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)

Monday, October 26, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 30, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Ministerial Statements

Community response to boat accident in Tofino

Hon. N. Yamamoto

S. Fraser

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Vineglass winery cancer fundraisers

L. Larson

Tri-City

chapter of Valley Women’s Network

S. Robinson

Cybersecurity and protection of data

J. Martin

100 th anniversary of University of British Columbia

D. Eby

Palliative care fundraising walk by Ian Bos

G. Kyllo

Drop Everything and Read event

R. Fleming

Oral Questions

Government record-keeping and freedom of information

J. Horgan

Hon. A. Virk

D. Routley

G. Heyman

Hon. T. Stone

Highway 16 bus service implementation and government consultation records

C. Trevena

Hon. T. Stone

Environmental impact statement on Deltaport expansion

V. Huntington

Hon. M. Polak

Deaths of mother and son in Prince Rupert and inquest recommendations on transit services

J. Rice

Hon. S. Cadieux

Tabling Documents

B.C. Ferries Commissioner, annual report, fiscal year ending March 31, 2015

Petitions

K. Conroy

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 26 — Electoral Boundaries Commission report proposals (continued)

L. Krog

D. Ashton

R. Fleming

D. McRae

S. Chandra Herbert

D. Bing

C. Trevena

Hon. S. Anton

B. Routley

R. Sultan

R. Austin

D. Barnett

Personal Statement

Clarification of comments made in the House

Hon. T. Stone

[ Page 9735 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2015

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Ministerial Statements

COMMUNITY RESPONSE

TO BOAT ACCIDENT IN TOFINO

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I stand today feeling heavy-hearted for both the families of the lost and those that survived the terrible tragedy off the coast of Tofino. The waters of our rugged coast were cruel in their taking of five British nationals who were exploring our province’s raw beauty and rare glimpses of nature before the sinking of the whale-watching vessel.

[1335]

I share with all members of the House today our sadness for the people involved, for the lost and the surviving, for both passengers and crew. We recognize the heartbreak for the families and friends whose loved ones won’t return, and we recognize the trauma of those who witnessed yet survived the ordeal.

I extend our gratitude for the quick and selfless actions of the Ahousat First Nation as well as all rescue and response personnel who responded with help in order to prevent greater tragedy. Their incredible efforts saved lives, and for that we are all grateful.

I want to also acknowledge the people of Tofino, a small community but with a big heart, that came together to show compassion and care. They opened their homes and opened their hearts to victims. They brought food, and they brought blankets. They said prayers and offered unconditional support.

I ask the House today to join me in expressing our deeply felt condolences, on behalf of all British Columbians, for those in their grief today.

S. Fraser: As we all know now, yesterday afternoon a 20-foot whale-watching vessel sank off of Vargas Island, near Tofino. There were 27 people on board. Five have been confirmed dead. One is still missing.

I know I speak for all of us in this Legislative Assembly in offering our sincere condolences to the families, friends and loved ones of those victims. Our collective hearts go out to them.

It is yet to be determined the cause of the accident, what went wrong. That will unfold in the days and the weeks to come. But I want to acknowledge the people of the district of Tofino. They rallied. Everyone who was on the water or could be on the water was on the water to help.

I also want to acknowledge the Coast Guard, search and rescue, Tofino emergency services personnel and the staff of the Tofino Hospital for being there and doing so much.

As well, I’d like to thank those from Ahousat and Opitsat, right across from Tofino, Nuu-chah-nulth communities, who were there to help — who are always there to help.

The town is reeling, including all of those in the whale-watching fraternity. It’s a close-knit group. Their hurt reflects the pain of the loss of the families and the friends of those who lost their lives or are fighting to recover.

I spoke with Mayor Josie Osborne again this morning, and she informed me that there will be a community meeting to help people come to grips with this tragedy. It’ll be held at the community centre, the community hall in Tofino, at five o’clock.

Introductions by Members

R. Austin: It’s my pleasure to welcome to British Columbia and to our House a visiting delegation from the Parliament of Kenya — Sen. Wilfred Machage, MP, the Chair of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Broadcast and Library of the Parliament of Kenya. He’s visiting us here because he’s interested in learning about the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings and the structures and systems in place to improve performance as well as public participation in parliament.

