in a piece of legislation or in a regulation, that could trigger the ministry, the act, to address that particular area. I know the member is using the building code as an example, and I understand that, but we are currently work- ing on the building code, and the parliamentary secretary, the member for Chilliwack, is actively involved in that process too.

Where we identify barriers, the legislation is specifically geared towards removing them. Clause 18 approved. On clause 19. D. Davies:Thank you, Minister. What are we at? Clause 19, “Rights of Indigenous peoples. ” Can the minister tell 2488 British Columbia Debates Thursday, June 3, 2021

us what consultations were undertaken with Indigenous peoples prior to the tabling of this act? [1:30 p.m.] Hon. N. Simons:Thanks for the question from my col- league the member for Peace River North. The Indigenous communities were involved in the development of this legislation from the very earliest stages. The consultation process that the province engaged in included funding First Nations, some First Nations fur- ther, to undertake their own discussions and consultation processes. We’ve had numerous discussions with Chief Judy Wilson, as well as with legal counsel for the Union of B.C.

Indian Chiefs, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond. [1:35 p.m.] As we continue in this important process, now that we have the…. Well, once we have the ability to begin the pro- cess of establishing standards and writing the regulations, ongoing consultation will take place. I’ d point out that we had Indigenous representation on the advisory committee for the ministry and a lot of other discussions that took place. In terms of the public con- sultation, we had over 5,500 individuals provide input to the province, including over 500 people who identified as Indigenous.

That’s an important part of the inclusion of all diversity of voices in this province as we move towards the standards and regulation development. D. Davies: Obviously, there was consultation. That’s good to hear. The involvement, the public feedback…. Pre- sumably there were some concerns or issues that were brought forward to the minister about these. I was just wondering if the minister can share some of those con- cerns around this act that he may have received by the dif- ferent Indigenous communities, participants and some of the feedback. Hon. N.

Simons: The member asked a question, very relevant and obviously…. The question he asked was about whether the province made any adjustments or what have you. We strengthened the legislation, based on the discus- sions we had, in terms of confirmation of at least one Indi- genous person on our provincial advisory committee that Indigenous communities would be consulted on the inde- pendent reviews. The member might want to recognize that the legislation is written in such a way as to have a focus on the intersectionality of disability. The community that’s affected is affected in more than one way.

So that was definitely an important consideration as we finalized the drafting. D. Davies:I didn’t really get the answer that I was hop- ing for, so I’ll maybe dive a little further into the question. The minister had mentioned that there’s at least one Indi- genous member on the committee. There has obviously been talk about Indigenous groups being involved from the earliest stages on the bill. We heard they’ve been undertaking many discussions.

Presumably, prior to this act being brought forth to where we are today, there have been concerns brought up by the Indigenous groups that the ministry has reached out to. [1:40 p.m.] Our question is: can the minister share some of those concerns that were brought up and how the minister and the ministry acted upon those concerns that were brought forward? Hon. N. Simons: The legislation was a process of months and months of hard work, intense discussions, good discussions, collaborative work together. Differ- ences of opinion were raised by different sectors of the community, Indigenous and other.

Our deliberation, our work together, resulted in what I consider to be robust legislation. I mentioned issues around representation. Specific rep- resentation on the provincial advisory committee was an area that was highlighted. I wouldn’t characterize it as a dispute or a conflict at all. We work collaboratively with all of those interested in pursuing the goal that we have, and that’s a more accessible province. The two points that I mentioned were in direct response, in fact, to the member, who may not have under- stood that I was speaking specifically to his question. Maybe he’s not used to that.

But in fact, as well, the inde- pendent reviews would be…. Indigenous views would be part of the independent review process. D. Davies:I guess, in the event, moving forward, if there is a…. I’m still trying to get past the last answer, which I still don’t think that I got, actually. In fact, I’m going to go back there. I’m still hoping to…. This isn’t to be a challen- ging question. This isn’t to create any conflict. We’re hoping to hear….

I mean, it sounds like there were robust conversations with different Indigenous groups, and 500 people participated in the public outreach that identified as Indigenous background. I guess what we’re looking for are — and I’m sure that they’re recorded some- where — the specific details of where there may have been issues and challenges that did not fit, possibly, or did not work with the X, Y or Z Indigenous communities or indi- viduals in creating this act.

I’m not looking for the entire list but some highlights of some of these concerns that were brought forward and how the ministry dealt with those. [1:45 p.m.] Hon. N. Simons: I know what the member oppos- ite…. I know his role. I was in his role for a long time. So I’m not misunderstanding the purpose or nature of the question. I respect the fact that he’s asking about an important subject area. Thursday, June 3, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2489

I would like to point out that the overwhelming message we’ve heard, broadly across the province, including from Indigenous communities, is that this is important legisla- tion. People are very happy about it finally coming to the floor of the House. We heard, obviously, how equity and equal access to opportunities is a key component of accessibility. It is fun- damental to an inclusive society. I did point out that dur- ing the review of the legislation with Indigenous com- munities, we identified ways of strengthening it.

When I pointed out the membership of the accessibility committee and the process of review by the independent review, I was addressing the questions. I would like just to characterize the discussion and the development of this legislation. It’s not like in here, where we may find conflict with each other. This is a col- laborative process, in which all parties at the table really want to get to the same place. Actually, I do think that the members opposite want to get to the same place as well. I don’t doubt that. The nature of the discussions was that this is important legislation. How can we strengthen it?

The process of legis- lative drafting and the input from the ministry into that drafting process reflected what we heard. Clauses 19 and 20 approved. On clause 21. S. Cadieux:I appreciate the challenge that he faces in bringing this act to the House and getting the agreement of all of the parties. As I’ve stated, I know there will be trade- offs, and I know there will be decisions made by govern- ment that advocates won’t like. But my colleague was try- ing to make a point, I think, and I think he made it.

Not everyone, including not everyone on the committee that the minister talked about as being consulted in the development of the act, is happy with what they now see. There was a lot of consultation and there were lots of opin- ions given and a lot of direction given as to what the bill needed to contain. The community, including members of that committee, are not satisfied with this bill. In fact, Disability Alliance B.C., which sits on that minister’s advisory, doesn’t believe that the act should even be moving forward in this House today as it is.

They have significant concerns about the fact that the act didn’t have the active participation of the community in the actual drafting of the act, only in providing advice and that the consultations that government undertook are not reflected in the bill. I’m going to say this, and that is that I am still pleased that this bill is moving forward in the House. I do, however, share many of the concerns of the people that are voicing their concerns publicly, the advocates. [1:50 p.m.] As a legislator who has been here now 12-plus years, like the minister, I understand there are reasons legislation is the way it is.

There are opportunities, and there’s timing. I am happy that we will have a bill on the books. I, too, would have liked it to be much stronger. The minister knows that. The minister knows I had a number of amend- ments on the paper that I wished to see, to make the bill stronger. They didn’t even include the ones that I think are most necessary to give the bill teeth. That’s where we’re going to go now for discussion. Compliance and enforcement. There isn’t really any. The bill puts in place a number of things. We’ll go through these in the coming sections.

But what does seem to be completely lacking in the bill is a complaints mechanism for people with disabilities, who are the people facing these challenges. Can the minister describe, please, what I am not seeing? Where is it? Where is the complaints mechanism for people with disabilities, who don’t believe that the access to be provided by this act is being provided? Where is the complaints mechanism? How will that work? And where will it be housed? Hon. N. Simons: In response, I would say that I do believe we have a very strong bill, a robust bill that includes…. We passed it already, but it was

section 12, which refers to a feedback mechanism. It says an organiz- ation must have a feedback mechanism, and that includes government as an organization. So government will not just have an opportunity to hear about how barriers exist in communities and where they need to be removed, but feedback will be provided on the actual standards that have been put forward as well. This is a way to ensure that the public has an opportunity to let government be aware of any issues that happen to arise. [1:55 p.m.] S. Cadieux: Well, that’s the point. Feedback is not a complaints mechanism.

