2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 30, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 26 — Electoral Boundaries Commission report proposals (continued)

C. James

S. Simpson

J. Thornthwaite

H. Bains

M. Karagianis

Hon. J. Rustad

K. Conroy

Hon. T. Stone

K. Corrigan

M. Elmore

L. Reimer

N. Macdonald

M. Farnworth

[ Page 9797 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: I called continued debate on Motion 26.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 26 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

COMMISSION REPORT PROPOSALS

(continued)

C. James: To go back, for a moment, to just before lunch, the discussion that I had just begun was around the history, as some other members have done, of boundary commissions and why I was taking a look at the history. It’s because I think it’s a unique motion that comes forward in this Legislature that, it appears, is going to be supported unanimously.

Yet, as I was saying earlier, it hasn’t always been that way. In fact, it’s been just the opposite. I always think it’s worth just taking a few minutes to look through history, to be able to remind ourselves about how we got here and why we’re here.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

There were some things that happened and that did not happen in our history that have brought forward a motion that will likely be unanimously supported — to do with independence, to do with political interference, to do with the role of electoral districts. That’s why I’m taking a moment to take a look at our history, to remind ourselves of why we’re here.

I was also saying this morning that one of the papers that I took a look at in preparing for these remarks was a paper by Norman Ruff, which would be, again, a name familiar to those in the Legislature. He wrote a very good piece about boundaries and electoral boundaries that is worth taking a look at, for those who are interested in the policy.

[1335]

One of the things that Dr. Ruff pointed out in his paper was the challenge, as I said, of setting electoral districts without political interference. When you’re in a political environment, as we are, it is no surprise that the public may see that political interference is involved in setting political boundaries. So it’s very important that we take a look again at our history of where that happened and didn’t happen.

If we take a look prior to 1984, the redistribution of seats in British Columbia wasn’t formalized. There wasn’t a process as we see now, where every second election we know we’re going to have a review. We know that the boundaries are going to be looked at. In fact, it wasn’t formalized. It was often challenged, and it was also often very partisan, which caused all kinds of challenges.

The first independent review of electoral boundaries occurred in 1914 under Premier McBride. It was an interesting commission. He put a commission together of two judges who completely disagreed with each other. Although it was an independent commission, although it was two individuals, I think, very quickly, you’ll see that the commission ends up being three people or more, an uneven number, for probably very good purposes. When you have two judges on a commission and they disagree with each other, it’s pretty hard to come forward with a report that’s going to be accepted and understood by everyone.

It is interesting that even back in 1914, one of the big concerns that they raised when they were looking at their commission was urban dominance. That was the terminology that was used. At that point, a quarter of British Columbia’s population was living in Vancouver. They noted in their report: “Owing to the formative stage of our development and the great diversity, both climatic and topographical, to be found throughout the vast territory” of this province, it is “practically impossible to establish a fixed basis of distribution.”

It’s very interesting to take a look. That’s, again, back in 1914. The same issues that we’re talking about in today’s Boundaries Commission report and the report of the motion that’s coming forward were still being debated. How do you manage the vast territory of British Columbia? How do you manage to make sure that there’s representation and deal with the population issues? They noted then that ridings varied from 230 in some ridings to 32,747 in others — again, that disparity.

That debate, as I said, formed the basis of the kinds of commissions that we saw coming forward, where they debated exceptional conditions, where they debated special circumstances, where they debated how to address increasing population in urban ridings versus increasing the number of MLAs in this place. Again, it’s important to look at history to know that those were the kinds of issues that set the conditions that we’re seeing today.

The next major look at boundaries came in 1921 under then-Premier, Honest John Oliver, as he was known. My colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway also talked a little bit about this commission. There’s a wonderful biography, by James Morton, written of John Oliver. He talks about the process used for setting boundaries. I won’t reread the information that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway did, but I think it’s important, because it’s very colourful compared to some other boundary commissions.

It says in the biography: “Oliver” — the Premier — “set to work with his voters lists, maps, brushes and paint.” Those were his selected tools. “With one colour, he

[ Page 9798 ]

marked the boundaries of districts that should stand as they are. With another, he depicted those that should be enlarged,” and with another, he took a look at “the fluctuations of votes, as carefully worked out from his lists.” At the end, “the map looked like a jagged Joseph’s coat, but it suited his purpose, and he was proud of his handicraft.”

You think about the boundaries being set at that time period by the Premier himself, with paints, a large board and looking at the existing boundaries. It certainly shows that things have changed. Again, continuing on with this quote: “In a mountainous country like British Columbia, you cannot allocate districts by…township lines” as you might be able to do in other provinces. Irregular mountain ranges must serve as dividing lines.

John, the Premier, knew his province, and “took into consideration the watersheds, the settled valleys and the uninhabited areas. He worked honestly with the object of giving just representation and, at the same time, reducing the membership,” if it was possible, to try and save expense.

[1340]

I’ve heard members get up and talk about that balance. How do you balance more MLAs, the cost to the taxpayers, with representation? You know, taking a look again — this is 1921 — the same issues being debated.

As an MLA from Victoria, I found it interesting to note their remarks about our area. “Morton went on to describe how Premier Oliver tried to bring the representation of Victoria” — which was then a four-member seat — “and Vancouver, a six-member seat with three times the population of Victoria, into line by merging the neighbouring districts of Oak Bay and Esquimalt into the Victoria riding. This was interpreted as an attempt to gerrymander the Esquimalt member out of his seat, and in the face of caucus pressure and the upcoming election, the district of Esquimalt was retained and the size of the Legislature was increased by one seat rather than reduced.”

Again, interesting to take a look at the commission and the challenges that they were facing, which, as I said, are very similar to the kinds of discussions that we see today.

Now, I’m going to spare everyone the discussion around the next number of commissions, because they certainly weren’t as entertaining as this one — certainly weren’t as creative. But they continued to struggle with the same kinds of issues that we’ve been talking about: the challenges of geography, the challenges of population, the challenge of trying to balance serving the needs of voters with the distribution of voters.

I think that’s a very important piece for us to remember as we go through this debate. There are jurisdictions that, in fact, simply use population and base population on the number of members and the challenges that that creates in large ridings — in very big, dispersed ridings, particularly in the north of this province and what that creates. I think those are important debates, as I said, that happened back in the 1900s that we’re still having today.

The first special committee of the Legislature was put together in 1938. Its job, again, was to redefine provincial constituencies. We saw a similar committee that was put together by W.A.C. Bennett in the ’50s, but it found itself bogged down, again, in partisanship and in trying to balance the rural representation with the actual population and where the population increase happened. So you can see that struggle and that push and pull between partisanship and independence.

You also saw Premier Dave Barrett put in place a commission, but the government went to a sudden election, and that report was left and not implemented.

I know that others have talked about the Eckardt commission, and I want to raise that as well, because it certainly was, I think of all commissions, one that was shrouded in controversy more than any others. I don’t need to speak in detail about Gracie’s finger. I think everyone in this Legislature knows that kind of history. Eckardt also decided to run for the governing party at the time, which he was appointed by — which, again, whether in reality or perception, certainly caused some difficulties.

To look at the importance of history, the Eckardt process and the Eckardt commission, in fact, led to great discussion and great review and examination and brought forward many of the principles that we use today.

Again, coming back to why history is important, why I’m taking the time to go through this. It’s because those difficult processes, the difficult times that were happening through these commissions, in fact helped guide us to where we are today where we have relatively little controversy, where we have reports coming forward that people agree with on all sides. Yes, there may be personal preferences that individuals have or individuals in the community have about ridings. But in fact, lots of these difficult times led to those good processes.

I just want to read a couple of the principles that were brought forward through the Eckardt process that are still with us today. It says back then that the commissioner was instructed “to consider all matters which may provide equitable and effective representation in the Legislative Assembly, based upon, but not limited to…” population counts — at that time, it was the 1981 census of Canada — “the geography of the province, the distribution of population into communities, which include urban, rural….”

And further, in formulating the recommendations, the commissioner may, one, “consider additional representation for existing electoral districts, based on population, geographical and historical factors.” So the first discussion about it being okay to leave a riding that may not have the large population but geography-wise may be important to stay.

Two, “consider the subdivision of any multiple member electoral districts that warrant representation by more than two members.” Again, that was the dissolution of many ridings. Certainly, when I was growing up,

[ Page 9799 ]

the Victoria riding had two MLAs. It was one of those dual ridings.

[1345]

Three, “make such further recommendations as he may deem appropriate, based upon, but not limited to, population, geographical and historical factors.”

Again, principles that came out of a process that wasn’t positive but that helped lead us to where we are today. That brought forward, then, the constitutional amendment act, which really did put in place the independence that we see.

The beginning of that was an electoral commission that included the Chief Electoral Officer, just as it continues now. At that time, it included the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and it included a Provincial Court judge appointed by the chief judge of that court.

As we built through that time period, you started to see the involvement of civil liberty groups. You started to see the involvement of the Legislative Assembly in defining boundaries. And you certainly saw some real challenges in having those reports come forward and be challenged, which led, again, to the kind of legislation we see today — which remains relatively intact — from the Fisher commission, which brought forward, as I said, the independence.

Just as a reminder to everyone, it speaks — and it speaks today — about the fact that redistribution is going to be conducted, following every second general election, by a three-member commission appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and composed of a judge or retired judge of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal; a nominee of the Speaker, not an MLA or a government employee; and the Chief Electoral Officer. The Speaker’s nomination is also done in consultation with the Premier and with the Leader of the Opposition. Again, independence coming out of a not-great time period and a not-great history in setting electoral boundaries where there was an involvement of politics.

Like others have done, I want to thank the commission for their work. I want to thank them for the process. It’s not an easy task. I think it’s important to say thank you for the good work and for taking a look at those issues that, as I said, were so important. Looking at balancing populations and electoral districts. Looking at the natural boundaries, as I mentioned — mountains, rivers, parks, highways. Looking at municipal boundaries — not always linked in, in the end. That happened in my riding, and I’ll speak just for a moment about that.

The other piece that I thought was interesting in this year’s report that came forward was that the commission particularly said that they stopped and took a look at First Nations community boundaries. Anyone — and it’s almost all of us, in British Columbia — who has First Nations reserves or First Nations communities in our area knows that reserves often aren’t contiguous, aren’t next to each other. You may have a portion of a reserve in one area of your community and a portion of a reserve in another part of a community. Particularly, again, in the north, you may have three or four remote reserves.

So I found it interesting. That’s, again, I think, a positive direction — that the commission said that they took a look at those First Nations boundaries to see if they could ensure that they tried to keep them as intact as possible through the report. I take that, again, as a plus.

I think the good work of the commission in reaching out to the public has to be congratulated and appreciated. The commission, this time around, visited 29 communities, heard from 128 presenters, and they received 295 written submissions. Although those may not seem like huge numbers, I think for a subject matter that most people would consider pretty dry and not necessarily garnering huge public interest, that’s a positive that we saw that kind of public engagement on the report.