Joining him in the gallery are two people: firstly, a diplomat, Mr. Edwin Afande, who is a counsellor with the high commission of Kenya — stationed, of course, in Ottawa — as well as Mr. Donald Schneider, a facilitator.

The delegation met with Madame Speaker and members as well as staff of Hansard broadcasting services. They’ll continue their meetings this afternoon and tomorrow with staff from the information and technology branch and the parliamentary education office.

I would ask that all members of the House join me in giving them a very warm British Columbia welcome.

Hon. A. Virk: Joining us in the members’ gallery this afternoon are special guests from the Solomon Islands. The Hon. Rollen Seleso, Deputy Premier of Guadalcanal Province, is accompanied by Mr. Anthony Veke, member of the Legislative Assembly of Guadalcanal Province; Mr. Ashwant Dwivedi, honorary consul general for the Solomon Islands; and Mr. Leni Delavera, news director for the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation.

The Deputy Premier and his entourage are here to strengthen trade ties and educational ties with British Columbia. I will meet with the Deputy Premier and the members of the Legislative Assembly later today.

I would ask this House to please extend a warm welcome to the Deputy Premier and his team.

[1340]

[ Page 9736 ]

H. Bains: In the gallery — I think they’re all there. I met with them. I think they are slowly making their way up to the gallery. Two of the, I would say, world-renowned Punjabi writers are here to claim…. They are the winners of the Dhahan Punjabi literary award. The first one is Darshan Singh, along with his wife, Tarlochan Kaur.

Another one, from Pakistan, is Nain Sukh. He’s also a renowned writer, and he also won the Dhahan Punjabi literary award. Along with them are my good friend, Raghbir Singh, who is also a Punjabi professor and writer himself, and Sadhu Binning, who taught Punjabi language at UBC. He’s retired now. He brought them here. Please help me give them a warm welcome.

Hon. M. Bernier: One of the industries that’s really important in my riding is wind energy. I have three active wind farms right now in my riding, with another one being constructed as we speak.

In the House today, I have the privilege of introducing some friends of mine. First, from ENERCON Canada, we have Catherine Sauriol, Karine Asselin, Nicolas Bourbonniere and Michael Weidemann. From Boralex, we have Alistair Howard and Hugues Giradin. Also, we have the proponent from Blue Fuel, which is a project that’s looking at being constructed just between Chetwynd and Dawson Creek. With us from Blue Fuel we have Juergen Puetter. Will the House please make all of them very welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m pleased to introduce to this House three people who are probably not strangers to mayors, councillors, labour leaders, business leaders. They really seem to have become veteran activists. I speak of Rupert and Franny Yakelashek, who are eleven years old and eight years old, respectively, advocating for the right to clean, healthy air, water and land and doing so with passion, with smarts and wisdom much beyond their years — and of course, with their able assistant, the very wonderful Skye Ladell. Please make them very welcome, meet with them, encourage them and, hopefully, learn from them.

Hon. T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome two individuals to the House today — first off, a good friend and constituent from Kamloops–South Thompson, Ken McClelland. He is here as the president of the B.C. Off-Road Motorcycle Association.

He has been a strong and ardent supporter of the Off-Road Vehicle Coalition across British Columbia and has been involved in working with this government and other organizations that, really, led to today’s event on the front steps of the Legislature, where off-road-vehicle regulations were discussed, all in an effort to promote awareness of the fact that the Off-Road Vehicle Act will come into force on November 1. I’d ask that the House please make Ken McClelland welcome here today.

The second individual is a good friend of mine, a gentleman who I went to university with here in Victoria a few years ago. He actually remained here in Victoria — a very successful practice in a wide range of public engagement, public consulting. I’d ask the House to please make Ross Porter welcome here today as well.

J. Rice: I have five guests in the gallery this afternoon. Michael Smith is originally from the east coast and has recently moved to Prince Rupert from Terrace, B.C., to expand his business as an insurance adjuster. With the frequent adverse weather we experience in Prince Rupert, I am sure that we have enough flying shingles and leaky roofs to see his business prosper, and I wish him well.

I’d like to introduce Faith Bodnar and Danielle Kelliher from Inclusion B.C. Inclusion B.C. held a conference today in Victoria, announcing a plan for regional advocate positions to help families supporting those with developmental disabilities and special needs.