The opportunity to write to gov- ernment and say: “Gee, I don’t like this. This didn’t happen right. Thanks very much. In your next report, can you please tell me why or what you’re doing about it?” That is not a complaints mechanism. That doesn’t provide any security for people with disabilities to report a violation of a standard, a barrier to access, that is preventing them from accessing something. They can complain to government or to whichever agency may be there, but there is no independent process for investigation.

There is no independent process for indi- viduals to seek redress, quite the opposite of what we see in the Accessible Canada Act, for example, and even in the ADA from 1990. I’m going to ask now for the minister to explain here, in

part 21, the director. Why has the minister decided, in this legislation, to house all of the potential enforcement inside government? How can we be assured that this public ser- vant inside a ministry of government that is also subject 2490 British Columbia Debates Thursday, June 3, 2021

to standards can be independent in enforcing violations or complaints against government for redress? Hon. N. Simons:The compliance and enforcement per- son would be an independent statutory decision–maker. I know that the member served on this side of the House and knows that they have independence from direct min- istry intervention. But they’re an independent statutory decision–maker. It’s similar to other jurisdictions, perhaps not the federal government. I believe that this allows for the independ- ence that the member is speaking of. S. Cadieux: Well, I definitely don’t agree.

I think we would have been much better served as a population of people that have long, long suffered in many respects a lack of respect of our access needs. The continued erection of barriers to our accessing pub- lic services, buildings, our environment, our ability to work, our ability to recreate, our ability to exercise our rights and responsibilities as citizens — these barriers con- tinue to exist despite all the best efforts of the public as a whole, as a government, in terms of making great state- ments about the need for this. [N.

Letnick in the chair.] I understand this all too well, as an individual myself who has fought these battles inside government and from outside. [2:00 p.m.] I know it’s not simple to fix, and I know there isn’t an overnight solution, but I certainly think this nearly 25 per- cent of the population that will face some of these barri- ers in their lifetime certainly would have felt better about this legislation if it came with an independent officer of the Legislature, for example, like we have for the children’s representative or even the seniors advocate — which, while although reports to a minister ultimately, has a degree of independence and a sense of independence of action and concern and certainly would provide an oppor- tunity for there to be a more transparent complaints and investigation process.

I can respect that the individual that…. I note the lan- guage in the act, again, says the minister “may” appoint a director, not must. However, I appreciate and trust that that appointment will be made forthwith. But I appreciate that the statutory decision–maker has some autonomy. However, there is no mechanism here for the public to lodge complaints, to ask for investigation and redress. I think that is a major point of concern for the advocacy community, largely. Certainly, I’ve heard from a number of people on this, not just from Disability Alliance B.C.

Cer- tainly, they were public about their concerns about this in their letter to the editor of the paper. But also an advoc- ate that I have known a long time, Paul Caune, who has faced great systemic barriers to his accessing his rights as a human being and as a person with a significant disability. I know he is struggling with the fact that this act doesn’t provide the teeth that advocates hoped it would, after this long of advocating for things. As Paul has long said: “Hope is not a plan. ” But we’re asking to put a lot of hope out there with this act. A lot of trust and a lot of….

I think one of his comments was, essentially, this act is asking us, as people with disabilit- ies, to trust and then, basically, have a big group hug if it doesn’t work out. We need more. He points out in an

article that the ADA in the States, which was put in place in 1990, provides more teeth for prisoners to lodge complaints against gov- ernment about their treatment — and provides opportun- ity for redress — than this act does. I think we should be concerned by that. I think the minister needs to know that this concern exists, because people to this day have been making their voices as loud as they can and have not seen change within government or within the communities. I guess I would ask again.

Why did the ministry and the minister decide that this level of enforcement, a stat- utory decision–maker within the ministry appointed by the minister, was the best route, over an independent office or advocate? [2:05 p.m.] Hon. N. Simons:I thank the member for her question. I know Paul. I’ve met Paul. I know his advocacy, and I respect the advocacy of all those who’ve worked to ensure that their province took this issue seriously. I know I raised it myself when I was in opposition, and we were waiting for the federal legislation at the time. At least that was the answer. So understanding that.

I would just point out that the format that we’re using here in British Columbia is similar to the other provinces. They don’t have commissioners established. It might be different from the federal. But I would take issue with the suggestion that it doesn’t have teeth. We have the independent statutory decision–maker. We have significant financial penalties available for non- compliance. As I’ve said many times…. I know that sometimes people accuse me of being overly enthusiastic or perhaps hopeful. But I am. [2:10 p.m.] I think the process that has brought us here….

Despite the fact that there exists difference of opinion on some aspects of this legislation, we are working collectively towards the same goal. We are working towards ensuring that if we identify barriers, we remove them, and that we set a process forward. We bring in standards and regula- tions for different sectors as decided by the community and the minister, obviously, and we expect people to be in compliance. If they’re not, we have mechanisms to deal with that. Thursday, June 3, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2491

Clause 21 approved. On clause 22. S. Cadieux:I don’t for a minute think that the minister isn’t well-intentioned. But without a complaints mechan- ism for people with disabilities to inform the director or inspectors, how do they know who or what to inspect, and for what? Without a complaints mechanism, how will people with disabilities be put at the centre of ensuring that organizations follow the regulations?

We know that despite the fact that people with disabilit- ies have always had in British Columbia — or at least, not always, but for a great deal of time — protections under human rights and so on, the challenge is that you have to proactively go out and file a complaint. Y ou have to wait to have it go through the system. It’s a hugely cumbersome process that relies on people with disabilities leading and fighting for their rights. The intent, I would argue, of this bill is to expressly remove the need for that through the development of standards.

However, we also know that there will be a need to enforce — hence, this

section of the bill. We’re putting in place, with this bill, significant monetary pen- alties. I don’t argue with the minister on that. However, somebody has to alert the inspector to the fact that something isn’t happening. At this point, we don’t understand. There is no articula- tion of how those complaints about a lack of compliance or enforcement can be made for the purpose of inspection. So can the minister explain how that process will work? [2:15 p.m.] Hon. N. Simons:I would point out that the government was required to develop a feedback mechanism.

There are many ways that the public will continue to inform gov- ernment and lead government towards identifying where compliance and enforcement will be required. As we develop the standards, and as we receive the feed- back from the provincial advisory committee and tech- nical advisory committees, it might be established that we find other ways of ensuring that the director can be con- tacted for specific issues. The director, obviously, has the ability to appoint inspectors to look into particular mat- ters.

But the feedback mechanisms and the compliance and enforcement options available to government remain quite broad, actually, with the establishment of the stand- ards and as we see the role of the director get established. [2:20 p.m.] S. Cadieux:I’m not sure that that provides much com- fort or clarity around how people with disabilities will be able to have their complaints addressed in a timely way. But I will move on. Let’s go to

section 26. Clauses 22 to 25 inclusive approved. On clause 26. S. Cadieux:On this clause, we’re looking at reconsid- erations and appeals. Obviously this is after someone has been found in contravention by the inspector or director and has been issued a penalty. What if that organization is a ministry of government? Will they be forced to pay that monetary penalty? And what happens with the pay- ment of that penalty? Hon. N. Simons: If there was a finding against a min- istry, the ministry would be subject to the same monetary penalties as any other prescribed organization. S. Cadieux: Then if a ministry, under

section 26, appealed for reconsideration, is there a more significant chance that reconsideration would be granted, given that the statutory officer who made the initial finding is now being asked to reconsider their own fine? [2:25 p.m.] Hon. N. Simons:The answer to that is that’s why we’ve established that the director would be an independent stat- utory decision–maker and not the minister, for example. That maintains that level of independence required. Clause 26 approved. On clause 27. S. Cadieux:This should be a quick one for the minister.