I also think it’s worth noting that the report comes forward as a preliminary report, and the commission then goes back out again to ask for public input on the suggested boundaries which I think is a very positive direction. It gives people a chance to see the specifics, to take a look at what makes sense and what doesn’t and gives people a chance to really have feedback.

It actually is reminiscent of the process that was suggested by a past Premier — Premier Campbell — around legislation, where you introduce legislation for the public to be able to give input on and don’t pass it until the next session — requiring a spring and a fall session, which is often not something that’s happened in this place. But it’s good process, nonetheless, to give people a chance to see the specifics and work through it.

[1350]

Once that preliminary report came out, the commission, again, went back. They went to 15 communities, the communities that they had actually recommended changes on or the communities that they touched on in their second round.

They received 426 written submissions. Again, I think that speaks to the specifics. When people see that it’s going to have an impact on them, they’re much more likely to come forward and give input. They’re much more likely to come forward and provide their feedback than on something that they’re not sure is going to have an impact on them. And 144 presenters presented to that preliminary report.

I think that’s an interesting snapshot of the kind of work that the commission did. As I said, I think we all appreciate their expertise and their time and their commitment.

Now, as I mentioned, I did have some changes in my particular area — small changes, if I look at my riding of Victoria–Beacon Hill. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is gaining a piece of the constituency in his boundary in the changes.

I think all of us have personal connections to our community. I’m very fortunate and feel very honoured to represent a community that I grew up in, that I’ve lived in

[ Page 9800 ]

almost my entire life. I certainly have personal roots and personal connections to the community.

One of the changes that is proposed in this report and in the legislation when it comes forward is for the area of Vic West, which is currently with the community of Esquimalt, to be moved back into the area of Victoria–Beacon Hill. It has been a piece of the riding that has gone back and forth. In 2001, it was in. It was out again in the next Boundaries Commission. It’s proposed to go back in again.

Certainly, the community, when I chatted with them, felt that it was a good step. Because they vote with the municipality of Victoria, they felt being divided between the two municipalities was confusing for people, and it did make sense to try and unite the municipality of Victoria by moving Vic West back into the riding of Victoria–Beacon Hill. Of course, what that meant — again, when you’re looking at the juggling — was that it was going to create some challenges numbers-wise for the riding when it came to the percentage of difference to other ridings.

The Boundaries Commission has proposed to move the edge of my riding back to Richmond rather than Foul Bay and to move the area from Richmond up into the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head — again, not easy because it divides the municipality of Victoria. It is the opposite of what’s being done with the area of Vic West but, again, very close to the border of Oak Bay. You’re talking about a two-block area that is there. I think, much as it’s difficult and much as we all have our personal preferences to keep the municipality together, it will make sense when you take a look at the numbers.

Just in closing, I want to say thank you, once again, to the commission. I want to say how important it is for us to remember the history, to remember the fact that this hasn’t always been an independent process, to remember that we have always struggled with the urban-rural piece. My hope would be, as we’re seeing through some of the debate in this report, that we remember that it’s not either-or, that it’s not saying that representation is easier or better in rural or urban but that, in fact, we each have our own unique challenges.

Each MLA has their own unique challenges in representing their community. I would hope that boundaries commissions come forward, and MLAs will understand that we need to look at how we balance those interests. We need to understand each other’s perspective in those communities. This isn’t about saying that one is easier than the other or one is better than the other. In fact, it is simply a balance. There is not a right or a wrong.

If we look at the increasing population in urban areas, I believe probably the next Boundaries Commission debate will be about adding more members to this chamber or reducing MLAs in rural areas. That, again, was a similar kind of debate we had this time around. I think it will be even more stark next time around because of the increasing population.

I would hope, as I said, that as we get into those debates, people will remember that it’s about respecting each other. It’s about respecting the role that we each have regardless of who it is, whether it’s us or whether it’s another person who follows us as an MLA.

[1355]

We have a very serious role to represent our constituents. That brings unique challenges in urban settings with very dense populations, with apartment buildings, with being able to have access to individual voters to be able to address their concerns and their issues. It has huge challenges in rural communities, where rural communities, again, face huge distances, face huge difficulties in being able to reach out to their voters.

I think it’s an important task. Although boundary commissions, as I said, may seem like a very dry subject, I think it’s a very important task. It’s important that it be done in a non-partisan and an independent way and in an open and transparent way.

I certainly think that this commission has come forward with that in mind. It has addressed many of the concerns with the areas that they were able to work with. I thank them for their work and thank them for sharing their expertise with all of us in the province.

S. Simpson: I am pleased to join the debate. We’re debating the motion put forward by the Government House Leader. The motion reads: “Be it resolved that in accordance with

section 14 of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act…the proposals contained in the Final Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission tabled in the Legislative Assembly on September 28, 2015 be approved.”

That’s the motion that we’re debating today. It’s an important motion because it makes decisions about what representation starts to look like in this place — numbers of members, the boundaries of the constituencies that they represent — and, largely, will affect how people get represented.

It’s a process that has been evolving over decades in this province. It’s a process of appointing a boundaries commission. After every second provincial general election, an electoral boundaries commission is appointed under the terms of the act and mandated to propose changes to the provincial electoral boundaries.

Under the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, the Electoral Boundaries Commission consists of “a judge or retired judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal who is nominated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, (

b) a person who is not a member of the Legislative Assembly or an employee of the government and who is nominated by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, after consultation with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition, and (

c) the chief electoral officer appointed under the Election Act.”

Those three individuals comprise this commission for

[ Page 9801 ]

the purposes of doing this work. They then go through a process that first requires a series of community consultations that are held across the province, a series of consultations that lead to a preliminary report where the commission puts forward its initial thinking on what boundaries should look like and how they should be comprised, based on the act and based on following and respecting the rules of the act. We’ll talk a little bit about that in a minute.

That’s the process. Then once that preliminary report is out, it comes to the respective parties. But it also becomes a public document and leads to another round of consultation, at which point the boundaries commission then releases a final report.

We have that final report, a report that, as the motion notes, was received here at the end of September. That’s the report that we as the Legislature need to deal with. Our responsibilities are to first deal with a motion of acceptance, to accept and approve of the report. After that happens…. This report will be approved, I suspect unanimously, by this House. It’s a good piece of work. That will be followed very shortly by a piece of legislation that I anticipate the government will introduce immediately after or very shortly after this motion is approved.

That will put the meat on the bones of identifying actual boundaries and maps and all of the work that’s necessary to put into law the substance and content of the report of the commission — an important piece of work.

[1400]

I want to thank the commissioners. I think that they have done an exceptional job in a very difficult situation — Mr. Justice Thomas Melnick, a justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, who chaired the commission; Beverley Busson, the former commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and Keith Archer, the Chief Electoral Officer for the province of British Columbia. I think that they did good work, and not particularly easy work.

There are challenges here. They are challenges that we have faced in this province, and we are hardly unique in this country or elsewhere. They’re challenges that we’ve faced in terms of trying to balance the constitutional requirements around representation, fair representation, with effective representation.

The constitutional requirements have often talked about the need to have votes be equal and to be able to have all votes be as equal as they can be. What the act has said often — the rule of thumb in the act — is that no constituency should be more or less than 25 percent over or under the provincial average in terms of population. That’s the rule that is intended to be followed. But while it’s a rule that, in theory, makes a lot of sense, it’s a rule that’s not terribly practical all of the time.

I think we struggle. We struggle with that today, and we will continue to struggle with that in terms of how we address that very critical question.

The way that the issue has been dealt with here. It was dealt with through a piece of legislation that was advanced by the government in 2014. It was an amendment act — the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014. What that piece of legislation did is affected the work of the commission in two ways.

Ultimately, it took three of the areas of the province that we know have significant discrepancies and significant challenges and essentially red-circled those areas and said those numbers of constituencies in those three given areas — the Cariboo-Thompson region, the Columbia-Kootenay region and the north region — would not be reduced. Each of those areas would continue with the numbers of seats that they’ve had before.

In Cariboo-Thompson, we have five seats: Cariboo North, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Fraser-Nicola, Kamloops–North Thompson, Kamloops–South Thompson. Those seats all would remain. That area would remain with five.

The Columbia-Kootenay region: Columbia River–Revelstoke, Kootenay East, Kootenay West, Nelson-Creston. Again, those four seats in that area — not to be changed in terms of reducing the number of seats. It doesn’t mean that there weren’t shifts within the boundaries of those constituencies, but they were not to be less than those numbers of seats.

In the north region, the same practice for Nechako Lakes, North Coast, Peace River North, Peace River South, Prince George–Mackenzie, Prince George–Valemount, Skeena and Stikine.

Then the other thing that was done in that piece of legislation, through an amendment at some point, after some discussion, was to provide latitude to the commission to add up to two seats to bring our Legislature from the current number of 85 to 87. Those two seats were to allow some latitude for the commission to be dealing with how to address areas of the province that have fairly rapidly growing populations. I think of some of the suburbs in the Metro Vancouver area and some other areas where populations are growing.

There was significant debate about these decisions to amend the act in this way, and there may be more. I mean, there’s no question that once this is passed and adopted, we may well see a challenge to this. It’s not out of the question that we could see a challenge — a challenge that suggests that allowing this level of discrepancy, in terms of population numbers, will lead some to question whether we’ve gone outside the parameters that are intended in the Constitution Act. We’ll have to see if that happens, and if it does, the process in the courts will take its course.

[1405]

I think for us here the question becomes the struggle that we face and that we will continue to face for some period of time. This really becomes a struggle between the value of a vote — i.e., making every vote count the same or relatively the same — versus: what is effective representation?

[ Page 9802 ]

I know I am in a constituency where I have over 59,000 constituents. But it’s also a constituency where I can get in my car and drive across it in 15 minutes, and that’s if traffic isn’t that good.

I have colleagues, and there are colleagues here, who have constituencies that have half that population, maybe less than half that population. But they could get in their car, and it would take them the better part of a week to get across their constituency, if they actually were going to visit maybe the half a dozen or ten communities that they might have in their constituency. The challenges are very different. We need to understand that and understand what effective representation is.

We also, as we move forward, are going to have to understand that in the context of new technologies and to what degree new technology enhances the ability of members in areas, particularly the ones who have the large geographic challenges with smaller populations, as to how they’re able to engage their electorate, maybe using technologies in ways that we wouldn’t have envisioned or thought of before because they just didn’t make a lot of sense to us. That’s work that has to go on and continue.

We need to get at that issue. It’s an issue that has been debated, and it’s an issue that the commission talked about in their report. They talked about the right to vote and the population equality. Much of their discussion…. They discussed it in relation to a particular court case, the Supreme Court of Canada decision in what was called the Saskatchewan reference in 1991. It provides considerable guidance to electoral boundaries commissions as to the standard for relative equality of voting power among citizens.

It references back to

section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides that protection of equality. In discussing that reference, there were some interesting conversations had. Writing for the majority view, Madam Justice McLachlin stated: “The purpose of the right to vote enshrined in

section 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to ‘effective representation.’ Ours is a representative democracy. Each citizen is entitled to be represented in government.”