[1345]

I’d also like to introduce Kim Heddon from Nelson, a mother of an adult child with developmental disabilities. Kim spoke passionately today and reminded us that without respite and supports in place for families such as hers, things, the basics that we take for granted in this House, such as a night out, a date with our spouse or even caring for our own health, are not an option when you provide 24-7 care for another person.

Cyndie Richdale is here from the Victoria area, who also shared her experience and challenges with accessing services.

Lastly, I’d like to introduce Michelle Watson. Michelle is the sister of Angie Robinson and the aunt of Robbie Robinson, who were lost to a tragic murder-suicide on World Autism Day, in Prince Rupert. Michelle is very grateful that a coroner’s inquest was recently conducted, but she eagerly awaits measurable, tangible results from the recommendations coming from the inquest. Michelle is a smart woman of great strength, and I commend her for taking a public stand on such a deeply personal affair in order to better the lives of other families facing similar difficulties. I thank her for that.

Would the House make my guests feel welcome.

A. Weaver: I’m absolutely delighted today to introduce to the House some very special students and staff from South Island Distance Education School. The students are young adults with special needs who are very excited to be here today. I’d also like to thank the teachers and staff at SIDES for the incredible contribution they make to the greater Victoria community and, indeed, across the province.

The students are Becky Hanson; Ben Valurop; Emily Medwid; Joel Wright, son of my press secretary, Mat Wright. The teachers here today are Elaine Ethier and Dana Crow. I would ask the House to please make them feel very welcome.

[ Page 9737 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

VINEGLASS WINERY CANCER FUNDRAISERS

L. Larson: Roger and Jill Hol, after farming for 27 years, decided to take what they had learned as farmers and develop a refuge of rest and tranquility offering simple food, wonderful wines, recreation and friendship. Seven years ago they put their dream on the ground and began Vineglass winery and B and B in Cawston, along the Similkameen River. Their goal: to demonstrate environmental and social sustainability, practising good land stewardship and good relationships with local First Nations.

Jill, unfortunately, was diagnosed with cancer and after getting through the first rounds of treatment, made a decision with Roger to hold a cancer fundraising event at Vineglass. Four years ago they held their first dinner and silent auction, raising $10,000 for cancer research. The event was so successful they repeated it the following year.

As fate would have it, Jill’s battle with cancer was not over, and in June 2014, she lost her heroic fight. Roger went ahead with the September fundraiser in 2014 in Jill’s memory and again this year. In the years since the event began, it has raised more than $50,000 for the B.C. Cancer Agency, dedicating all the funds to prevention and awareness. I have had the privilege of attending this event for the last three years.

According to the Central Okanagan Development Commission, almost all studies on agritourism indicate the most important factors that determine an entrepreneur’s success are personality, attitude, business experience and physical ability. Roger Hol exemplifies the traits. He is generous with his 30 years of farming experience and has not lost his enthusiasm for creating a farm-to-table experience his visitors will remember always.

People like Roger show all of us every day the dedication to quality and experience that makes the agriculture business in B.C. one to be proud of. I know that Roger and Jill’s dream will continue, and the moneys raised for cancer research will make a difference to the future of others who are still struggling with this disease.

Thank you, Roger.

TRI-CITY

CHAPTER OF

VALLEY WOMEN’S NETWORK

S. Robinson: I had the privilege of attending a local business networking lunch two weeks ago. It was a gathering of amazing business owners and entrepreneurs. The Valley Women’s Network, Tri-City chapter, had well over 50 members in attendance. The energy in the room was so impressive. The stories of commitment, hard work and collaboration described how these women were dedicating themselves to establish and build their businesses and to follow their dreams.

What impressed me most was how this gathering is a place to connect like-minded business women to inspire, grow, connect and network toward success, not just professionally but personally as well.

I wish I had known about this group when I was building my counselling practice a number of years ago. I would have loved having a group of collaborative, inspiring women to hold my hand when taking a risk, cheerlead for me when struggling with a business decision, mentor me when I was first starting out.

[1350]

These are the activities that I witnessed in just a few short hours in this luncheon. The Valley Women’s Network, Tri-City chapter, has a monthly newsletter, offers seminars and provides marketing opportunities. They have monthly keynote speakers, informative table discussion and provide lots and lots of opportunity to network.