Could the minister just confirm who is or what is the pre- scribed tribunal that is referenced here? Hon. N. Simons: Thank you for the question. The tri- bunal referred to in

section 27 is referring to…. The intent is to direct appeals to an existing tribunal rather than to create a new one. The name of that applicable tribunal would be determined, obviously, in consultation with the Attorney General. But the tribunal would be the body to which the reconsiderations would be referred. Clauses 27 and 28 approved. On clause 29. S. Cadieux:I know the minister will be expecting this one, as I asked it in the wrong

section yesterday. Understanding that this committee could theoretically be very busy — there’s a lot of work to do — they could decide to tackle a lot of issues at once, to really delve in and provide meat to the bones of this legislation in the shortest possible time frame, which would then mean they are providing an awful lot of their time and expertise to this process. Can the minister please explain what, at this 2492 British Columbia Debates Thursday, June 3, 2021

time, the plan is for remuneration of those committee members? [2:30 p.m.] Hon. N. Simons: What this

section does is allow the minister, in accordance with the general directives of Treasury Board, to reimburse or pay an allowance to mem- bers of the provincial accessibility committee or a technic- al committee for reasonable travelling and out-of-pocket expenses. It also allows the minister to pay members of the provincial accessibility committee and technical commit- tee members who are persons with disabilities or members of the provincial accessibility committee.

As I mentioned, payments are subject to Treasury Board directives, including the directive on remuneration guidelines for appointees to a ministry and Crown agency board. S. Cadieux:I do hope that in that case, it is looked at as such, and the significant contribution that these individu- als will make with their knowledge and personal exper- ience will not be undervalued in relation to that type of expertise provided by appointees to Crown corporation boards and such. It is long recognized that this community has been asked to provide their expertise in a charitable way for far too long.

I hope that the minister and Treasury Board will take that seriously. With that, I’ d like to just say to the minister: thank you to you and your staff for being available and being as forthcoming with answers as you were. I remain cautiously optimistic that we will see some change as a result of this. As I say, as a person with a disability and as an advocate, I am deeply disappointed by the legislation. But as a legis- lator and a member of this House, I am also very proud that we will have

an act on the books that we can continue to hold this minister to account for filling out and for mov- ing forward judiciously and with the utmost speed as pos- sible. I appreciate his desire to ensure broad consultation but also understand that at some point, somebody makes a decision, just as the minister has in relation to this legis- lation. His unwillingness to accept an amendment to it, for a couple of words, cautions me somewhat in his willingness to move this forward quickly, with the needs of the com- munity and the desires of the community.

However, I am going to put that aside, and I am going to say thank you and congratulations. I am pleased to be a member of this House as we move forward with this historic step. He can count on the fact that I will be watching closely as we move forward. I appreciate very much his repeated offers to include me in forthcoming processes. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am done with my questions. Hon. N. Simons: I just would like to take this oppor- tunity, as well, to make a few final comments.

I’ d like to just first thank the member for Surrey South and the mem- ber for Peace River North, separated by a few miles but united, I suppose, in the hope — perhaps cautious hope, but I understand that — that we will fulfil what British Columbians expect of us in terms of making our province more accessible and more inclusive. [2:35 p.m.] It’s a commitment we made as government. Under- standing the hesitance in the community that has prob- ably…. One of the communities that has worked so hard and fought so hard to ensure that we become more access- ible over the years.

This is not the end of the process by any means, and this is not going to be entirely government’s sole responsibility to make this province more accessible. We are counting on the goodwill and we’re counting on what I believe to be the belief of British Columbians — that our province is a bet- ter province when people can be included in all aspects of society. This bill that’s before the House today, I believe, will bring us much closer to the destinations that we’re aiming for. I expect to be held accountable. That’s part of the pro- cess here.

I thank all the members of the committees and all those who participated in the consultation process to bring us to this point for their contributions. I respect the fact that there remains some differences of opinion with respect to the content of the legislation. I’ve been here long enough to know that’s not uncommon. However, I remain certain that we have the tool necessary to bring us to a more accessible and more inclusive province. I neglected to introduce the staff who have been in my right ear for the last two days.

They include Deputy Min- ister Dave Galbraith, Sam Turcott from the accessibility secretariat, Krissi Spinoza, Guillaume Dufresne, Tricia Daykin, Shaylin Williams, Brynne Langford, Amanda Arnet and Denise Clair Smith. I thank everybody who has been part of this process. There is a lot of work ahead of us, and I count on good- will and common intentions to get us to the place we’re aiming for. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The Chair:That’s a lot of voices in your head, Minister. Clause 29 approved. The Chair:Does anybody have questions or comments on clauses 30 to 33? Clauses 30 to 33 inclusive approved.

Title approved. Hon. N. Simons: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Thursday, June 3, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2493

Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:38 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Reporting of Bills BILL 6 — ACCESSIBLE BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT Bill 6, Accessible British Columbia Act, reported complete without amendment. Mr. Speaker:When shall the committee sit again, Min- ister? Hon. N. Simons:At the next sitting. Mr. Speaker:So ordered. Hon. N. Simons:I move that we have a recess. Mr. Speaker:Okay. The House will be in recess for ten minutes. The House recessed from 2:39 p.m. to 2:42 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Hon. N. Simons:I now call third reading of Bill 6.

Third Reading of Bills BILL 6 — ACCESSIBLE BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT Bill 6, Accessible British Columbia Act, read a third time and passed. Hon. N. Simons:I call second reading of Bill 7. Second Reading of Bills BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 (continued) T. Stone:I’m pleased to rise and continue my remarks on Bill 7, which deals with the Electoral Boundaries Com- mission. Electoral Boundaries Commission is a process which is required by law in British Columbia. I think all of us in this chamber know that.

The commission is charged with a very important responsibility and that is to review the boundaries and the number of seats every two elec- tions to make recommendations for potential changes. [N. Letnick in the chair.] On the front end of that process, the government of the day has to provide the Boundaries Commission with a mandate. I’ve certainly been through this process once before, two election cycles ago. I was sitting in the gov- ernment at that time.

So I was very much part of the dis- cussions as a member of government with respect to the mandate that we believed made the most sense to bal- ance representation by population as a core principle in our democracy with the important principle of effective representation. The proposed changes that are contained in Bill 7 would provide, quite notably, for the potential increase in the size of the Legislature, or the number of legislators in this place, by up to six additional ridings, six addi- tional MLAs.

That would increase the total number of MLAs from 87 to 93. [2:45 p.m.] I will say as an aside that I haven’t come across too many constituents or too many British Columbians who, as a matter of top priority, have said to me they think the answer to all of our problems is more politicians, more provincial politicians. Nevertheless, the Boundaries Com- mission, in its deliberation, can come back with a recom- mendation to increase the size of this place by up to an additional six seats. Also quite notably, I think even more notably than the potential for more members in this chamber….

We’re all kind of wondering where the additional members would go. It’s a bit tight in here now, but I’m sure we’ d figure that out. The other major change that’s contained within Bill 7 would provide for the elimination of protection on 17 seats that currently exist that are contained within three regions in the Interior and the north. In the Cariboo-Thompson region, there are five ridings that are protected. In the Columbia-Kootenay region, there are four ridings protec- ted. In the north region, there are eight ridings protected. Again, that’s 17 seats that are currently protected.

By protected, what this really means in practical terms is that there cannot be…. The current legislation makes it very clear that there cannot be a reduction in the num- ber of ridings or districts in each of those three areas. The area that I live in, the Cariboo-Thompson region, with five seats…. While boundary changes within that region are permitted between those five seats, the current legislation does not provide for a reduction in the number of seats from the current five — similarly with the north region and the Columbia-Kootenay region.

Quite disappointingly, we are dealing with the potential removal of this provision, which is contained within this bill that’s before the House, Bill 7. It is a clear decision that is being made by the current NDP government to move toward more of an electoral quotient approach to the determination of the number of seats and where the seats 2494 British Columbia Debates Thursday, June 3, 2021

are and what the boundaries of seats are in British Colum- bia. The electoral quotient concept really, in its most simplistic terms, involves taking the total population of British Columbia, which is around five million, and divid- ing it by the number of seats that the Electoral Boundaries Commission decides to recommend. Again, they can move from the 87 that we have currently, up to a potential of 93.

Y ou divide those total number of seats into the pop- ulation, and you get an average population number, which would be, if they did go ahead with the additional six seats, an average population per riding of about 55,000 to 57,000 people. There is an accepted practice when going through the process of determining exactly those allocations of seats and the population levels within them. It’s an accepted practice of allowing for plus or minus 25 percent of popu- lation in a riding. That’s 25 percent plus or minus the aver- age for the province.