It then comes to the discussion of what constitutes effective representation. The court went on to ask around that. “What are the conditions of effective representation? The first is relative parity of voting power. A system which dilutes one citizen’s vote unduly as compared with another citizen’s vote runs the risk of providing inadequate representation to the citizens whose vote is diluted. The result will be uneven and unfair representation.”

Yet the judgment went on and continued to say that it’s not the only factor that affects what effective representation is and said: “Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic.”

This is 25 years ago, and the debate was on then about what constitutes effective representation and about how you should develop that. I think it’s a very real question for us in British Columbia. It’s a very real question that we are going to have to engage for some time to come, I would hope. We may have this conversation around the legislation. We may be able to have this conversation at a future time.

It may make sense for us to try to grapple with this question, not necessarily in the context of the work of the Boundaries Commission, but maybe within the work of another entity, whether it’s a legislative committee or what it is, that isn’t tasked with the job of drawing boundaries, which all of us, as elected representatives and all the political parties, have a keen interest in. We all know that changes in boundaries can change the fortunes of candidates, of incumbents, of other candidates of political parties depending on where you land your boundaries.

[1410]

We all have vested interests that need to be taken into account. The broader question of how we square that circle about more quickly growing, largely urban and suburban constituencies, with numbers that are getting up there, versus rural and northern constituencies, which are challenging today to represent effectively for a whole bunch of reasons…. Every member, regardless of the side of House, faces those challenges. How do we balance that? How do we balance these two things? What can we do to make the case — whether it’s different resources, different views — and to make the argument that we have found a way to improve the situation?

I don’t think we’re ever going to fix the problem in its entirety, but how do we improve the situation so that we begin to remove those challenges? As colleagues have said, we now…. You know, maybe for the next couple of elections, maybe we’ve found the solution for the next election or two with this. We’ll see, and we’ll see whether we do end up with this law being taken to court or not. I have no clue whether we will, but I’m sure that there are people out there looking at it who say they could make the case around the constitution.

Whatever is done there, the problem we face is not likely to improve. The problem we face is likely to grow more significant and more clear as we are going to see more and more people moving into urban areas. You’ll see more people moving into the Kelownas and the Kamloopses and the Prince Georges and those communities, potentially, but for many large parts of the province, I’m not certain we’re going to see that. What we’re certainly not going to see is in the provincial growth, population growth in the province as people come here…. That growth is largely going to be in urban and suburban areas.

I think that’s a reality that most of us would probably concur with, so we need to figure out what that balance is.

The work that the commission has done with this piece of work, I think, has gone some way, under the param-

[ Page 9803 ]

eters that they were given, to in fact deal with that and to deal with some of those questions as effectively as they can. I think that they looked pretty well at how to be able to do that. They added a couple of seats in areas that are certainly high-growth areas. It makes some sense to do that. They largely, I think, as a commission, did the things that they needed to do, which was to look at a sense of community, to look at areas that naturally went together, to look at what boundaries made sense in terms of a whole series of criteria around demographics, around communities of interest and around population.

They did a good piece of work. Interestingly, they produced a preliminary report that I know members on this side and others, I think, would look at and say: “I have things that I, on my wish list, would like to have been different in this report.” There are things that, if I’m looking at my interests, I would have liked to have seen done a little differently. But if I’m being truthful with myself, I would also say it’s a pretty good piece of work.

Probably the best advice that I could have given to the commission is: “You generally got it right in the preliminary report, and maybe the best thing for you to do is take all of that advice you get between the preliminary and the final report, say ‘thank you very much,’ set it aside and continue with what you have done, unless you find some minor tweaking that’s brought to your attention that makes some sense.”

That’s largely, I think, what the commission did. They took what they learned and what they proposed in the preliminary report and said: “We’re going to stick by this.” It appears, certainly from the motion — and I congratulate the government on this — that the government has accepted the report in its entirety. The opposition concurs with that position — that we should accept this report in its entirety and advance the next electoral map for British Columbia as the one that has been put forward by Justice Melnick, Ms. Busson and Mr. Archer.

[1415]

In doing that, I think we’re going to have a map that will be slightly different but I think a map that will deal with a number of the questions we have.

We will have two new members come to the House, and two is probably enough. I must say that I’ve not had tons of people coming into my office saying: “I wish we had more MLAs in Victoria.” I haven’t had a lot of that comment. I think that a couple…. If that’s what it takes and that’s what it took for the commission to be able to round this out in a way that makes sense to them, then I think that that was a good decision.

In terms of how this affects my area, I’m happy. I have had no change to my constituency of Vancouver-Hastings. My population stays the same, roughly — 59,491 people in my constituency, a constituency that has significant diversity. About 40 percent of my constituents are Chinese-speaking. It’s a constituency that has wealth and has serious poverty, a constituency that faces many of the challenges that urban members, in particular, are aware of around cost pressures, around housing costs and that.

But when you look at its boundaries — the primary consideration for the commission — it’s a constituency where the boundaries make sense — Boundary Road on the east, Commercial Drive on the west, the waterfront to the north and 12th Avenue to the south. It’s a contained area, pretty straightforward.

It’s one where you can identify many communities of interest, one where you can see how it makes sense as a reasonably coherent and cohesive entity. One that I find…. While there certainly is diversity of views and interests in the constituency, when I talk to people about the community, about the neighbourhoods, about the shopping areas, about the challenges around transportation, challenges around housing, those challenges don’t change dramatically from one conversation to another.

People’s own circumstances may put them in a different place in that conversation. But in terms of what the challenges look like, most people are of one mind about that and generally concur on what those challenges are. They have some different solutions for them. Many of them are challenges that we’ve seen no satisfactory solutions for, and I’m not sure that we will. They’re challenges that are in front of us that are pretty complex.

Obviously, one in my constituency that stands out is housing costs and housing affordability. I know that lots of people have tried to get their head around that in different ways, and none of us have been successful in finding what that solution looks like. None of us have found the proposal that begins to take us to that solution. I’m sure it’s one that, I know for me, I will be continuing to wrap my head around hopefully for some years to come, I suspect, trying to find a way to address and deal with those issues.

Again, what the commission was mandated to do was to truly look at all of these issues and try to build communities of interest. In my situation, it was a matter of taking my constituency, doing an evaluation of it, presumably, and making the decision that it should be left alone in terms of its boundaries. That was a good decision if you look at it in terms of the kinds of objectives and the kinds of criteria that you would hope a commission would have.

I would hope and think that they brought that same rigour to the assessment of other constituencies. I know that in some cases, a number of cases — not a large number — there were significant changes to constituency boundaries. For others, there were some small changes, some significant changes.

[1420]

I haven’t had this experience, but I certainly would believe that if you’re a member who represents a constituency where they’ve made significant changes to your boundaries, that’s something that gets your attention and may raise your concerns for a whole variety of reasons.

[ Page 9804 ]

First, clearly, I think is to make the decision about whether those changes actually reflect what makes sense in terms of a community of interest in your constituency. Are you meeting the needs of that community of interest?

We’re all political animals. We’re all here and elected, and we also will evaluate it depending on what it does to our potential electoral fortunes going forward. That’s human nature. That’s reality. It’s something that we would all do under those circumstances. Thankfully, that concern, that political consideration, is one that the commission does not concern itself with. It’s not a concern that the commission pays any attention to. It’s something that the commission should not pay any attention to. It’s their job to build the best map they can build, looking at the interests of British Columbians.

They need to look at those demographic questions. They need to look at those questions of balance and fairness. They need to look at those questions around what the challenges are to effectively be able to represent a given region or constituency. How do you build a map that does that in the most reasonable way possible? How do you ensure that the trade-offs that you make in building that map are trade-offs that are in the best interests? We know that these things are not always black and white. They’re often shades of grey. That’s the challenge that the commission faces.

I think this has been a very difficult piece of work to do. I was not at all convinced, when this work began, that in fact, this commission could come back with a map that made sense. When I looked at the province and at the discrepancies and at the direction that was brought by the amendment act, I wasn’t at all certain, myself, that we could see a map at the end of the day that would pass the nod test, that would have people saying: “You know, all things considered, that’s about as good as you’re going to get, considering the challenges that were in front of the commission to be able to meet their objectives and meet their mandate.”

But I was wrong. I have to say that they’ve done a good job. They have met those challenges in large part, in my mind. There are small things I might disagree with, but I’m not sure that I would be right about those things. I think that they have accomplished what they set out to do, without perfection. But perfection’s not something that we see a lot of in this place, so that’s okay. Without perfection, but generally a map that most people in our communities….

I think this becomes probably the bigger question than us saying we like or don’t like a particular set of boundaries or a particular situation. It is the question of whether people in your community and in your constituencies — and in constituencies across the province — would look at the map and say: “You know, I’m not sure I agree with it all, but it makes sense to me. I get it. I understand how these decisions got made. I know why the commission chose to go there. I can live with this.” In some places, that’s what it’s about.

The work of the commission now is done, I believe, and I believe that we will leave this place having adopted this report and having adopted the appropriate legislation that will come with it. But we still face the challenge of how we deal with balancing population versus effective representation, ensuring that the voices of the north and the rural areas continue to be heard in this place in numbers that allow that voice to be clear and strong and yet still reflect the realities of where people live in British Columbia.

Not an easy question to resolve, and one that I think we need to turn our heads to as legislators in the next little bit of time, knowing it will be eight years before another commission has to do its work.

[1425]

There is work we could do earlier than that to, at least, provide some direction that may be helpful to a future commission and may be able to make their job a little bit easier and may answer some of the anxieties and questions for people, particularly in our northern and rural communities, who worry about whether their representation is at risk somewhere down the road. They deserve that representation. We need to find that balance. I think it’s possible, but it’s a lot of work. I think we should probably get at that.

For now, I’m pleased to support the motion. I look forward to the legislation when it comes forward.

J. Thornthwaite: I stand today to support Bill 42, electoral districts act, and to reiterate what our Minister of Finance had said: “Be it resolved that in accordance with

section 14 of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act…the proposals contained in the Final Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission tabled in the Legislative Assembly on September 28, 2015 be approved.”

Our government has introduced legislation to adopt all of the Electoral Boundaries Commission’s recommendations, which will ensure that British Columbians are effectively represented in both urban and rural areas of the province.

Ours is a province with dense and growing urban areas and more remote northern and rural regions. We must ensure that all British Columbians are represented appropriately. This act proposes to increase B.C.’s electoral districts to 87 from 85 — so we’ll have two new extra MLAs — with new ridings in the Surrey, Richmond, New Westminster area to reflect growing population in those areas.

It also preserves the current districts in the north, Cariboo-Thompson, Columbia-Kootenay regions to ensure that citizens in less densely populated yet geographically large districts can be effectively represented by their MLAs. If adopted, this would be in place for the scheduled 2017 and 2021 elections. Our government has voted to approve all of the commission’s recommendations and introduced legislation to support this.