The Valley Women’s Network, Tri-City chapter, understands that coming together, sharing information and helping each other are elements that can bring success to everyone. Witnessing these women of all ages from all walks of life come together on a monthly basis to support each other, learn from each other and inspire each other is what community is all about.

I am proud to have such a wonderful group of women meet each month in my constituency. I look forward to joining them again next month.

CYBERSECURITY AND

PROTECTION OF DATA

J. Martin: In today’s connected world, cybersecurity is more important than ever. We all have devices we use every day. From our cell phones and tablets to our computers at work and at home, we are constantly connected. We want all British Columbians to be cyber-aware and take steps to protect themselves and their data.

October is Cyber Security Awareness Month, and I want to take this time to remind everyone of some simple steps we can all take to make it harder for anyone to access your information or files without permission. Good cybersecurity protects you from things such as identity theft, phone scams, hackers or ransomware. Ransomware encrypts your computer data unless you pay up.

Any password shorter than seven characters may be cracked within a day by the fastest password crackers. We can take all these steps, such as having complex passwords, avoiding strange e-mail attachments and being careful with how you share your information. These are all important ways you can protect yourself and your data.

To learn more, people can visit the Cyber Security Awareness Month page on the chief information officer’s website. You can take a quiz on a range of cybersecurity topics and see how well you do. You can learn more information about how you can protect yourself from cyberattacks and how to talk to your children and help protect

[ Page 9738 ]

them on line. With security awareness, you will be able to identify potential risks or threats and avoid becoming a victim. We can all take these steps to minimize those risks.

100 th ANNIVERSARY OF

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

D. Eby: In 1908, the province of British Columbia passed the B.C. University Act. The act provided for the establishment of a new university that would provide “such instruction in all branches of liberal education as may enable students to become proficient in science, commerce, arts, literature, law, medicine and all other branches of knowledge.” It was an ambitious goal, to be sure, but one that has been ably met by the university’s teachers, researchers, administrators and students for more than 100 years, as UBC celebrates its centenary this year.

In 1913, the university’s first president, Dr. Frank Wesbrook, was appointed. Dr. Wesbrook set the tone for UBC as a school interested not just in research and learning but how that research and learning affects daily life. As an expert in public health, Dr. Wesbrook was a champion of the idea of chlorinating water to sterilize it, reflecting his engagement in public life linked directly to his research, which I am certainly thankful for today.

In 1918, the first issue of the now famous Ubyssey was published. Their first headline was “Freshman Reception” and that frosh had the opportunity to shake hands with important personages. It is my hope that the local MLA was among those important personages, both as a demonstration of commitment to the community but also to how it’s unchanging that frosh see the local MLA as an important personage.

From a school of all white men studying in shacks in Fairview in 1915 to today’s beautiful Point Grey and Okanagan campuses in 2015 with cutting-edge research facilities and diverse faculty and students from all over the world, UBC has come a long way in 100 years.

I’m honoured and proud to have been a very small part of this tradition as an adjunct professor in the Allard School of Law. I can say based on experience that the UBC students are up to the challenge of the motto — Tuum Est in Latin — It’s Up to You. They’re ready to change the world.

Congratulations to UBC on 100 years of success, teaching, researching and building tomorrow’s economy for our province today.

PALLIATIVE CARE

FUNDRAISING WALK BY IAN BOS

G. Kyllo: An inspirational story of courage, love and determination nears its conclusion in Victoria today just a few steps from here. This afternoon Ian Bos will reach Mile Zero in Beacon Hill Park, overlooking the Pacific Ocean. It was five months ago, on May 21, to be exact, when Ian set off from the Atlantic Ocean on foot with the goal of walking across our country.

[1355]

Ian is from New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, where his father, Ted Bos, passed away last January. Ted died after a valiant fight against cancer, but he died on his own terms, with his family by his side, where he wanted to be. The fact that he was able to die at home was a result of the compassion and care provided by the Aberdeen Palliative Care Society in New Glasgow.

Ian Bos wanted to do something to honour his father and, at the same time, to raise awareness of hospice and palliative care. So Ian set off across Canada, hoping to raise $25,000 for the Aberdeen Palliative Care Society and raise money and awareness for palliative care societies in cities across Canada.

As much as Ted Bos was an inspiration to his son Ian, Ian is also an inspiration to Canadians. On October 12, Ian reached Salmon Arm and was welcomed by Sue McCrae and the great people of the Shuswap Hospice Society.