That plus or minus 25 percent devi- ation is a long-established and acceptable practice, not just here in British Columbia but right across the country. Again, Bill 7 removes the requirement for the commis- sion to recognize “the legacy of our history and the need to balance the community interests of the people of B.C. ” when fixing boundaries. That would be removed from the act through this Bill 7.

Bill 7 also, again, removes language that the commission can exceed the plus or minus 25 percent deviation “where it considers that very special circumstances exist. ” [2:50 p.m.] That language is to be replaced with language that says: “ …if it considers it necessary to provide for effective rep- resentation. ” A very different approach to addressing the reality of rural British Columbia and the need for ongoing effective representation. Now, let me just back up. I want to say this.

Certainly, I very much — I know my constituents up in Kamloops do as well — support, understand and respect the need to continue to honour, as a core pillar of our democracy, rep- resentation by population, certainly in the context of the plus or minus 25 percent deviation that’s allowed on that as well. There has been very significant population growth over the last number of decades in the Lower Mainland, in par- ticular. We’ve also seen significant population growth in the Okanagan, even in my hometown of Kamloops. Our population growth hasn’t been as pronounced as, say, that other city down the road.

I think it’s Kelowna. Kelowna has grown quite a bit faster than Kamloops has, but Kamloops has continued to grow. The reality is that Kamloops has two seats here in the Legislature, albeit mine is geographically much smaller than my partner’s, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. He has a large rural area attached to his riding. The fact remains we have two seats that represent the city of Kamloops and the surrounding Thompson valleys.

Based on the population growth that we’ve seen in the two Kamloops ridings and in the city in particular, I wouldn’t expect that there would be a dramatic change coming from the Boundaries Commission based solely on the principle of representation by population — again, allowing for that plus or minus 25 percent deviation. But in the Lower Mainland, there has been very sig- nificant population growth. I’m actually from the Lower Mainland. I was born in New Westminster. I spent the first ten years of my life in Port Coquitlam.

My father — I’ve spoken about him often here in the Legislature — was a very proud Vancouver firefighter. I still have a whole bunch of relatives in the Lower Mainland, particularly in Surrey. If I just look at those three communities in the Lower Mainland, New Westminster…. When we left the Lower Mainland and moved up to Kamloops in 1981, New West- minster had a population of about 35,000. Well, it’s doubled since that time, in terms of what the population is today. It’s about 70,000 today. Port Coquitlam, or PoCo, is where I went to elementary school. PoCo, back in 1981, had a population of about 27,000.

It’s more than doubled since that time. We look at Surrey. Surrey in 1981 had a population of about 147,000. Today the population is over 600,000. Surrey is on a rapid trajectory to eclipse Vancouver in population. It’s going to happen. One of the fastest-growing and most dynamic cit- ies not just in the province but across the country. I say all of this because I want to make very, very clear that these rapidly growing urban centres, predominantly in the Lower Mainland, absolutely must have a strong voice here in the Legislature.

They absolutely must not have their voices diluted because they have population levels that are so dramatically more than the population levels in other ridings in other parts of the province. The key is balance. The key is balancing that representation by population principle with the principle of effective repres- entation, ensuring that there is actually equitable repres- entation. If we just look at the seat count, it’s 87 seats today. I might be wrong on this by one or two. I’m not entirely sure if Powell River–Sunshine Coast is considered Vancouver Island or the Lower Mainland. Interjection. T.

Stone:I’ve hurt the feelings of the minister from Pow- ell River. Let’s say Vancouver Island has 14 seats today, the Lower Mainland 49, the Interior and the north 24. On a percent- age basis, that works out to 56 percent of all the seats in the province are in the Lower Mainland, as it should be. Well over half the population of the province is in the Lower Mainland. [2:55 p.m.] If the Electoral Boundaries Commission was to come Thursday, June 3, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2495

forward and recommend adding the maximum number allowed, those additional six seats, and take the Legislature up to 93, and if all six of those seats were recommended to be put into the Lower Mainland, that would increase the seat count in the Lower Mainland to 55. The Lower Main- land would have almost 60 percent of the representation in this place. The point I’m trying to make is that if that’s what the commission deems is fair to ensure that the voices in these rapidly growing urban areas are not diluted, then I can get on board with that.

What I have a problem with is the proposal in this bill that doesn’t try to tiptoe around diluting the voice of the Interior and the north and the Kootenays but actually dir- ectly attacks it, directly removes the protections that are in place today to ensure that effective representation of the people — the voices in the Interior, the north and the Koo- tenays — remains. That, to me, is not fair. Now, as I said a moment ago, equal does not mean equitable. The principles of representation by population need to be balanced with that concept of effective repres- entation.

The Attorney General, in bringing forward this bill and making some public comments, has often said that the protection that is currently in the act has made Brit- ish Columbia an outlier in this regard. He’s gone on to say most other provinces don’t have these kinds of regions. Well, that’s actually not true. That’s not true. Nova Sco- tia’s commission, in their most recent go-around with this process, had a very specific component to their mandate, which was to ensure effective representation for Acadian, Black and Mi’kmaq populations in that province.

Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba all have ridings in their provinces, largely in the northern half of their provinces, that are quite significant in size but have much less popu- lation in them than you’re going to find in…. A northern Alberta riding will have far fewer people living in it than you’re going to have in an Edmonton or Calgary riding. The federal government. If we look at the federal par- liament, greater Toronto should have quite a few more seats in the federal parliament than it currently does.

Alberta and our province here in British Columbia should have more seats in the federal parliament than we currently have. Y ou can ask yourself the question: should Atlantic Canada have as many seats as they have in the parliament? They’re overrepresented when you look purely at the numbers. The point I’m making is that these are the accommod- ations that have been woven into the fabric of these oth- er provinces and into our national institution, recogniz- ing that people in rural areas, people that live in dispar- ate, small communities, also have a right to effective rep- resentation.

So much of the province’s wealth comes from the Inter- ior, the north and the Kootenays — forestry, mining, energy, gas, lots of other industries. We need vibrant com- munities in these resource-rich areas of our province, but these communities also need to have strong voices and effective representation here in Victoria. I worked in mining. In fact, I put myself through uni- versity working for a company that, at the time, was called Placer Dome. I did mineral exploration and dia- mond drilling. I drove all over the northern half of the province for three summers in a row, one of the best jobs I’ve ever had. [S.

Chandra Herbert in the chair.] I did a lot of work in the Vanderhoof area, Fraser Lake, Smithers, Stewart. Anyone who has travelled on Highway 37, the Stewart-Cassiar Highway, from the Kitwanga junc- tion on Highway 16 to the Yukon border…. Of course, it’s a spectacular drive into Stewart on Highway 37A. Y ou drive that 725 kilometres from the Kitwanga junction to the Yukon border, and you go through a whole bunch of very small, disparate communities. [3:00 p.m.] The proposal that’s on the table here would significantly dilute the representation for those British Columbians.

It’s disheartening to think, if you actually live in those com- munities, where so much of the collective wealth of this province is actually generated…. People who live there see most of that wealth exported out of their communities, out of those regions. Now, on top of this, we’re going to say: “Let’s dilute their representation. ” In 2019, I took a trip, with the current Leader of the Opposition, up the entire Highway 5 north of Kamloops. We stopped in communities all the way up: in Barriere and Clearwater, Valemount and McBride — huge travel dis- tances.

The number one issue we encountered everywhere we went, the number one concern people raised, was the lack of access to services, the lack of feeling heard in Vic- toria, notwithstanding how hard their MLA — again, who is the Leader of the Opposition — up in that Valemount- McBride area works and shows up. These people deserve to have effective representation. This bill dilutes that. As a former Transportation Minister for four years, one of the aspects of the job that I enjoyed the most was getting out around the province and visiting these communities.