How does this pertain to North Vancouver–Seymour, my riding? Here’s an exact quote from the report. “The two

[ Page 9805 ]

North Vancouver electoral districts are currently aligned to include the entire city of North Vancouver in North Vancouver–Lonsdale and most of the district municipality of North Vancouver in North Vancouver–Seymour. We view this divide as logical, but following suggestions from the public, we have made small changes to the boundary between the two districts around Lynn Valley to follow Highway 1 to better reflect communities of interest and to balance the population between the two electoral districts while taking into account future growth areas.”

Then I looked at the map. To clarify, the district of North Vancouver doesn’t just encompass my riding, North Vancouver–Seymour. It does encompass a little bit of North Vancouver–Lonsdale. But often forgotten is my cousin to the west, West Vancouver–Capilano. West Vancouver–Capilano actually does encompass a portion of the district of North Vancouver.

Interjection.

J. Thornthwaite: It does. The Edgemont area, the Grouse Mountain area, the Capilano area are all the responsibilities of the West Vancouver–Capilano MLA, who we all know and love here in the Legislature.

I looked at the map again, and I was following it up. If you’re coming off the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge, basically everything to the east — so along Mount Seymour Parkway, along Dollarton, all the way to Deep Cove — would be the North Vancouver–Seymour riding.

But if you keep going up, past the Lynn Valley exit, up the famous Cut all the way to Lonsdale, and then up Lonsdale, everything to the east and to the north is North Vancouver–Seymour. Once you hit the top of Lonsdale and it switches into Montroyal, then again, north and east of that Montroyal/Lonsdale Street is mine, but on the other side is the West Vancouver–Capilano riding.

[1430]

As I was speaking about the Cut, another member from the opposite side was making a comment about: “If it’s not congested.” I’d just like to have another opportunity to celebrate the $150 million announcement that we made earlier this year to fix the Cut. The signs just went up last week. The Mountain Highway interchange — construction is supposed to start in the summer of 2016. The public meetings are happening in the next month or so, and it’s supposed to be complete by the spring of 2018.

Then the famous Fern Street overpass–Lillooet Road interchange, of course, is the most important for the people in my riding because the highway kind of cuts off the people from the east of Seymour from the rest of North Vancouver. That construction begins in spring 2018, and it’s expected to be complete in the spring of 2020. That’s two out of the three interchange projects that are very famous and anticipated by my constituents, as well as others on the North Shore, to happen, and I’m just really, really happy that they’re happening.

As we go back to the motion at hand, I will be supporting the motion. I’m speaking positively about the changes that are occurring in British Columbia as a whole, but it’s nice to know that, pretty much generally, the people that live in the Lynn Valley area of North Vancouver will have consistency in their MLA, and that means me.

H. Bains: I’m happy to stand and speak about the Electoral Boundaries Commission’s final report and recommendations. As many speakers have said before, generally speaking, these are good recommendations overall for British Columbia. As the report noted, they made changes to about 48 of the 85 districts, and in addition, they have added two new seats. One of them is in Surrey. And they also noted that most changes are minor, but there are some substantial changes.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Changes to Surrey-Newton are fairly minor, I would say, if you look at it in the scheme of things. The area that was part of Surrey-Newton east of 144 Street between 72 Avenue and 80 Avenue and 152 Street, is now no longer part of Surrey-Newton, and I’m saddened by that. These are the people that stood by me, supported me, and we had some good times, and I’m really going to miss them. There are so many good friends that live in that area. I visited their homes, they invited me to their homes, and I’m going to miss them.

I want to say, first, thank you so much. It’s largely the Chimney Heights area — all those of you who stood by me and supported me, working together to deal with some of the important issues, whether it was dealing with crime in the area, drug dealings in the neighbourhood, or having benches at the Chimney Heights school, for men and women.

We went through quite a bit about that. There used to be benches, and then there were some complaints. They were taken away, and we had to work together with the community and the city to bring some benches back, but there are still not enough. I think there may be one bench, maybe two, but there are more people that use that park along 146 Street, you know, just west of the school, than where the benches are and where people can sit.

[1435]

We will continue to work. Hopefully, one day we can convince city hall that we could find some permanent solutions to those neighbourhood parks in the city where seniors can go and enjoy a card game and camaraderie and talk about the old country and not have to worry about the weather conditions — and also to use the washroom facilities. We do need some permanent solutions to that, and I think there are other areas of Surrey where we need to deal with those issues.

I just want to say thank you to that part of my constituency that no longer will be in the riding, Surrey’s

[ Page 9806 ]

Chimney Heights area. I will miss them, but at the same time, I want to welcome the area that has been added. It is the area close to the Newton Wave Pool, the area that is surrounded by 168 Street all the way to 140 Street between 72 Avenue and King George. That is the new area that will be added to Surrey-Newton, and I look forward to working with them.

When you look at the overall map of Surrey-Newton, there’s not much change. When I first got elected in 2005, the lines surrounding my Surrey-Newton area were pretty straightforward — four straight lines: 88 Avenue to the north, 72 Avenue to the south, 120 Street and 152 Street to the east. Those are the four streets — straightforward. Everyone understood. It was clear to identify what Surrey-Newton was.

It covered, largely, the Surrey-Newton area. Surrey-Newton is a larger area than the Surrey-Newton constituency. It goes into Green Timbers; it goes into Panorama. We have what we have because of the population growth — probably one of the fastest-growing areas. The constituency, geographically and area-wise, is shrinking, but with population growth, it is still one of the largest constituencies. So 2005 was that, pretty simple.

Then in 2009, the Boundaries Commission came back with their recommendations and gave us the new Surrey-Newton, which pretty well cut the old Surrey-Newton in half. Now the boundaries are so zigzag, it’s hard to understand unless you have a map in front of you.

My east and west sides of the boundaries remain the same, 152 Street and 120 Street, but the northern side now starts at 88 Avenue all the way to 128 Street. Then it runs south along 128 Street to 75 Avenue. Then it runs south along 75 Avenue to Scott Road, then Scott Road, which is 120 Street, south to 64 Avenue, and 64 Avenue all the way to King George. The boundary will run along King George to 72 Avenue and then 72 Avenue north to 152 Street. That was the riding in 2009 and 2013.

With the new report, like I said, it is changed a bit again — not much. As I said, the area east of 144 between 152 is removed. But the area between 68 Avenue and King George avenue on one side and 72 Avenue and 140 Street — that kind of a square — is added to the new Surrey-Newton. I’m happy, and I welcome the new residents of Surrey-Newton from that area.

[1440]

There’s a history behind the Surrey-Newton constituency. If you go back, I think, to about 1966, the district of Surrey was created, and in 1978, Surrey was increased to two members. That report was the Eckardt report. The Eckardt commission came down with those recommendations. It used to be a two-member riding prior to that.

Mr. Speaker, you probably remember that the Eckardt report was the time…. I was not much involved in politics at that time, but I watched what was being discussed in the media. You probably remember that Gracie’s finger was a big thing at that time — with that report. That’s when I started to realize that there may be some politics behind these redistributions. If you look at the progress being made over the years, going back to 1971, to today, I think you have taken politics, largely speaking, out of this — the Boundaries Commission and redistribution.

Now, there were some very famous arguments and discussions and controversies, and I think it was not a good thing. I think we’re moving in the right direction and making it as apolitical, non-political, as possible.

Mr. Speaker, 1985 is the time when the Warren commission delivered their report. This is the time that they actually created the Surrey-Guildford-Whalley riding and the Surrey-Newton riding and the Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale riding.

When you look at the population at that time…. I will talk about some of the under-representation that many members argue — rightfully so, from the rural area…. If you look at the history of Surrey-Newton, that actually speaks to the argument that some of the members speak in the rural areas — why they wanted to maintain proper representation for their population. All of those arguments are valid.

If you look at Surrey-Newton and the history of Surrey…. Look at Surrey-Newton in 1986. When Surrey-Newton was created, the population, at that time, was 68,347. The provincial average was 41,800. So Surrey-Newton was 163 percent over the provincial average. But then you look at the other Surrey ridings. Three ridings were created, or three constituencies — I think the proper word is districts — Surrey-Newton, Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale and Surrey-Guildford-Whalley.

If you look at the population of those three, what you find interesting is that of the five districts with the most population, three of them are in Surrey in 1985. Surrey-Guildford had 61,000, which is 145 percent above the provincial average. Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale was 160 percent higher, and Surrey-Newton was 163 percent. The highest population of all of the districts was Surrey-Newton: 163 percent of the provincial average. Now, I’ll speak about that in a minute.

What does that mean over time? When people make arguments in this House about representation, I’m looking at the proposal that the commission came down with. There are about nine, I believe, constituencies or districts that have gone over…. The commission has gone over the provincial average 25 percent. Some of the members made some good arguments of why that was necessary. The representation is necessary.

[1445]

At the same time, when you look at, historically, the Surrey-Newton area…. We always have under-representation, in my view, when you compare the populations with the rest of the province. When you look at that, the fastest-growing region of the province, look at the services that we have in Surrey when you compare to the other jurisdictions.

[ Page 9807 ]

Let’s look at public transportation. I sat with the ex-manager of the city of Surrey, Mr. Dinwoodie. He’s on the TransLink board right now. We looked at some numbers. He said that south of the Fraser, which is largely Surrey, has one hour of public transportation on a per-capita basis, compared to 1.9 hours when you look at the Richmond, Vancouver and Burnaby area — not that they have the best public transportation.

They’re also making the argument to improve that area as far as public transportation is concerned, the Broadway corridor being one of them. But Surrey having half of that…. You could clearly see some of the consequences when you have historical under-representation from a particular area.

You look at health care. We have the lowest number of acute care beds on a per-capita basis in Surrey when you compare to other regions, and I’m talking about the entire province.

You look at the post-secondary education seats — the lowest number of seats on a per-capita basis when you compare to other regions. Now, what are the consequences of that — the lowest number of post-secondary education seats in the area? The results are clear. We have the lowest participation rate of high school students from that region in post-secondary education.

We are making decisions here, and we are talking about our future, and those are the kinds of consequences we are leaving behind for non-action and not paying attention to the fastest-growing area of the province.

You look at high school, K to 12. Again, we would find the highest number of students in portables in Surrey. So when people are making arguments about under-representation…. I looked at — I gave you — some numbers here going back to 1985, when three electoral districts in Surrey were created. The population was the highest, when you look at the average of all of the districts, compared to other districts in the province.

Those are some of the consequences that people suffer when you are under-represented. I think that’s what I wanted to say about that part and some of the history behind it.

I want to also talk about some of the good stuff that happens in Surrey-Newton. I mean, the region is the region, and the name is the name, but it’s the people who make the province, the city or the community — the community that they are.

We have some very, very prominent people that came out of the Surrey-Newton area. We just heard the news of Mr. Al Cleaver passing. He was the person…. I would call him Mr. Surrey.

[1450]

Al Cleaver was the one that I…. He was one of the first persons I came across when I first got elected in 2005. There’s a good

article in the Surrey Leader about him. Frank Bucholtz has put out a very good

article about the person. I’m really saddened to hear that he has passed on. I will take some of the quotes from the article.