I want to thank Sue and the society for all the great work that they do and for bringing Ian’s walk to my attention. I also want to bring to everyone’s attention the amazing work and care provided by the Shuswap Hospice Society and all hospice societies across B.C.

On a personal note, my family was fortunate to have experienced the invaluable services of hospice many years ago when my father was battling brain cancer, services for which my family will be forever grateful. The reality of hospice is that most people aren’t aware of the amazing care and services they provide until a loved one is in end-of-life care.

I want to thank and recognize Ian for bringing hospice and palliative care to the attention of people across Canada and congratulate Ian on his life-changing journey from Atlantic to Pacific.

Finally, Ian will be here on the front steps of the Legislature today at four o’clock. I hope that colleagues from both sides of the House will join me in meeting with Ian and wishing him well.

DROP EVERYTHING AND READ EVENT

R. Fleming: Since 2007, the British Columbia Teacher-Librarian Association has challenged British Columbians to drop everything and read for 20 minutes, a challenge that occurs every fourth Monday of October at 11 a.m. Today marks that special day when students and adults are asked to put down the pens and pencils, turn off their computers and phones, and pick up a book and enjoy reading.

Either silently or together, reading strengthens connections, exposes us to different ideas and beliefs, and improves our ability to absorb information. Today’s celebration of reading promotes the importance of literacy and reminds families to make reading a priority in their lives.

[ Page 9739 ]

Today also marks B.C. school library day and is the perfect time, across our province, to encourage students to explore their school library, search through the books available to them and choose their favourites.

I want to thank all of our public and school librarians and library assistants for the important role they play in helping young learners explore their love of learning and reading. I would challenge everyone — because there is still time remaining in this day — including members of this House, to find the time to drop everything and read books, articles for their knowledge and for their pleasure.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING

AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

J. Horgan: You’ll recall that last spring we asked a series of questions about abuse of the Freedom of Information Act of the Minister of Citizens’ Services. At that time, the minister insisted that only professional public servants were managing, in a detailed and comprehensive way, requests for information from the public to his government. He even went as far as to say….

I can’t resist but to read the quote back to him, for the record. The minister at the time said: “Well, it’s even more abundantly clear that I’ve got to provide a copy of the act to the member opposite, and perhaps I’ve got to provide the member opposite with training under the act as well.”

Of course, that’s only slightly humorous if it wouldn’t be so absolutely tragic that the minister responsible for the act was holding up his commitment to protecting the rights of individuals in British Columbia and their ability to access information with such a faulty, faulty line.

What we did last November is we asked for information pertaining to any e-mails from the chief of staff to the Minister of Natural Gas, Tobie Myers. Ms. Myers, of course, at the time we asked, was in discussions with people within the sector about legislation that was going to be before this House. What we got back from that request for information over a three-week period were three e-mails, just three.

I’m wondering if the minister can confirm that those are the only three e-mails that were available during that three-week period.

[1400]

Hon. A. Virk: The Leader of the Opposition certainly wants to canvass the manner in which government responds to freedom-of-information requests.

The expectation all across core government is that when there are key documents — key documents that record key government decisions, key policy decisions — ministries keep those appropriate records. That expectation is across core government. The expectation across core government is also that all employees, all across core government, follow the letter and intent of the legislation as well.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: It’s always a treat to ask the minister questions because you get, really early on, the message for the day. I think it’s going to be “core government” rather than the political servants that are hired by the Premier’s office to oversee activities in ministers’ offices. Ms. Denham, the Privacy Commissioner, laid out quite clearly for the public what goes on in ministers’ offices, what goes on in the Minister of Transportation’s office, what goes on underneath the nose of the minister responsible for the act and, of course, what goes on in the Premier’s office.

Let’s go back to the minister of liquefied natural gas for a moment. It was curious to us that there would only be three e-mails in existence coming from the minister’s office over a three-week period, when flagship legislation was being tabled. So we asked for the message-tracking documents from the Minister of Citizens’ Services.

We determined through that route — the fine print, if you will, of the government’s access-to-information law — that Ms. Myers sent 800 e-mails over that three-week period. So 797 triple deletes is a whole lot of triple deletes.