Sure, you’re announcing projects and opening up projects, and that stuff is all fun. But the real appreciation comes from going into these communities that you might not have much history with and meeting the people, getting to know them, getting to understand their issues. Again, you realize that in all of these rural, small com- munities scattered over huge travel distances, they really do struggle with access to services, health care, housing, mental health, Internet. Heck, you can be in a community like Clearwater.

Sure, they have Internet challenges, but before you get to the Internet, they still have huge issues with their cellular service. So do so many communities around the Interior and the north. Highway maintenance is a big, big challenge in these 2496 British Columbia Debates Thursday, June 3, 2021

rural areas. I did a circle tour with my family back in August of 2014. We drove from Kamloops to Victoria to Port Hardy, on the ferry to Bella Bella, to Ocean Falls, into Shearwater and over to Bella Coola. We then drove to Wil- liams Lake and back to Kamloops. It was 1,934 kilometres, 32 hours of travel time — one of the most spectacular drives and vacations that we’ve ever done as a family. Again, you stop all along the way, you talk to people, and you realize how hard life is for so many people in these communities.

That’s not to say that life isn’t hard for people in urban centres either, but it’s to say that these folks are already doing the best that they possibly can, often having to drive hours upon hours to access health care, hours and hours to access their MLA. This bill sets out to further dilute that. The bottom line, for me, is this. The impact of any potential changes on my riding in Kamloops and the other Kamloops riding, the two ridings I spoke of a little while ago, is likely to be minimal. We might have some boundary changes around the edges.

If the commission goes ahead — because there’s no protection built into the bill — they very well could say, for the Fraser-Nicola rid- ing, which is immediately southwest of my riding, that maybe the recommendation would be to merge it into my riding. That would not be good for the people of Fraser-Nicola, which is already one of the largest ridings, with one of the most First Nations communities of any riding in the province — very small communities.

The current act affords those protections for these ridings in the Interior, the north and the Kootenays in the form of a very clear directive that the Boundaries Commission must adhere to. It must be followed. [3:05 p.m.] It’s a foundational principle that is basically saying to the people in these areas of the province that they deserve effective representation. Y ou can’t accomplish effective representation by further diluting their voices, making these ridings larger and making people drive 800 kilo- metres to access services instead of 650 kilometres, includ- ing accessing their MLA.

Bill 7 proposes to remove these protections. It means that people in many constituencies like Cariboo North, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Peace River North, Peace River South, North Coast, Nechako Lakes, Skeena, Fraser-Nicola, Koo- tenay West, Nelson-Creston, Columbia River–Revelstoke and Kootenay East potentially are going to end up in much larger ridings, some as large European countries. I don’t support removing this protection. I don’t support the aspect of Bill 7, which facilitates the removal of this protection.

I do support adding more seats in the Lower Mainland — if that’s what the Boundaries Commission decides to do, based on the significant population growth that’s taking place there — but I believe rep by pop needs to be balanced with effective representation. Equal does not mean equitable. The decision by this government to remove the protections in place for rural B.C. means sup- porting this Bill 7 is something that I’m going to have a tough time doing. J. Tegart:It is a pleasure to stand in the House today and represent the constituents of Fraser-Nicola addressing Bill 7, the Electoral Boundaries Act.

This’ll be the second review of the electoral boundaries during my term as MLA. During the last review, my riding boundaries changed. I hear from many constituents in my riding that they feel like they’re often the tail end of a riding. They’re tired of being switched back and forth. Constituents feel a very real connection with their MLA and with their riding. That is obvious by the comments that they make when changes happen. At one time, Ash- croft, Cache Creek and Clinton were tacked onto Cariboo South. At the next review, we were back in Fraser-Nicola.

Hope has been in the riding, out of the riding and then back in the riding at different times. Princeton, as a com- munity, has also been in Fraser-Nicola and is now out of Fraser-Nicola. When we talk about democracy and the importance of voter engagement, I think we need to remember how important stability and consistency is in building the rela- tionships we need to build with constituents — in enga- ging them in the electoral process and in democracy. Now, I understand it’s important to ensure that there is a process to review electoral boundaries and ensure that they reflect population growth.

I think it is important to also ensure that boundaries reflect equity in representation. Are con- stituents able to contact, connect with and interact with their elected representative in a relatively equal way around the province? Bill 7 draws boundaries based on one criterion: popula- tion numbers. Sounds pretty simple and pretty straightfor- ward, but democracy, representation, is often not simple. In my speech today, I want to put some meat on the bone. I want to share some information with the House about what it’s like to be an MLA in Fraser-Nicola. I begin my story when I was elected in 2013.

I drove a small compact car. I was over in Merritt at an event. I didn’t want to use taxpayers’ dollars to stay overnight. I was only an hour and a half away. [3:10 p.m.] I got in my car, and I started home at 10:30 at night. As I got near the top of the mountain, I thought: “Wow, there sure are a lot of bugs out here. ” As I drove, I thought: “No, those aren’t bugs. That’s snow. ” I was dressed in busi- ness dress, high heels on — not prepared for a snowstorm. When I found myself plowing snow with the front bumper of my car, I thought: “Y ou know what?

I think I need to phone someone to come and get me. ” I pulled over to the side of the road. No cell coverage. Still snowing like crazy. It took me 4½ hours to drive home. I decided, during those panicked hours in my probably first six months of representing Fraser-Nicola, Thursday, June 3, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2497

that the little compact car needed to be traded in for a four-wheel drive. For the amount of time I spend in my car going out to communities, that was one of the best decisions I’ve made. For those of you who don’t experience some of the more rural things, think about what weather does in some of the Interior and northern ridings and how that affects repres- entation and how we expect people to come to us. Dur- ing winter, that is often impossible. Then the next thing we think: “Well, they can phone us. ” Many of my people don’t have phones and no cell coverage and no Internet.

When we talk about representation and equity across the province, I think we need to think of much more than just numbers. As we drive around the riding, I have one road that I travel very often between Ashcroft and Merritt. I can tell you, driving home one night…. There is a bear that will never forget the evening that he came into con- tact with my CA and I. We have never driven that road without seeing wildlife. That’s another thing you need to think about as we think about people being on the road and driving to communities in order to meet with us so that we can be an effective representative for them.

I want to tell you a little bit about the geography of Fraser-Nicola. Stretching from north of 70 Mile House all the way to the U.S. border in the south, as far east as the Shuswap regional district, all the way to the Squamish-Lil- looet regional district in the west, the Fraser-Nicola rid- ing is a large geographic area with a diverse population — more than 31,000 square kilometres. Our region is larger than Belgium. It is actually 3,000 to 4,000 times larger than some of the ridings you will find in Vancouver, ridings like Vancouver–West End.

I have Clinton, Lillooet, Cache Creek, Ashcroft, Lytton, Hope, Merritt, Logan Lake. I have the Fraser Valley regional district, the Squamish-Lillooet regional district, the Thompson-Nicola regional district.

I have the Ashcroft Indian Band, the Oregon Jack Creek Band, Lytton First Nation Band, Kanaka Bar Band, Siska Indian Band, Skuppah Indian Band, Nicomen Indian Band, Cook’s Ferry Indian Band, Lower Nicola Indian Band, Upper Nicola Indian Band, Coldwater Indian Band, Nooaitch Indian Band, Shackan Indian Band, Skeetchestn Indian Band, Bonaparte Indian Band, Canoe Creek, High Bar Indian band, Whispering Pines Indian Band, Pavilion First Nations, Xaxli’p First Nation, to name a few. I have over 30 First Nations communities in my riding.

I have four MPs who represent my riding. [3:15 p.m.] I would like to talk a little bit about representing a huge, land-based riding, compared to, perhaps, the Chair’s com- pact, high-population riding. My comments come from talking with colleagues and listening to some of the chal- lenges of the urban versus the rural riding representation. The issues I hear about in my riding are…. I try to meet with my local government representatives at least once a year. So that’s eight incorporated communities, three regional districts, four school districts and over 30 First Nations chiefs and councils.