“Al Cleaver was named a Surrey Civic Treasure in 2010…. He was one of the key builders of the city over the past 50 years.

“He died in hospital last week at the age of 88.

“As the city’s fire chief for many years, he and several others of his fire department management team were instrumental in turning the department into a professional and extremely well-run organization. It continues to be one of B.C.’s best fire departments….

“Al came to Surrey in the 1930s. The Cleaver family lived on five-acre property at 124 Street and 72 Avenue and grew as much of their food as they could.”

This is the area where I spend a lot of time. This is the heart of Surrey-Newton, and this is where he lived on his five-acre farm. There’s so much history with Al Cleaver related to Surrey.

“He was one of the first students at Queen Elizabeth high school, shortly after it opened in 1939. A fellow student was Connie Shepherd,” the

article by Frank in the Leader says. “Her father, Len Shepherd, was the MLA representing Surrey and other Fraser Valley communities in the provincial Legislature from 1937 to 1945.”

Al and Connie married. For many, many years, they lived on 99 Avenue, just off Scott Road, where there’s a small little park named after Al.

Another person that he worked with that I came across was Lorne Pearson, who passed away some years ago. He was also a firefighter. I tell you. I have so much respect for these two gentlemen, and they have had so much influence on me, my role models. I think they were the people that made Surrey what Surrey is. I can’t imagine Surrey being without people like Al, Connie and Lorne Pearson.

“On his retirement in 1986, Al and Connie became more involved with preserving Surrey history through the museum and archives, the firefighters’ historical association and the Surrey historical society. He was a founder of the Friends of Surrey Museum and Archives Society, which was instrumental in raising funds for the new Surrey Museum on Highway 10 in Cloverdale.”

A guy with a gold heart and a love for the community that was as big as his infectious laugh. He will be dearly missed. He was one of the persons who built Surrey, and we are going to miss him.

The other person is George Zaklan. He still has a farm on 84 Avenue surrounded by 132 Street on one side. He has been there, he and Evelyn, his wife…. He is a regular visitor to my office — always gives advice, always full of encouragement. That’s another person that I learn a lot from. This is the story of Surrey-Newton that we talked about.

[1455]

[ Page 9808 ]

In addition to those names that I mentioned, if you go to 72 Avenue just off of King George, you will find the Old Surrey Restaurant. This was established in 1975 by Valentine Aguirre, and it’s still there. When I looked at the old pictures of the Old Surrey Restaurant, there was nothing around it. The gas station on the corner of 72 and King George was still there, but then there was this house. It’s an old house, and they turned it into a restaurant. It’s very, very popular.

Valentine has retired, and his younger son, Philip Aguirre, is now executive director of the Newton Business Improvement Association, doing one heck of a job. From turning 137 Street into art and entertainment to…. Just the other day, I walked through the basement parking of Save-on-Foods. How could you forget that name? In there, he turned it into…. You know, invite all the kids and the parents for Halloween. There was a choo-choo train, there was a theatre, and people could come in and pick up their pumpkins.

The guy is doing just a fantastic job. He’s turning Newton into what Newton could be, what it should be, despite all the negatives that we hear on a daily basis. Those are some legitimate concerns, no doubt, so we need to support Philip. He’s another person that comes to mind making Newton into one of the best places to live.

Jude Hannah, Naida Robinson, Liz Walker, Doug Elford — these are the people that are watching our backs on a daily basis. These are the people that draw the attention of authorities. These are the people that work hard, tirelessly, to turn Surrey-Newton into a safe, friendly place to live and raise our families. I want to thank them as well.

Then we have PICS. It’s also a mainstay of Surrey-Newton. That’s Charan Gill, who started with only two or three volunteers, and today he has such an organization to help not only the new immigrants; people with any issues can go to the PICS office and get help. Also, he’s got a seniors centre, which is culturally sensitive and culturally adequate, to look after seniors who cannot look after themselves at their homes, so they are there. I think they’re really thankful for Charan to be there.

These are some of the key people in my constituency. Although the boundaries will put them inside or outside but keep on shifting…. But Surrey-Newton is a lot larger than the Surrey-Newton constituency that has been drawn up. And, of course, how could you forget — anybody in this House — Penny Priddy, who was the MLA and minister here in this House representing us in Surrey-Newton.

So I think there are some very, very strong, powerful individuals that I draw wisdom from, that I draw inspiration from, and I want to say thank you to them for helping Surrey-Newton.

When you look at what has happened — to that time in 1985 when Surrey-Newton was created for the first time — the population, as I said, was 68,343, which was 163 percent of the provincial average. Even today, when I’m looking at the Surrey-Newton map…. You look at the different constituencies out there, different electoral districts, and there are variations from the allowed 25 percent plus and minus. You see that some are minus 61 percent.

Like I said, there are about nine of them. Stikine is minus 61 percent. Peace River is minus 47 percent. Nechako Lakes is minus 47 percent. Then we have North Coast, 57 or 58 percent. Then you look at Cariboo-Chilcotin, 36 percent; Fraser-Nicola, 35 percent; Nelson-Creston, 30 percent; and Columbia River–Revelstoke, 39 percent.

[1500]

So there are about nine of them, which I could look at, that are way over the 25 percent variation.

When you look at Surrey-Newton even today, and the other Surrey ridings, Surrey-Newton is 58,000, still about 10 percent above the provincial average. When you look at the other Surrey ridings, Surrey-Whalley is 10 percent up; Surrey-Guildford is 9 percent up; Surrey-Cloverdale, 12 percent; Surrey-Fleetwood, 13.9 percent; Surrey–Green Timbers, 10.7 percent; as I already said, Surrey-Newton, 9.8 percent; Surrey-Panorama, 13.7 percent; South Surrey, 8.7 percent; Surrey–White Rock, 10 percent.

When you look at these recent numbers, this is the fastest-growing area of the province, and the population in these districts compared to the provincial average is already higher. Can you imagine what would happen in eight years?

I think the concern of under-representation — if anybody has that concern, I think Surrey has a very legitimate concern. Surrey-Newton going back to, as I said, 1985: 163 percent above the provincial average; even today, 10 percent with the new boundaries.

These are some of the things that we should worry about. The consequences as a result of under-representation I have listed: lack of transportation, lack of public schools, lack of post-secondary education, lack of health care services, lack of resources for crime. All those are a result, when you go back to 1985, of under-representation. I think you could pin that on under-representation, so I think we must be very, very careful when we are looking at these boundaries — what kind of representation.

My time has run out, and I’m glad to support this motion.

M. Karagianis: I’m quite happy to take my place in the discussion today on the Electoral Boundaries Commission final report and recommendations. First, I would like to…. It’s been interesting listening to members from both sides of the House talk, because it does seem that there is a general consensus around this report and an agreement that this is, in fact, the right thing to do at this stage — adding these two new seats and the configuration in which they were added.

[ Page 9809 ]

These kinds of boundary redistribution changes are always quite controversial, so I’d like to extend a big thanks to the Boundaries Commission for their work. They’ve had to travel around the province. They’ve had to discuss with various communities how boundaries might shift, what the future of those communities might look like years down the road.

They’ve often had to make some decisions about which communities now get shifted in or out of a boundary, places where they have traditionally had ties. I know that on the north Island that’s happened. There was a lot of discussion about whether the boundaries should be shifted one way or the other to include communities. At the end of the day, the commission has to make a decision, and so it’s right that we are having an opportunity here to offer our thanks to them, because it’s a hard job.

Now, this will be the third boundary redistribution that I’ve had any kind of direct involvement with, in my constituency in particular. I’d like to just speak a little bit to that and to my gratitude to my community, to those who went before me and just the history, I guess, of Esquimalt.

Now, in every iteration of this constituency, Esquimalt, the name Esquimalt has stayed intact, which I think is very important. It has extraordinary historic roots, and so it’s good. That has helped define the areas around that.

Historically, though, the community, of course, was extremely large. It was originally called Esquimalt–Juan de Fuca, and it stretched from the current Esquimalt border, which is just across the Blue Bridge, all the way out to Port Renfrew and beyond. It was a very large constituency and, of course, in the days when MLAs had far fewer resources than they have now.

They would have to undertake ways in which to represent their community, to travel around their community, to make sure that they were staying in touch with the communities in a large area like that, from Esquimalt out to Port Renfrew, with very few resources.

[1505]

I remember talking to the MLA — who was a long-standing MLA — during those days, Frank Mitchell. His family are very close friends of mine. Frank remains, to this day, a dear friend, he and his wife, Kay. Frank talks about the early days of when he was an MLA, when there wasn’t any allocated funding. There wasn’t an office. He had been a policeman and got elected as the MLA from Esquimalt–Juan de Fuca and undertook, at his own expense and his own desire to be a super effective MLA, to put together mobile opportunities to get out to his community and for his community to get to him.

Really, the whole role of the MLA evolved significantly in those years, and Frank was a real true grassroots representative. As things changed and there was allocation of funds for offices and things like that, Frank kind of grew with that kind of anchored representation in his community, always highly respected and just did a really terrific job. Frank is in his 80s now, lives out in Sooke and still remains, for me, someone that I love to spend time with. I love to hear the stories of what it was like to be an MLA in those days and how things have really significantly changed, certainly for the better.

Certainly, our methods now of representing our communities are much better and not so reliant on the individuals themselves to take it upon themselves to create those opportunities for outreach and to stay connected. So Frank worked really hard, was out of pocket a lot in those days. And it went from a very modest job to what we see now in the Legislature, which is…. Constituency offices and the way we run our constituency offices, the way we are represented and the resources we get to fairly represent our community are a great improvement for our constituents.

Now, the original Esquimalt–Juan de Fuca — which was, as I have described, a very large constituency — was broken up in the 1990s and became two constituencies. At that point, we saw the first kind of iteration that began to pull in the boundaries a little bit closer into this urban area. The Juan de Fuca riding kept all of that territory in Sooke and out towards Port Renfrew and, over various iterations, included some parts of the Malahat and didn’t include some parts of the Malahat. But certainly for the original genesis of Esquimalt–Juan de Fuca….

It then became Esquimalt-Metchosin over time. Now, everyone in this House of course will know that one of the most notorious MLAs to represent that community — highly effective, still highly effective to this day — was Moe Sihota. I first got involved in the constituency, very directly, when Moe was the MLA. It was during one of those boundary redistributions that I began to really recognize and identify the various corners of this constituency and the variety of the communities, from one end of the community to the beginning.

Now, when it was first Esquimalt-Metchosin — if my memory serves me correctly — it actually encompassed what we see now, which is Vic West from the Blue Bridge, again, all the way out into the Metchosin area, and split the community of Langford into a couple of pieces.

The Juan de Fuca riding was in those days represented by Rick Kasper, and of course, the Esquimalt-Metchosin riding was represented by Moe Sihota. Now, Moe served in that capacity, did a terrific job — still remembered as being perhaps the best Environment Minister that the province has ever seen.