In those 800 e-mails, there were e-mails sent to Mr. Spencer Sproule, who may be familiar to members on this side. He used to work in the Premier’s office as her issue management director. He now, of course, is the chief spokesperson for Petronas, the lead agency looking at natural gas here in British Columbia. Several e-mails to Mr. Sproule.

Jared Kuehl, the head deputy of government relations at Shell; Neil Mackie, from AltaGas; and right to the minister’s office in Ottawa — 800 e-mails, and we got three.

My question is to the minister of openness and transparency in B.C. Liberal–land. Can he explain how it is that when we asked for 800, we only got three?

Hon. A. Virk: The fundamental notion that the manner and mechanism by which key decisions are noted is in the ministry’s offices, all across different ministries, and the fundamental notion that perhaps e-mails are the place where those key decisions are noted, are fundamentally incorrect. But it’s a moot point. The Premier has sent a directive, and the members opposite certainly know that.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the Chair will hear the answer.

Hon. A. Virk: The members opposite certainly know that the Premier sent a directive this last Friday to all ministers and all political staff instructing them, irrespective of whether an e-mail is transitory or not, that all sent e-mails are retained until such time as Mr. Loukidelis has an opportunity to look at all 11 recommendations, provide

[ Page 9740 ]

guidance on how to take action on all those recommendations and, further, how to increase the training in FOI.

J. Horgan: What the good news here is, is the minister actually understood what the Premier said last Friday in Merritt, because I don’t think there’s another person on the planet that could make any sense out of what she said.

I recall that the Premier said that the status quo was in play, but things were in flux. Only in Liberal land can you stay firm to the status quo while you’re in flux.

[1405]

Technology’s changing. I heard that as well. As the minister made reference to transitory documents — I think that will be the fig leaf, after “core government,” for the day — I want to draw his attention to the document provided by his ministry, the 797 e-mails that were sent from Ms. Myers’s e-mail. Some of these transitory documents are severed on this document under

section 17 of the act, which means potentially harmful to the interests of the Crown.

If that’s the case, if 17 of these e-mails can be severed on a transition document, a message-tracking document, because they are harmful to the Crown, then surely to goodness, they weren’t transitory documents.

Can the minister explain to me how it is that

section 17 would apply to e-mails that were transitory documents? I know he understands the act fully and has been briefed, so perhaps he can elucidate that information to the rest of us.

Hon. A. Virk: The directive by the Premier was quite clear. The member opposite certainly doesn’t want to try to understand or even try to think about it. The directive is quite clear. Regardless of whether a sent e-mail is transitory or not — whether or not it is transitory — a directive has been sent to all ministers, all ministers’ staff, and in fact, that has been extended to parliamentary secretaries as well. That is until Mr. Loukidelis has an opportunity to examine the 11 recommendations, to provide guidance on how to take action. We are committed to work with Mr. Loukidelis and take action on all of those recommendations.

D. Routley: This government’s evasions don’t end there.

On Friday, the Premier came out of hiding and said that she had never heard of triple-deleting. She said that she was shocked — shocked — to find out that her own chief of staff was breaking the law. The Premier was going to stop this. Of course, we requested e-mails and tracking logs for the Premier for two weeks last December as well. Imagine our surprise when we discovered that the Premier’s own e-mails had been deleted.

My question is to the Minister of Citizens’ Services. We know that his chief of staff, Nick Facey, has been destroying his e-mails. But why has the Premier been destroying hers?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, the member opposite is certainly demonstrating his lack of knowledge in this area.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. A. Virk: Key decisions of government, key policy decisions of government, are recorded in the appropriate places. The suggestion that e-mails are the place where key government decisions are retained is absolutely incorrect. And there’s an expectation. The Document Disposal Act of 1936 makes it very clear. Key government documents are to be retained. However, there is no requirement to keep transient documents, to keep documents that are copies or convenience copies. Those are not key government documents.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.

D. Routley: The minister assures us that he has a plan, a comprehensive plan. He’s going to get to the bottom of this, the man who was forced by a whistle-blower to come clean about his shady dealings at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. I think we’ve seen this movie before. It’s Groundhog Day. Rather than just wring his hands and promise to do better…. I have a modest suggestion for the minister, one that will prove how sincere his promises are to do better.

[1410]

The commissioner’s report says that the government keeps a backlog of e-mails for 13 months. Will the minister commit to search these backups and to release all the missing records we’ve referred to, including those of the Premier and of Ms. Myers?