Many are more than 2½ hours’ drive from where I live. It is so important that MLAs build relationships with local leaders to understand their issues. In a compact riding, you may have one or two local governments to meet with. I also attend events, parades, swearing-in ceremonies, celebrations throughout the ridings, and again, that involves travelling to all those communities where they’re being hosted. Health care is a challenge in my riding. Many of my communities can’t find doctors. Many of my communities don’t have emergency rooms. Many of my communities don’t have transit.

Retention of doctors, nurses, support services, emergency rooms…. Ambulance services, not only for local citizens but for the travelling public, because every road into the interior of British Columbia comes through my riding…. Basic services are provided in my two largest communities, but everyone must travel to a lar- ger centre to receive any specialist services. The further challenge is the lack of public transporta- tion. Keeping services open and available over weekends is a huge challenge for many of my small communit- ies.

If the ER is closed, you must travel at least an hour or two to the nearest hospital. We have minimal mental health and addictions services. We talk about health care and the challenges around health care on a weekly, if not daily, basis. Affordability is another issue in my riding. We are an economically depressed area. Affordability is a huge issue, which is one that I would share, likely, with the Chair.

We talk about housing and homelessness, family-support- ing jobs and support services and seniors housing, because our seniors have often been part of a family that is third and fourth generation in our small communities. That’s where they want to live, because they love where they live. But they also have an expectation that they will have strong representation in this House. Agriculture is big in my riding.

I’m not sure that that’s a huge issue in the Chair’s riding, but we talk about trans- portation for agriculture, talk about abattoirs, talk about farmers markets, agricultural land reserve, insurance — which is very difficult to get for crops — farm-to-table, drought and flooding, immigration and immigrant work- ers, and wineries who are just developing and are looking for support services. In my riding, we host one of the largest open-pit mines in North America — provides excellent jobs. But we meet often to talk about permitting.

We talk about environmental stewardship, competitiveness, the lon- gevity of the mine, shipping and transportation of goods. When you have a mine as big as Highland Valley Copper, we talk about how you plan for closure, because it’s going to have huge effect as we look to the future. But we also have mining out in Bralorne, underground min- ing. So we talk about mining. 2498 British Columbia Debates Thursday, June 3, 2021

[3:20 p.m.] The next one we talk about is forestry — sustainability of forestry and those jobs and how important forestry is to the history of our riding and to the job creation in our rid- ing. We’ve had mill closures. We’ve seen the mountain pine beetle. We talk about wildfires. We talk about annual allowable cuts. As I talk about the issues and the oppor- tunities that we have in our riding, I hope you have, as members, an opportunity to think about how common the issues are or perhaps how different they are and how that representation is so important in this House, no matter which riding you represent.

I have learned more about highways and roads than I ever wanted to know. Every highway coming out of the Lower Mainland to go into the Interior goes through my riding. The Coquihalla, the closures during the winter, the incredible work done by the crews who keep that high- way safe and open. The Fraser Canyon I’ve talked about in this House many times and the opportunities around the beauty of the drives through my riding. But we also talk about potholes where you feel like you could bury your car. We talk about slides and weather events and closures.

Highways and roads are not only important to my riding; they’re important to the province. Good representation and understanding of what hap- pens when we have a weather event, the ability to pick up a phone when someone phones you and to know who to call…. Those crews are absolutely incredible, but that’s part of representation. If I lived in Williams Lake and the Coquihalla was mine — part of my riding — it would be incredible to have such a huge area. My colleague from Cariboo North talked about wildfire and emergency management. We have all learned so much over the last five years in regards to wildfires.

We’ve seen flooding that we’ve never seen in the last ten years. The water tables are so high. The flooding events that used to be unusual have become a yearly event. As we talk about climate change, we need to make sure that we start being proactive rather than reactive. But those are the kinds of things we talk about in my office. I actually have two offices because my riding is so huge. I don’t want people to have to be in a car for four hours to get to me. First Nations relationships are incredibly important in my riding.

With over 30 bands, I spend a lot of time meet- ing and building relationships with chiefs and councils. That is a key activity for an MLA. I can’t imagine if we got bigger. We love to go to events at First Nations com- munities, celebrating and participating in ceremonies and special events, advocating and supporting the work being done at the local, provincial and federal level. [3:25 p.m.] Education, economic development, job creation. I’ve shared in the House a project that I’m so proud of in the Fraser Canyon.

Our office is a key component of that project, because when you represent so many small com- munities, the capacity to actually carry a project is often very difficult for them. They don’t have the staff. They don’t have the ability to pull everyone together. So through my office and through a partnership with First Nations, the village of Lytton and the chamber of commerce, we’ve been able to put together a project that I believe is going to make a significant difference through the Fraser Canyon.

I can’t imagine, if we were bigger than we are, being able to take on projects like that that will make such a differ- ence to our small businesses and our communities who have been devastated since the Coquihalla was built. I’ve tried to give you a taste of a day in the life of an MLA in a large rural riding. It is a challenge. It is exciting. Y ou get to see some of the most beautiful country in Brit- ish Columbia. I would say so. We welcome the world in my riding. The important thing is that constituents in my riding need to feel valued. They need to feel valued by those of us who represent British Columbia.

When your riding is one of the ridings that gets changed every time there’s a boun- dary review…. People in my riding feel like they’re under- valued. [R. Leonard in the chair.] They are part of Fraser-Nicola. They identify with Fraser-Nicola. Fraser-Nicola boundaries are there for a reason. They’re trade routes. They’re tradition. I certainly don’t disagree that in fast-growing ridings, we need to reassess and we need to look at representation. But that doesn’t mean that we take away. I have to say that I was very disappointed when Bill 7 was tabled in this House.

I’ve been particularly disappoin- ted in the lack of comment from members on the other side. I think this is a critical debate about democracy. It goes to the heart of the work we do. I think this bill is one of the most important bills that we will see as we talk about representation in British Columbia. To have the other side not even get up and speak…. There are a great many members who this is going to affect, and this doesn’t just affect you. It affects those that you represent. We have an obligation to be their voice.

We have an obligation to ensure that we reach out, that we listen and that we bring their voice to this House. Although I’ve heard reassurances that the commission has the right to make the boundaries and do that sort of thing, I can tell you that people in my riding are pretty concerned. When the one big thing Bill 7 does is take that protection out, that the Interior, north and the Kootenays will have the same number of seats, it sends a message. It sends a message to the people who live in my riding. It sends a message to the people who live above Hope. We don’t live beyond Hope.

We live above Hope. [3:30 p.m.] I can tell you that our people will be passionate when Thursday, June 3, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2499

they make presentations to this commission, and many of their comments and much of their concern and anxiety will come from removing that protection. That protection isn’t partisan. That protection is about representation. That protection is so that people in large, rural ridings have the opportunity to drive a reasonable distance to see their MLA. When you think about a com- pact, 12-by-12 block riding versus a riding like mine the size of Belgium…. We deal with slides. We deal with weather. We deal with mountain passes. Then we expect people to get in a car and come to an office and see us.

Well, I can tell you that as an MLA, it is me who is on the road, because people in rural B.C. are tired of being told to come to the centre. They want services and representa- tion in their communities. If we, as a House, don’t recog- nize that — and I believe that we send them a message by taking that clause out — people in rural B.C. once again feel undervalued. So in my comments today, when you draw a boundary based solely on population, you leave the heart out of our ridings. It’s the people, right? It’s the people you represent.

Y ou need to ensure that people in Metro feel that they have the strong ability to be represented, and people at Anahim Lake need to feel that they have access to their MLA also. That clause there guaranteed that those ridings and the constituency within those ridings did not get any bigger. I think that’s a critical point. But I’ d ask everyone in the House to really think about what it’s like. When we talk about diversity and inclusion, and we talk about how important democracy is, this is our opportunity to show people that everyone counts. Life in Fraser-Nicola is always interesting.

It is an incredible experience to represent a riding that is so huge but so different. So many communities with unique challenges and opportunities. But I can tell you: every- one that I meet in my riding values the representation from this House. I ask, as you look at Bill 7, to think about that and to really think about what this bill does as we look at bound- ary review. Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s been a pleasure to address this House. Hon. N. Cullen:It’s a pleasure to be with you here today. I’m actually in Victoria, strangely. I’m not often here, given these COVID times.