I noticed on Facebook recently that they’ve done a 100th anniversary of important steps for diverse communities and for representation of ethnic communities. Moe Sihota has popped up as being one of those very specific and memorable individuals because, when he was elected as an MLA, he was the first Indo-Canadian to ever be elected in this country. It’s odd to think of it now. We’ve had many representatives of various ethnicities in and out of this Legislature, but when Moe was first elected — the first Indo-Canadian to break that barrier.

[1510]

[ Page 9810 ]

That in itself was a huge achievement and a little bit of a jewel in the crown of the Esquimalt-Metchosin riding and its various iterations before and after that.

I just talked with Moe the other day at a memorial service, in fact, for Dan Miller’s deceased wife. Now, Dan had, of course, been a member of the NDP government in the 1990s and served for a very short time as Premier of the province. We were having a discussion, reminiscing about those days when people like Moe Sihota really did break barriers and begin to carve kind of a new direction for government.

Since then, of course, we’ve seen more women in the Legislature. We’ve certainly seen more ethnicity — not, I would argue, the balance that we should be seeing. We have to do better and work harder in the future to make sure that all the faces in this place represent the faces of British Columbians.

I believe it’s important for British Columbians to see themselves represented here, to hear their voices in this Legislature. We have a long way to go on that count.

Sadly, the boundaries redistribution doesn’t necessarily get us that kind of outcome, but I think it’s one of the tools that feeds into the end goal of trying to make sure that this Legislature fairly represents everyone in British Columbia — their ethnicity, their community, their socioeconomic situations. All those things have to be at play here in order to make this Legislature work properly and fairly and be a thorough representation of British Columbians.

When I first ran for office, the boundaries had been redistributed just shortly before. The community of Esquimalt-Metchosin lost the Vic West portion of the constituency. Because there had been tremendous growth and continues to be tremendous growth in the Western Communities portion of the constituency, it was deemed that the Vic West portion, which is from the Blue Bridge to the Esquimalt boundary — which is just across the harbour here — would, in fact, go to a downtown Victoria constituency and that the Esquimalt-Metchosin constituency, as I first knew it when I first ran, was put in place.

Now, very interesting that we then move forward to the next boundary redistribution, which was done in 2009. In the course of the Boundaries Commission consideration of this community, the community boundaries were moved again slightly. Esquimalt-Metchosin had, of course, not included Vic West, included all of Esquimalt, all of View Royal, all of Colwood, part of Langford and all of Metchosin. When it was redistributed in 2009, it became Esquimalt–Royal Roads. It included, once again, Vic West. So Vic West had been in the constituency, out of the constituency, back into the constituency.

The boundaries then removed the communities of Langford and Metchosin. The boundaries of Esquimalt–Royal Roads, in the last two electoral cycles, have included four communities: Vic West, Esquimalt, View Royal and Colwood. It was with great fascination that I saw the latest report and immediately — like all of us, because we are very possessive of our communities that we represent and of our constituencies — looked to the map to see what happened with Esquimalt–Royal Roads.

Once more, we see that Esquimalt–Royal Roads is now Esquimalt-Metchosin, which was our name one cycle ago. Vic West is back out of the constituency again. Now we represent Esquimalt, View Royal and Colwood, and Metchosin is back in.

I think it’s kind of humorous in some ways that we have seen the boundaries shift back and forth. Vic West is in; Metchosin is out. Metchosin is in; Vic West is out. As interesting as that might be for those of us who pay really close attention, there is a lot of confusion out there in the voter’s mind.

[1515]

Over the course of the federal election, I had some opportunities to get out on the doorstep, and some people asked me about it. “Oh yeah, you’re the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin.” It was like: “Well, no. I’m actually the Esquimalt–Royal Roads representative right now, but it’s changing back after the next election.”

You’ve got to forgive the voter if they often don’t know which constituency they’re in. Of course, I’ve had a great attachment to Victoria West, but that’s out this time. That goes back to Victoria for another, we would presume, couple of electoral cycles.

In any case, any of the iterations of my particular community…. As I’ve said, Esquimalt has stayed kind of as the heart and core of that. The boundaries have shifted one way or the other. I’d like to talk a little bit about the distinction of those communities.

Vic West, of course, now is going into, if all things pass according to the way we expect them to…. It seems like, by the support for the report, the legislation, when it comes through, is probably going to pass through intact. Vic West now no longer becomes a part of the community. Metchosin is back in, and Colwood in its entirety and View Royal.

Now, it’s very interesting as you travel through. I have four municipalities and have had four municipalities, no matter what the iterations for the last three cycles have been. I previously had the city of Victoria. I’m losing that, but I’m picking up Metchosin, which I know very well from the first iteration of this constituency.

It’s very interesting — the different character of the communities as you move through. I’m sure lots of other MLAs here have multiple municipalities as well, but here in the capital region, we do have 13 crammed into a pretty small, little geographical area. To have four of them is fairly remarkable, because generally you see that number of municipalities in pretty large rural or urban or suburban kinds of communities.

In this particular case, my communities are very distinct. Esquimalt, of course, relates much more closely to

[ Page 9811 ]

the city of Victoria, and then, as you move through the communities, View Royal is kind of the bridging community between Esquimalt and the West Shore. Colwood, which I think is at the heart of the reason why the boundaries have always continually shifted in this particular constituency, has the most growth. It has been targeted for, I would say, 20 years as being one of the cornerstones for growth. The West Shore, the Western Communities and Colwood-Langford and, of course, their little cousins on either end, which are Metchosin and the Highlands….

When I was a municipal leader for the nine years that I was a municipal councillor, I, in fact, worked on the regional growth strategy. We passed that during the years when I was a municipal councillor, and it has always been understood that the growth would go into the West Shore, so Colwood is well situated to have dramatic growth over the next number of years. It will continue to have a significant effect in the coming years, as we go through this process every couple of electoral cycles.

Whatever happens in Colwood will determine, kind of, where these boundaries are and perhaps define, in many ways, the constituencies in the greater Victoria area. All of the development that’s going on out there means that that’s where we’re seeing the pressure and the increase.

It is very interesting, because all the communities, as distinct as they are…. Colwood, certainly — a lot of young and new families are moving in there because there is housing being developed there. Esquimalt is a community that’s very highly developed, wraps itself around the naval base, so there’s a great deal of history there and connection there. View Royal has really fantastic waterscapes on both sides, probably a slightly more affluent community, a little bit more upscale.

Colwood is where young families are moving because of the new schools being built out there, because of the housing that’s available out there. Then, of course, Metchosin is our agricultural heart of the constituency, very much a farming community and very devoted and very protective of its boundaries there and of its rural and farm nature. I understand the community very well, and I think it’s interesting to see the boundaries capture that area again.

Through all of this, all of the communities are tied together by a couple of very specific infrastructures, one being CFB Esquimalt, the naval base. We have a lot of people who work at the naval base, live in Colwood and make that commute every single day. Certainly, there are people commuting to do other things, but there is a large segment of the community traffic that moves back and forth.

[1520]

An employer like CFB Esquimalt and, secondly, of course, the transportation corridors — the infamous Colwood crawl, which takes place in my community every single day — tie all the communities together and give them a commonality. Even if there’s a distinction between the farming community in Metchosin and the very much more urban community of Esquimalt, everyone is linked together by this challenge of transportation.

I have talked in here many times. My good pal and colleague from Juan de Fuca who is the leader of the B.C. NDP and, of course, my other colleague who’s the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, which borders on the other side…. We talk a lot about some solutions that need to be put in place but none more than from Colwood to the CFB Esquimalt. We’re always looking for ways to encourage government to put in that kind of transportation infrastructure. It’s something that I feel quite passionate about.

I’ll try to not get too involved in talking about that here, because it’s easy to go down the route of pushing for commuter rail and other better options — HOV lanes, dedicated bus lanes. There is some slow progress going on in the community over that. The McKenzie exchange — on again, off again. I’m supportive of the McKenzie exchange. It’s got to be done in conjunction with dedicated bus lanes, though, and better transportation options.

Certainly, even with an exchange at McKenzie…. People have to see buses going past them in that gridlock that they’re in every day in order to be motivated to get out and get on the bus and do that. I’m very supportive of that, and I’ve been very public in my support of that. I know my community….

Interjection.

M. Karagianis: I see the Minister of Transportation is excited by that. But it’s the truth.

If you spend any time trying to get back and forth between the western side of my constituency and the downtown portion of my constituency, you will know immediately that we’ve got to make some changes. That is a combination of things, but some commonsense things like dedicated busing and HOV lanes.

Optimally…. People say to me every day: “I’d sure love to take the train.” People who are now being forced to move further and further out of the capital region — for affordability and for lifestyle — move up onto the Malahat and to Shawnigan Lake and those areas. Staff are saying: “Boy, I’d sure love to be able to get on a train and get back and forth and have a better quality of life and not have to deal with that gridlock.” That is one clear connection between all of my community and an issue that I hear about from one end of the community to the other. Everybody is in favour of better options.

I’m not going to discuss here some of the other things that my communities are grappling with, as a whole, because there are other things, needed infrastructure in parts of the community. Certainly, as Colwood grows, there’s going to be more pressure there for more health options. There’s a great group of people in the Colwood community who are looking to have some kind of community health centre in the Royal Bay area, which I

[ Page 9812 ]

think would be fantastic. There are a lot of houses going in and a lot of families moving there, and a brand-new school there. So it will attract more people. I do think that there’ll be lots of discussion in the future around health clinics and other things that are needed out there.

It seems to me that the Boundaries Commission, in doing its work, has been prudent. They have not done anything too dramatic. Will my voters be confused once again? Yeah, I think they will. You know, for those who were just barely catching up to the fact that it’s Esquimalt–Royal Roads, we’re going to have to surprise them again and say: “You know what? No, it’s Esquimalt-Metchosin again.” There are always the raised eyebrows and people saying: “What? It makes no sense.”

I don’t take personal responsibility for that, and I will most certainly be able to point out to my constituents that this was the hard work of the Boundaries Commission that did this.

One of the things that you speculate about a lot here is how we bring more MLAs into this House of government. I know that British Columbia is a very attractive place to live and more people are travelling here. I would hope we’re going to see more growth with the number of refugees we’re hoping to attract here. But there’s always just the natural immigration that occurs here. The province will continue to grow and grow and grow.

I don’t envy the Boundaries Commission in having to determine how you add more seats. Democratically, it always has to be an even number of seats that come in, in order to keep the balance — an odd number of representatives on both sides of the House so that you can vote and so that somebody has a majority.

[1525]

It was interesting to see. They determined that they would be very modest and add two more seats to the entire province.

I did hear some of my colleagues talking about how they are really pushing the upper boundaries of the number of voters in each constituency, while, of course, for many of my colleagues and those on the other side who live in northern and Interior communities where there are large, large constituencies, trying to make sure that everyone in those communities has fair representation is a big challenge.

I have gone and travelled with people like my friend from the North Coast and done some driving around her community. We drove the Highway of Tears just over a year ago, and you realize what a vast community she has to deal with, what a vast constituency she and many other members of this House….