Hon. A. Virk: I refer the member back to the recommendations. There are, indeed, recommendations made by Commissioner Denham. They are thorough. They talk…. As I mentioned last week, they touch on operational, on administrative, on technical, on policy and on legislation. We are committed to take action on each of them.

As I’ve said before, Mr. Loukidelis, a respected former Privacy Commissioner of this province — a Privacy Commissioner who consults across the country — has been retained. I have spoken to Mr. Loukidelis. I’ll be meeting with him forthwith to discuss the time period and the scope of him providing advice on how to take action on each of those recommendations, including the one mentioned by the member opposite.

G. Heyman: Last Thursday, the Minister of Transportation expressed disappointment in the actions of his chief of staff. He also said that his staff followed the law 100 percent of the time — except when they don’t, and they have to be fired. Sorry, hon. Speaker, that’s not strictly accurate.

This government doesn’t have the courage to fire staff who break the law. They just let them resign and stick taxpayers with the legal bills. Yet the most interesting point

[ Page 9741 ]

is the minister’s admission that he regularly triple-deletes e-mails, casting himself as role model for the law-breaking activities in his office.

My question for the Minister of Transportation is: who taught him to triple delete e-mails to hide important government documents?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: I would caution all members on the use of parliamentary language.

Hon. T. Stone: First, as my colleague, the minister responsible, has stated….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Just wait.

Hon. T. Stone: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

As my colleague has stated, the official record of government decisions and the actual reflection of those decisions are all retained within our ministry offices, right across government.

I will add this, though, with respect to the member’s question. Prior to being elected, I was a technology CEO for 15 years. It was a matter of policy in my company, from a records management perspective, that in an effort to minimize storage space required and minimize costs related to service space, staff, myself included, were encouraged to manage our e-mails appropriately.

I have carried that practice forward to my current role. From time to time, as I acknowledged completely on Thursday of last week, I would empty my deleted folder. I have never deleted…. I do not delete information that is transitory in nature. I believe that I have acted in compliance, to this point, with the appropriate legislation. As the Premier directed all ministers and political staff and parliamentary secretaries last Friday — which I have embraced and I welcome — I will, as my colleagues will, no longer delete any sent e-mails.

Bottom line is I will continue to operate fully within the confines of the appropriate legislation.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: Apparently the Minister of Transportation listened to Colin Hansen’s pathetic defence of government policy on CBC this morning and now thinks that British Columbians who want access to information should engage in a treasure hunt.

[1415]

George Gretes said that the Minister of Transportation’s administrative coordinator taught him how to triple-delete e-mails. The minister’s administrative coordinator denied this claim. She said that she had never heard about the practice until she came to work for this minister in British Columbia. She said that she was told she needed to learn how to permanently delete e-mails so that information didn’t “get out there.”

My question to the minister is this. Did he teach George Gretes how to triple delete e-mails, or did he just give the orders that led to repeatedly breaking B.C.’s information laws?

Hon. T. Stone: Let me be really direct and very blunt with the member opposite. The short answer is no. But I will also add this. I have said consistently, including last Thursday — I’ll say it again here today — that I expect that all staff in my office, as all of my colleagues also expect of staff in their offices, to adhere to the legislation. And if an individual does not, there are consequences.

Now, I think that it would appear that the members opposite have actually read the report, and they would know that in the case of the individual in the Ministry of Transportation office…. According to the commissioner, it would appear that he was not in complete compliance with the act, and, therefore, there are likely to be further consequences.

HIGHWAY 16 BUS SERVICE

IMPLEMENTATION AND GOVERNMENT

CONSULTATION RECORDS

C. Trevena: The Minister of Transportation faces a bit of a dilemma. Last week, he insisted that triple-deleting his e-mail was perfectly acceptable practice. Deleting records about his office’s failure to assist aboriginal women in northern B.C. was just fine. He said that’s how everybody managed their e-mail.

Now he says he’s going to do things differently. Does he still think it was okay to delete e-mails about the Highway of Tears?

Hon. T. Stone: All records pertaining to decisions in the Ministry of Transportation are kept within the Ministry of Transportation. That is true for all subjects. That is true for the Highway 16 file.