I am speaking to you from the Lək̓ ʷəŋin̓ əŋ-speaking peoples territory. I represent the beautiful and extremely large riding of Stikine in our provincial Legislature. [3:35 p.m.] To my friend from across the way, from Fraser-Nic- ola…. She lamented that not enough government speak- ers, MLAs, were speaking. I’ d say: “Careful what you wish for. ” She also lamented the enormous size of her riding, which is large, I suppose. But it is one-seventh the size of Stikine, which is the largest riding in the Legislature.

I see my friend from North Coast joining us, whose rid- ing is not only very large as well — I think quite a bit larger than Fraser-Nicola — but is also incredibly complicated to get around, given that North Coast has many stunning communities up and down the north and into the central coast that require all manner of transportation to get back and forth and are always weather-dependent and include, of course, the beautiful islands of Haida Gwaii.

I think to put things in context today, for my remarks, I consider it an incredible honour and sometimes a chal- lenge to represent rural and remote communities in our Legislature. In fact, those of us that seek office from rural British Columbia have this extra task in front of us to help bring those voices to this Legislature and beyond to oth- er communities in the province and throughout Canada.

What we are challenged with here in this conversation is about those concepts of balance and fairness and oppor- tunity for the citizens that we seek to represent as elected people, to make sure that they all have their voices heard as effectively as possible. Now, geography and location play a significant role in that, of course. So, too, does the quality of the representa- tives that we send.

I say this because we have probably all had the experience of being running for office, taking on an incumbent and hearing that they don’t show up much, that they’re not present much, that they don’t come out to our communities much, and visiting other ridings where we say: “Please, get us a good representative, because the person we have right now — from sometimes the Liberal party, sometimes others — doesn’t seem to take their job as part of being here and present in our communities. ” So geography matters.

My friend from Fraser-Nicola talked about the difficulty of having as much as a 2½- hour drive between her communities. Well, I’ d welcome her to join me on my 22-hour drive that I am taking to Lower Post and Atlin a little later in this month. I don’t lament it. I don’t ask anyone to feel sorry for me or expect to send me cards of gratitude. That’s the job. That’s the job we sign up for: to represent people. I con- sider that an incredible privilege. Now, I know my Liberal colleagues across the way don’t mean to sound like complainers, don’t mean to sound like they’ve got it especially hard.

But as I’ve been listening to the speeches today, it’s leaving a strong impression that they are expecting condolence cards in the mail for a job that they stuck their hand up for and said: “I want to rep- resent this riding and have the privilege of representing this riding in the provincial legislature. ” What we’re dealing with here in Bill 7 is this opportunity every decade in which we assign an independent commis- sion to look at the boundaries and the ridings and the maps and the communities and the categories to make sure that our elections take place and elect people from various regions of the province in the most fair way.

It’s 2500 British Columbia Debates Thursday, June 3, 2021

trying to balance out — this commission, as other com- missions have done in the past — things like representa- tion by population, which is a foundation of our demo- cracy and has been since, well, almost since we began. There was a long period of time, of course, in Canada and British Columbia where it wasn’t representation by population, unless you happened to be a white male. It was representation by other things. We’ve since evolved some- what through much struggle. Some of that struggle came from people who represented the place that I now have the privilege to represent.

I’m thinking of Frank Calder and Larry Guno and Frank Howard and others. Now, Bill 7 lays out other important balancing parts of the equation: effective representation. Effective represent- ation can mean a lot of things. The connection of geo- graphy, of culture and place, of communities of history and context, so that people feel a part of something and con- nected and don’t feel disconnected and placed into ridings that just don’t make sense. Now, we should say at the outset…. I have seen more than a few electoral boundaries commissions in my time, both at the provincial and federal level.

It’s a challenging task we assign these three individuals. [3:40 p.m.] There is no perfect map available. There is no perfect sequence and orientation of the electoral maps of British Columbia that every single British Columbian will be sat- isfied with. That’s fine. We’re not looking for the perfect. We’re looking for the good and for the very best that we can. For those trying to understand who this commission is, it’s important to know that one of the commissioners will be the Chief Electoral Officer, which is appropriate. A second will be either a judge, currently sitting, or former judge.

The third will be somebody who is recommended by the Speaker, in consultation with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition. A three-panel judge. I would say, as a rural representative…. I know my friends from Vernon-Monashee and North Coast would very much like to see the possibility of having somebody with strong lived experiences, from rural and small-town British Columbia, to be able to inform the commission of the lived realities of people who do live in some of our smaller, more remote communities, because of course, they’re different.

Of course, the challenges in representing people, especially in 2021 and going ahead, are always multifold. I have never been one…. I have represented rural popu- lations in my previous life as a Member of Parliament, with a much larger riding: 331,000 square kilometres. That was Skeena–Bulkley Valley. It still is very ably represented by my friend Taylor Bachrach, the Member of Parliament. The riding of Stikine is just short of 200,000 square kilo- metres, for those geographers playing along at home.

It is challenging because of the simple math and the driving and the difficulty of float planes and trains and dogsled and skidoo and all sort of things that we use to get around some of our more remote communities and the challenges of weather and winter and all of those things. That is what we asked to do. We asked to represent people in this way. Again, it’s an incredible privilege. Now, the riding I represent in Stikine is not just the largest riding in British Columbia. It is also the riding with the lowest population, just around 20,000 people.

We have ridings in British Columbia, of course, in the more densely populated urban parts, that have three times that population. This is what the commission will be tasked with under Bill 7: how do you make sure, in the representation by population, that one British Columbian’s vote is not worth four, five, six, seven times the value of another British Columbian’s?

That’s a real challenge and a question that I know we get from people who live in the cities and the suburban areas of this province. “Why is my vote worth that much less?” But when you explain the challenges of what it is and the particular needs of those living in rural British Columbia, I think there’s an understanding that can be made — that it isn’t the same realities. Are there challenges in representing very densely popu- lated urban ridings? Of course there are. The many, many cultural groups…. I know MLAs and MPs who have 40, 50, 60 languages spoken within their constituencies.

That represents a different order of opportunity, privilege and challenge. Now, for us up in the northwest, we very much pride ourselves in having our voices heard. We very much pride ourselves in electing people to the best of their abilities that make sure that our interests are discussed in places like the Legislature and the House of Commons and in the general discourse of British Columbia. We have a long his- tory of electing people really good at making themselves heard — sometimes elected to government, sometimes elected to opposition.

But the underlying point that I’ve seen most consistently — not always; I can think of a few exceptions — is that we have presented fierce advocates. People know where Skeena is. They know where North Coast is. Y ou used to know…. I’ll leave off any of the temptations towards partisanship, because ideally, what we are talking about today is our role as legislators, to make sure that we never, in any circumstance, do what our American cous- ins, for example, do when it comes to dividing up the elec- toral maps: inserting a heavy tone of partisanship.

For those unfamiliar, if you haven’t watched a good political science movie, when Americans go to redraw their maps, it’s entirely politically charged and sometimes racially charged, where maps are drawn to exclude certain communities, push them out if they don’t vote a certain way, if they don’t look a certain way, and then try to cobble together either Republican or Democratic districts. The boundary commissions are run by a Republican or Demo- Thursday, June 3, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2501

crat, depending on who the governor is, and so on and so forth. Canada doesn’t do that. [3:45 p.m.] Most Canadians don’t realize that important distinction. It’s an incredibly important one, because regardless of who wins the election, the game itself can’t be rigged. That’s why we have an independent commission that does this. That’s why, as you go across Canada, there are guidelines given to those commissions. So 25 percent above the median population, 25 percent below gives the commission some boundary as to how many people they’re trying to fit into a riding.

Consid- erations, as I said, about geography, demographics, cul- tural, history connection are important — not dividing First Nations communities, for example, not dividing cul- tural communities. The commission is given all of these guidelines from which to paint the new picture of British Columbia. It’s done without politics, which is something that we should just be so grateful for, because it allows us the opportunity to have the discussion we need to have, which is: who could best represent us?