How do you always make sure that those people in those far-flung areas — in some in of the remote areas like Haida Gwaii and Bella Coola and Bella Bella — get fair representation the same way as my constituents, of course, who can see me every single day? I can walk my dogs out in the local parks, and my constituents can stop me and talk to me about their concerns, which they do every time I step out the door.

That’s harder for those MLAs who live in much larger communities. How do they stay that connected?

For me, I can go out to the farmers market in Metchosin, which will be the new part of this, and see what’s going on in my community. I’ve known the mayor up there for many, many years and worked with him — the same as my connection with what currently exists as my constituency of Esquimalt–Royal Roads. I can pick up the phone and go see the mayor and councillors. I can go into my community and stop and knock on doors or go to farmers markets or local events and stay in touch. That is harder to do when you have hundreds and hundreds of miles to travel.

So I don’t think it’s any mean feat to go and try and determine how you keep fair representation and yet not overthink the number of seats that we have here.

We saw in the last redistribution that we now have this little snaky shape in the House here in order to accommodate the new seats that were added in the last redistribution. I think it’s fair to say we can probably put a couple more seats in here and not compromise ourselves too far.

But it’s not going to be too many years down the road when we are going to have to say: “How does this building physically function if we continue to add more seats and more representatives and make sure that British Columbians have access to their politicians? And at the same time, how do you make this place work?”

We do know that it is the face-to-face in here that is very effective. So I can’t see how you would add more seats and have them in another part of the building, or out in the hallway or something, and still have that immediacy and that connection to what goes on here. I do think everything that happens here is very important.

Hopefully, we’ll have some time. I know that this legislation and things were anticipated to not come through till 2016, so it’s interesting to me that it came forward early. I think it’s a good thing. I don’t think it’s a bad idea at all because I think communities once again need to try and come to grips with and get around the idea that their constituency is something different, that the boundaries may have affected where they voted and who they voted for and how they voted in the last election.

Federally, we’ve just gone through the same exercise here. I know that our federal constituency changed. There was an attempt, I think, to look at our federal seat and drop the name “Esquimalt” because, of course, the new federal seat stretches from Sooke all the way to a good part of Saanich. But I know that the sitting MP — both then and he’s been re-elected now — argued very clearly for the fact that Esquimalt has always been a significant heartland to the constituency. Whether it’s federal of whether it’s provincial, that historic township has created the heart of this particular constituency, so it remained both federally and, I’m happy to say, provincially as well.

[ Page 9813 ]

The confusion of the voters notwithstanding, it’ll be the job of those of us who go out into our communities to begin to say: “Well, your constituency, your particular community, is now going to be in a different constituency. Here’s the demarcation line. If you’re on this side of the road or that side of the road, you will or won’t be voting for this particular constituency, the representative for Esquimalt-Metchosin.”

[1530]

The sad part of this, if I can talk about a personal point, is that my son and daughter-in-law and two of my grandkids live right on the border between Esquimalt and Vic West, and sadly, they are now going to Vic West. They’re going into a different constituency than mine. For the last two election cycles, they’ve been able to vote for their mom, and that’s not going to happen in the future, so that’s a bit sad. But maybe they’ll move to the West Shore, where there’s a lot of housing being built.

Before my time expires here, I do want to touch on a couple of things. The commission made a couple of further recommendations beyond what we’ve all talked about, our sort of possessive nature. I know every one of us has called it “my constituency.” It’s not. It’s “the constituency.” It belongs to me only in a certain context for a certain period of time.

The Boundaries Commission has made two recommendations: one, to allow Elections B.C. to permanently take over the administrative support for future commissions. I think that’s a very good idea. I haven’t really heard too many people speak specifically to that. Maybe I missed those particular remarks in the House when that was happening, but I am very supportive of that.

The second was that the Legislative Assembly assess whether the increasing discrepancies in representation by population have been sufficiently addressed by the government’s May 2014 legislation freezing the number of electoral districts in slow-growing regions.

It was a controversial issue at the time, and I do think that that particular recommendation does need good, thorough debate in here, because that will continue to be the pressure. It is federally. It will continue to be the pressure here.

It rears its head every single time we look at boundary redistribution, and I think we should have a good, thorough discussion on that here and bring the various views from communities in the north, from these huge, vast constituencies, and from the smaller constituencies in the Lower Mainland, where you can walk them in a few hours. You can walk from one end to the other to the other.

I think this is a really relevant discussion, and so I’m really pleased to see that the commission has put that forward as a recommendation. Now, I will be looking through Hansard again just to see how and if many of the members here in the House commented on that. But I do support both of those things and the report as it stands.

Hon. J. Rustad: It’s a tremendous honour to be able to stand today and to speak on behalf of my constituents of Nechako Lakes. We’re talking about democracy, we’re talking about representation, and it’s great to hear so many members of the House stand and support this report and its recommendations. Motion 26, of course, is the vehicle used in terms of bringing the report from the Electoral Boundaries Commission to this House to talk about those boundaries and where this process will go for the next election and the election beyond.

The reason why I’m saying that this is really about democracy is that when I think about my riding…. It’s a very rural riding. It’s about 2.2 times the size of Vancouver Island. From grassy plains to Manson Creek to Tachie Reserve to the larger communities and the place where I live at Cluculz Lake, it’s very, very spread out.

It’s a riding that’s full of great people that want to get on with life and want to be able to do things but also want representation, want the opportunity to make sure that they have as effective representation as they can, which is what, of course, all of us here in this House try to do — present those views and those perspectives from your riding as we debate all kinds of things in the Legislature.

I’m very pleased to see that the report has come forward. My riding of Nechako Lakes and the riding I represented, Nechako Lakes, doesn’t have any changes in it. It stays static. I think that’s a good thing for my riding. I think it’s good in terms of the character of my riding. It’s a very rural riding, spread out to lots of small communities.

I think it’s interesting, as we take this road to democracy that would go through here in terms of how we ultimately determine the number of ridings that are in the province and the location and these types of things through an independent process, which I think is critical. It’s important to think about how we got to this point, because as the Electoral Boundaries Commission goes forward to do its work with regards to the ridings, of course there is a piece of legislation that’s required to kick it off, to get the process started.

[1535]

What I find interesting as we go through and we have this discussion in the Legislature here…. I want to perhaps take a little bit of a journey back a year and a half to the starting point of this legislation that kicked off this process that I’m hearing seems to be unanimously supported around the House.

Back in that day, for example, the member for Nelson-Creston said — this is from February 25 from Hansard — “There is no way that anybody who believes in democracy should support this legislation. I will absolutely not be supporting it.”

As we go forward and talk about how this process came about, it’s important to understand that there was a very good and wholesome debate around this. The member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads, who just spoke before me, just talked about the recommendations that came

[ Page 9814 ]

forward and said that a good and thorough discussion on rural ridings, on this issue, was required, and she was pleased to see the recommendations come forward around this because it was good to have this discussion.

We had this discussion. That’s what led to the Electoral Boundaries Commission being started off and going down this road. It’s led to how we ultimately decided to try to preserve the number of ridings that we had in three areas of the province that were very unique in their characteristics and how we also gave the Electoral Boundaries Commission the opportunity to consider adding two ridings, to make sure that the rest of the province was in balance in terms of the number of population that each riding had within it.

Through that debate…. This is why I want to go back and have a little look at this. This goes back to Bill 2, which was entitled the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, 2014, which was debated in the spring session of 2014. The member for Nelson-Creston said: “So the very problems of this bill go to the core of our democracy. It is shameful that that’s where things are at, that the governing party of the day has gone to these types of lengths to gerrymander electoral boundaries for its own political gain, and they say it’s about rural representation.” That, once again, was from February 25 of 2014.

I’m wondering. I’m glad to see that the members opposite seem to have come to this understanding that the process that we kicked off was right. It’s good to see. I’m glad to see the support that we seem to be having across this.

I know the member for Kootenay West is about to have an opportunity to speak following me. Once again, from that debate on February 25, she said: “How can the commission do its work when it is given legislated direction as to how they should carry out their work…?” I continue the quote: “…directions that I would see as extremely risky for a number of reasons.” Once again, that was from the member for Kootenay West in the debate that we had back in February with regard to this.

As I look forward and I think about rural representation and how the struggle is to continue to make sure we have effective representation for these rural ridings, I’m brought to mind of what the member for Skeena has said. I know the member for Skeena had an opportunity already to speak to this bill and stood up in support and talked about the challenges of rural representation.

Once again, from Hansard back in February 25 of 2014, the member for Skeena said: “I think, in speaking with British Columbians in general, there’s an understanding that the solution to these demographic shifts is not to bring in more members of the Legislature, that there are sufficient members in here right now to adequately represent the increase in population since the last time the commission stood. I don’t think there’s any need to do that.”

The member also went on further to say: “I honestly believe that what we should do is set this aside, allow the commission to do their work, and then, quite frankly, if they come out with any kind of suggestion that people think is fundamentally unfair, citizens will get up and speak, and we can get on with it.”

What the member seemed to be suggesting, and the members before, is that they didn’t seem to have an issue with the fact that there may be a loss of representation in rural B.C. They were against the idea of protecting and preserving those important ridings and trying to find that balance between geography and population.

The member for Stikine, in the member for Stikine’s debate in the House, once again from February 25 in Hansard , said: “Right now we have, justifiably, the genuine effort to get to effective representation. Unfortunately, it’s gone beyond what seems fair, and that taints the entire process.”

[1540]

As we go through this and have come to the road as to where we are, I’m very happy to see that we are supporting this, because it’s important. The work that the Electoral Boundaries Commission did was independent. It came forward with good recommendations, I think, that all members of the House will be able to stand up with.

It’s unfortunate, however, that the starting point, which was kicked off Tuesday, May 6, 2014, with a vote on the rules, the guidance that was given to the Electoral Boundaries Commission…. That vote was on division, with 42 yeas and 33 nays, which included all of the opposition in their perspective of not wanting to see the Electoral Boundaries Commission go through with the good work and recommendations that have seemed to have praise all through the House.

With that, I’d like to say that, once again, it’s an honour to represent the people of Nechako Lakes. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head said that in his constituency, he didn’t have a single constituent that came up to him. I can tell you this: in my riding, the last time we had an electoral boundary commission and there was talk about losing representation from northern B.C., it was the only thing that people came and talked to me about for months because it’s critical for the people, particularly in rural communities.

That’s what’s most important here. What we have done is recognize the will and the need for rural communities to continue to be able to have good and effective representation. So I’m happy that we, on this side of the House, supported this motion to get it going, and I’m very happy to see that the members opposite have also decided that the work that the commission has done was good work and that we have a good place to go forward with in the next election and the election after that.

With that, I just want to once again thank the members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the work they did, for the efficiency that they did in it, doing it under budget. It’s the type of thing that we like to be able to see as we go through this process. I know that many people that have had a concern about it have said

[ Page 9815 ]

that they’re happy with the results — from my riding, and I think that can be heard from many other ridings. So I want to thank them for the work, and I very much look forward to getting on with implementing the new riding boundaries.