Who do we hope to speak on our behalf in the parliaments, in the legislatures of this country to represent our views, regardless of their political orientation? Now, from my perspective, as somebody…. I can speak, as I said, with some authority about this, representing now the largest riding in the provincial map of B.C. and, formerly, one of the largest ridings in all of Canada at the federal level. The effort has to be made by the represent- atives. I hear my friends from the Liberals say: “We don’t want our constituents always to have to drive 2½ hours to see us — 3½, 4½, 20 hours. ” No kidding.

That’s why we go out. That’s why we do the work. This is not a job. This is a vocation. It’s a calling. If there are members who lament the idea that they have to drive an hour or an hour and a half down the road or they have three, four, five communities that they have to try to represent and it feels too hard, well, I hate to break it to you, but perhaps this isn’t the right line of work.

This line of work requires the effort of going to where people live, to see and be with them in their com- munities — not expecting them to drive the 2½ hours to see us in our office but going out to their communities and living on the road and being on the road and repres- enting them that way. We also, of course, know that these 18 months have shown us that our ability to connect has changed over time. So 40, 50 years ago what we’re doing here today was obviously impossible. Representing people looked differ- ent.

I knew people who served in this House and served in the House of Commons who would travel down to Victor- ia or travel to Ottawa, out of Stikine, out of Skeena, once a year. They would leave, and they’ d come back eight months later, after the Legislature was finished. They’ d do a little tour around, and then again, four months later, they would train back to Ottawa or train back to Victoria. Things have changed. Our ability to connect has changed.

I hope the commission reflects that — on the need to make sure that we have things like connectivity, the ability to have good cell service and Wi-Fi and all those things that our B.C. NDP government has invested so fiercely in over the last little while. Now, the B.C. Liberals have a bit of a challenge in their dialogue, because they want to pretend that they’re rep- resenting and fiercely defending rural interests in oppos- ing this legislation. But they’re going to try to do that thing that politicians do that drives people crazy.

They’ll say one thing to rural British Columbians, for example, and say something different when they’re in the city or in Richmond or in Surrey. They’re going to say, “We don’t want any more seats given to that big city down there, ” when they’re talking in places like — I don’t know — Kamloops or Prince George. But then, when they’re going to make the speeches in Richmond and Surrey come next election, they’ll say: “Of course, you deserve better and more representation. ” Our population has grown by about half a million people since the last time we did this.

That requires us to consider effective representation and, of course, the prin- ciple of representation by population, because most of that half a million, all of us would acknowledge, has concen- trated itself mostly in the urban environments. So what do we do about that? Well, we offered the commission the ability to go up to as many as six additional seats. Now certainly, some of my colleagues from across the way are going to cry about that. Well, cool your jets.

Under the Liberal watch, just two commissions ago, they offered the exact same thing to the commission: to consider adding more seats to the Legislature — the exact same number, in fact. Let’s put that to the side.

If what we’re trying to do is make sure there’s an element of fairness in our electoral boundaries, in what it is when a voter goes in to vote, and that their vote doesn’t count for one-fifth, one-sixth, one-seventh of what a vote might count for in other districts, then of course, allowing for more seats to go into those areas that have experienced that rapid population growth is something that the bound- aries commission should and will consider. [3:50 p.m.] But we’re not telling them to do that.

Again, back to the critical element, the foundational principle of independ- ence so that these wise minds that we elect…. We gather, we select two of them from the commissioner of electoral B.C. So there’s a retired or current sitting judge and then an independent commissioner, which can hopefully rep- resent the views that are represented here. This is also for Liberal colleagues that wish to “talk out the clock, ” try to delay this, try to block this. We are on the clock, friends.

By statute and by law, we need to put this thing together so that Elections B.C. can get back a report 2502 British Columbia Debates Thursday, June 3, 2021

and so that this commission, in fact, first can go out and be in our communities and listen to our communities, hope- fully in the flesh and blood. Hopefully restrictions will be lifted by the time this commission is struck and ready to go and do its consultation and that they can visit our com- munities, particularly in rural British Columbia. I’m sure they will, because that’s what commissions have always done: hear from people, present some options for the maps, get six months of feedback and then present something to the Legislature from the Electoral Boundar- ies Commission as their final report.

Then Elections B.C. can run, so we’re in time for the next election in 2024. I hope nobody, in their opposition, tries to represent this as being fast-tracked or anything like that, because our obligation as legislators is to make sure that our independ- ent elections commission has the opportunity and time, first of all, to engage meaningfully with British Columbi- ans from all walks of life — urban and rural, rich and poor — so that they can hear what people are hoping for from their democratic representation and that they can try to put together the best maps available, draw the lines as best as they can.

Again, there’s no perfect science. It’s little bit art, a little bit science, so that when we can come back we can know that the next election will be run fairly and that these prin- ciples of effective representation, of representation by pop- ulation, are able to be done.

Now, I rarely — I hope you can tell in the tone of my remarks — ask anyone for any kind of, I don’t know, spe- cial status because I have represented and now represent such a large place or that anyone should feel bad for me in any kind of way, because I consider the opportunity to rep- resent a place like Stikine an incredible privilege — one of the greatest privileges of my life.

In fact, that drive, that getting to the feast halls, that getting to the communities, the remotes — the Telegraph Creeks, the Atlins, the Stewarts and the Dease Lakes — that’s part of what gives me the fabric of how I try to rep- resent people, those long drives, understanding what their realities are. Now, the fearmongering I’ve heard from some of my colleagues in the media when talking about this bill is actually distasteful. Here they are, some of my B.C.

Liberal colleagues, out saying: “They’re going to merge seats into these mega-massive seats that are going to be huge and enormous. ” First of all, none of them could be bigger than the riding I represented as a federal MP . Secondly, the idea of six additional seats, as I mentioned before, was the hope for concentration and looking at where population has grown significantly. By the way, all of the demographics show us that the population is going to continue to grow dramatically over the next ten years.

Whenever you’re doing one of these commissions, they will, of course, look at the current state, the current census, who lives where, how many com- munities of affiliation, culture and orientation and all of that. They will also look at projections. They will talk to demographers and say: “What’s happening in Vernon- Monashee? What’s happening in Vancouver? What’s going to be happening in the Shuswap over the next five to ten years?” Because this is about anticipating what comes next. Now, I would say this. The raw numbers are true. We’ve seen, over generations, the urbanization of the Canadian population.

British Columbia has not been immune to that. We’ve seen greater populations growing. We’ve seen significant immigrant communities finding and locating themselves in homes in some of our larger cities — sub- urban places, as well. We have noticed, and the statistics are starting to show this. I hope the commission — I’m sure it will; these are smart people — is starting to looking at some of the new demographic trends. Some of them existed prior to COVID and have been accelerated in the last 18 months. That’s the trend of young families, in particular, moving to remote, rural British Col- umbia.

We’ve noticed this in the Hazeltons and Smithers and other communities that I represent. I know, for some of my friends in the Interior, we’ve seen new-found pres- sures on housing and new interests in living in places that are stunning and beautiful. [3:55 p.m.] Because we’ve made investments in things like high- speed internet and better cell service, people are able, if they can through their work, to stay connected to jobs that didn’t even exist ten years ago and certainly were a little bit dodgy in terms of connection five years ago. We’re seeing an increasing number of young families move into my region.

It is an incredibly hopeful thing. It comes with its challenges, of course, moving and cre- ating more housing stock and trying to make sure that things stay affordable. Our government has invested mil- lions upon millions of dollars in trying to create more affordable housing. This is important and something we’ll continue to do. So the story of the urbanization of Canada, the story of the urbanization of British Columbia is one that we always have to follow in terms of the actual raw numbers. I’m proud because I think the quality of life that we offer in rural British Columbia is incredible.

I grew up in a very large city. I left it kind of as soon as I could, as soon as I was legally able to, and found that the community connections that I loved in the city, the small neighbourhoods and communities of affiliation, ex

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20210603pm-Hansard-n84
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20210603pm Hansard n84
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	460ada342d03630af9dbbf1ece4c059530d113ee

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