K. Conroy: I, too, am pleased to speak to this motion: “Be it resolved that in accordance with

section 14 of the Electoral Boundaries Commission…the proposals contained in the Final Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission tabled in the Legislative Assembly on September 28, 2015 be approved.”

I’ve been really pleased to sit in the House and listen for the last few days to everybody speaking and everybody working together and collaborating and actually all agreeing that this report is a good thing. It was somewhat distressing to hear the former speaker want to raise issues of division when everybody else has been working together collaboratively and talking about the good things that this proposal is bringing forward, the good things that this report is bringing forward.

I’m really happy that the majority of people in this House have seen that we can see fit to agree on something. That’s a good thing, when we as legislatures can do that.

Constituents are always asking me, whenever boundary divisions come up again…. They always say: “Why are they messing with the boundaries again?” So I thought this would be a good opportunity. Three times since I’ve been elected, the boundaries have been messed with, as people say in my constituency. I thought it would be a good opportunity to explain why this actually happens, what the process is.

It’s actually under the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act that a B.C. electoral boundaries commission must be appointed within one year of general voting day after every second provincial general election. As the last general voting day for 2013 was May 14, 2013, and it being the second provincial general election, a commission was appointed on May 9, 2014, and created the Melnick Commission. It’s always been a habit, a priority of the commissions to be named after the chairs of the various commissions. Justice Thomas Melnick was the chair and is the chair of this commission that developed this report.

There are three commissioners in total. It’s interesting, when you look through their bios.

[1545]

Justice Melnick was called to the bar of British Columbia in 1968, and he practised in the Kootenays and in Vancouver. In 1987, he was called to the bench as a county court judge in the Kootenay region. I’ve talked to some of my lawyer friends who remember him when he was called to the bench and the work he did in our area. In 1990, he was appointed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. So Justice Melnick has a good understanding, because he’s practised in both Vancouver and in rural B.C., of what we’re facing with this redistribution.

Beverley Busson was the former commissioner with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. She joined the RCMP in ’74 — one of its first female members, which I think is commendable. She served in a variety of front-line operational positions, but then she moved into other positions.

She also holds a law degree from the University of British Columbia, and she’s done numerous things within the Organized Crime Agency of B.C. She was actually the Commanding Officer of British Columbia for the RCMP in 2000 and has many things that she’s done in her years of service to this province. She was invested as Commander of Order of Merit of the Police Forces and received the Order of British Columbia. She was the first woman appointed as commissioner of the force, and she retired in 2007. I think that’s another commendable resumé for someone to sit on this.

Then there’s Dr. Keith Archer, the Chief Electoral Officer for the province of British Columbia. He became our officer in September of 2011. He brought over 30 years of experience in electoral administration, research and education. That’s considerable experience, I would say, to bring to this position. He’s also written a number of books and articles, so obviously very passionate about elections and democracy.

Obviously, you can see why I think it’s obvious that these three commissioners are very well qualified to undertake this process — and a somewhat daunting task it can be, as the history of boundary redistributions have been somewhat controversial. I think this time, though, the commission has done a good job of ensuring proper representation throughout the province without any gerrymandering, as the province has experienced in the past. I think Gracie’s finger comes to mind as the most famous one. I know a number of my colleagues have spoken to that, so I’m not going to go there, because I think it’s been well covered.

For one reason or another, I’ve been involved in electoral boundary redistribution for about 30 years, and I’ve always been impressed with the time and energy that people like the commissioners put into the process. This commission was no different. I just want to thank them for their commitment and their balanced process and getting out across the province, meeting with people, not only going to different constituencies and holding meetings, also having on-line presentations.

It was interesting. When they first put out their first initial report, they came into the Kootenays, and they said that in the West Kootenays they had one person come to the meeting. I said to them: “Well, that was because everybody’s happy with what you’ve done, because you haven’t changed our boundaries in any way, shape or form.” I said that people felt happy about it, so I said: “You should feel glad that that’s how many people showed up.”

The mandate of the commission is to review the area of boundaries and names of the constituencies in B.C. It must be based on the principle of representation by population, a method of using population as a primary

[ Page 9816 ]

factor in determining electoral districts with relative equal population in each district, taking into consideration the geographical and demographic realities. In order to achieve this principle, the commission is permitted to deviate from the provincial electoral quotient — that being the provincial population divided by the number of current electoral districts.

A lot of people have said to me that sounds like a lot of electoral mumbo-jumbo, so let’s put that proposal being presented into numbers.

The electoral quotient of the province’s 87 districts is based on the average of a population of 53,119. The commission can also propose population deviations exceeding plus or minus 25 percent above or below the electoral quotient, which means a maximum of 66,399 people in one district to a minimum of 39,839 in another district.

[1550]

Of the 87 seats being proposed by the report, 66 are within 15 percent of the average. There are only ten that are actually under 25, and none are over the 25 percent. Of those ten that are under the 25, all are in rural B.C., and they range with a deviation of minus 61.2 percent in Stikine to minus 30.5 percent in Nelson-Creston.

The commissioners’ job was made clearer — or perhaps some people might have said it may have even been constrained — by legislation that was brought in last year to allow a larger deviation in the ten areas that I referred to. The Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act was actually an amendment to the Electoral Boundaries Act. It was brought in in 2014. It amended the actual act to say that of the three regions of the province — the Cariboo-Thompson region, the Columbia-Kootenay region and the North region — 17 constituencies within the regions had to stay intact, that those three regions continue with exactly the same number of seats, the existing status quo.

The names could change. There could be some shifts of boundaries within the districts, but there could not be less seats. Now, this could cause people to say: how is this fair? When you look at some areas in the province where the population is growing, they’re fairly compact constituencies geographically, but they’re growing substantially in numbers as far as their population goes. How can this in fact be actual fair representation by population?

I respect the needs of the urban colleagues here in the House and the very large populations of constituents that they have to serve and the many issues that come of those large constituencies, but I also think that the House recognizes the challenges of serving constituents in large rural communities.

I want to talk a bit about my constituency and the issues we face, as a rural MLA, in trying to serve my constituents. Kootenay West has an area of 12,009 square kilometres to travel, with a population of 41,302.

We’re not the biggest geographic area of the 17 rural seats that are part of the 17 seats that can’t be messed with, but we’re up there in population. There are only five that have larger populations, and those are all what I would actually consider urban communities — the three Prince George areas and Kamloops, cities that are actually big cities compared to the cities in my constituency.

Because of the geography of the area of Kootenay West, it can take me anywhere from seven to eight hours to drive from one end to the other, and that’s depending on whether I catch the ferry at the one end and if there were really minimal stops. In order to ensure we serve the entire area, it means day trips into part of the constituency, with the occasional overnight ones as well.

I, myself, am fortunate to live in the sticks, I like to say. It actually only takes me 15 minutes to drive to my office, depending on road conditions. Sometimes it’s worse in the winter, or longer. It would take me at least an hour to walk. There isn’t a bus from my area of the constituency into town. Public transit is getting better in the region, and that’s thanks to the persistence of local municipalities and advocates in the area. Still, most of us in rural B.C. need our vehicles to get around.

In fact, just some interesting stats that I don’t think urban MLAs have to deal with. Last year…. I have my latest car. I think it’s the third car I’ve had since I’ve been elected. I will have had that car for one year on October 31, on Friday, and I have almost 40,000 kilometres on it. The majority of those kilometres are work-related, getting around the constituency, getting down to the coast, to Victoria.

I had four cracks in the windshield this year. I’m glad the Minister of Transportation can hear what I’m saying, because sometimes those…. It’s all road-related, travelling down the highway. I finally replaced that windshield this summer. I think I’ve replaced about eight windshields in my car since I’ve been elected. Not too many urban folks have to deal with things like road conditions on a daily basis, like snow, ice, rocks hitting windshields, or deer, moose, elk or other interesting obstacles on the road.

[1555]

One year when I was driving to Victoria — I got away late; it was December — I actually hit a Christmas tree right outside of the community of Hedley. It seems someone forgot to tie down their Christmas tree that they were taking home for Christmas. They got home and had no tree in their truck. But it hit the front of my car, and I didn’t realize what it was until I pulled over for gas and saw bits of tree sticking out of my car. I actually made it to Vancouver that night with bits of Christmas tree hanging out of my car.

I was always incredibly thankful to the wonderful staff at the Hotel Vancouver who duct-taped my bumper back together for me and allowed me to get back home to Castlegar a few days later to get my bumper fixed. They actually asked me if I saw Santa at the same time as I was hitting the Christmas tree.

That’s the kind of thing that, in rural B.C., many of us…. Although I don’t know if any other MLAs have hit

[ Page 9817 ]

Christmas trees, those are some of the wonderful experiences we have in our extremely large constituencies that I don’t think any of us that represent rural B.C. would give up, as much as I appreciate coming to the city, to come and live in the city. We love our constituencies. We love the geography in our areas. Even though it’s a challenge, it’s something that we have grown used to and accept, as it’s part of doing the job. We have beautiful geography, too, but I’m not going to go there.

One of the other challenges that larger rural constituencies have that urban constituencies don’t have is the number of communities we actually meet with. In larger urban communities, municipalities, cities, they might have four or five, sometimes ten…. How many MLAs does the city of Vancouver get to deal with? I think it’s 12 now or something.

Whereas for MLAs in our rural constituencies, we have numerous municipalities that we have the pleasure to work with.

For instance, I have nine municipalities in my constituency. I want to name the main municipalities and just acknowledge the people that are elected to work in those communities and that work closely with me in the constituency of Kootenay West. I think I talked to most of them about the boundary changes, and they were happy that they were staying the same.

In Trail, we have Mayor Martin and six councillors: Cacchioni, Dobie, Gattafoni Robinson, Jolly, Pasin and Santori. Some of you might remember Santori. He’s back on the council in Trail.

In Rossland, we have Mayor Kathy Moore and six councillors: Crosbey, Kruysse, Zwicker, Morel, Greene and McLellan.

In the city of Castlegar, we have Mayor Lawrence Chernoff as well as six councillors: Rye, McIntosh, Vassilakakis, Tassone, Heaton-Sherstobitoff and another Chernoff — no relation.

Then I have six villages. In Warfield, we have Mayor Ted Pahl and four councillors: Ferraro, Langman, Milne and Rakuson.

In Montrose, we have Mayor Joe Danchuk and councillors Cook, Gay, Reid and Steep.

In Fruitvale, we have Mayor Patricia Cecchini, and they have four councillors: Ellison, Kniss, Morissette and Webber.

In Slocan, Mayor Jessica Lunn and councillors Perriere, Patterson, Van Bynen and Pelletier.

In Silverton, Mayor Clarke with councillors Bell, Christian, Main and Yofonoff.

In Nakusp, we have Mayor Hamling with councillors Heppner, Mueller, Tobey and Zeleznik.

In New Denver, Mayor Ann Bunka with councillors Fox, Hodsall, Raynolds and von Krogh.

I also have three regional districts that I work with, including seven different trustees. In the regional district of Central Kootenay, we have directors Peterson, Popoff, Smith and Davidoff. In the regional district of Kootenay-Boundary, we have dir