I also want to take this opportunity to again acknowledge the history, to acknowledge the pain, to acknowledge the suffering that families up and down Highway 16 have endured. I cannot overstate the sincerity of this government or the commitment of the Ministry of Transportation to continue to work with First Nations communities and others on Highway 16 to identify safer transportation options.

I have mentioned a number of those initiatives that have been pursued to date. There are many more that we’re working on. We are looking forward, in particular, to a transportation symposium, which we are co-sponsoring with the First Nations Health Authority, that will

[ Page 9742 ]

be held in Smithers this coming November, during which time we will continue to discuss and identify additional initiatives which will make this corridor even safer.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Island on a supplemental.

C. Trevena: What the minister seems to forget is that this sordid affair started as a result of an FOI request about the Highway of Tears. That’s how we came to know about the triple-deletion of e-mails, because the minister clearly did not want the public to know about the real concerns of aboriginal women in northern B.C. They are afraid for their safety, and they want access to very basic levels of transportation.

[1420]

The minister has claimed that they haven’t got such concerns, and he appeared proud that he had triple-deleted e-mails. These are records — e-mails from families looking for answers, from women who are seeking safety, from relatives and friends and the communities of missing and murdered women. How can he justify that?

Hon. T. Stone: All records pertaining to Highway 16 are intact. These records are all intact. They are all stored appropriately.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Stone: These records are all retained by the Ministry of Transportation, as per the freedom-of-information legislation. They are all available.

I want to also reiterate the ministry’s commitment to continuing to be as transparent as possible. Just since 2012, the Ministry of Transportation has actually responded to six different FOI requests related to Highway 16. The ministry has released almost 600 pages of information in those FOI requests. Three of those information responses were put onto open gov and are available to members opposite. Three others were responded to, directly to the applicant. This material can….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

If Burnaby–Deer Lake made that utterance, she needs to withdraw.

K. Corrigan: Sorry, I didn’t hear you, Madame Speaker.

Madame Speaker: If you made the utterance, you need to withdraw.

K. Corrigan: I withdraw.

Madame Speaker: Thank you very much.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ON DELTAPORT EXPANSION

V. Huntington: This spring Port Metro Vancouver released its environmental impact statement on the Deltaport expansion. The Minister of Environment agreed that B.C. would do its own assessment but that it would rely principally on the federal assessment. It’s called independence. B.C.’s environmental office, we were told, would request further information when necessary.

There are 7,663 pages in the environmental impact statement. Four federal agencies, numerous individuals and organizations, my own office, and even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identified information gaps. But B.C.’s EAO had no comment. It declared the impact statement “complete.” Could the minister explain why her environmental assessment office utterly failed to speak up for B.C.’s interests?

Hon. M. Polak: Whenever we are coordinating processes with the federal government, it’s important to understand firstly that by working together and by relying on information acquired through the federal process, that doesn’t necessarily mean that decisions are the same. With respect to relying on information, our offices assess information that has been gathered.

In the case of responding to information requests or input, I would be happy to provide the member with an opportunity to discuss with the EAO staff in terms of their approach specifically to this application. There are many avenues through which our two offices communicate, especially when we are coordinating environmental assessments.

Madame Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

V. Huntington: Let me assure the minister that I’ve been thoroughly briefed by her office. These were comments made pursuant to the public input or the input to the environmental impact statement that was required under the law.

[1425]

Terminal 2 will be in the middle of a wildlife management area. It will impact Canada’s greatest salmon and wildlife migrations. It will require the sale or transfer of provincially owned water lots, and it will impact the agricultural land reserve. Yet the EAO advised my office that B.C.’s jurisdiction was limited to areas like noise, traffic,

[ Page 9743 ]

light and air quality. Even within those limitations, the EAO had no comment.

But the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency had comments. In July, it confirmed that multiple provincial responsibilities had been omitted by the port.

I ask the minister: why did it take a federal agency like Health Canada to discover that B.C.’s air quality objectives, set by her own ministry just last year, had been omitted from the port’s impact statement?

Hon. M. Polak: In fact, most aspects of this project do fall within federal jurisdiction. When we approach an environmental assessment of this nature, if there are, in fact, at the end of the process, matters with which we think the federal process has not dealt adequately, then we can certainly pursue those on our own, and we will. But this matter is still in process, and as such, we rely on the federal government to act within their jurisdiction. We backstop that with respect to validating that those interests of British Columbia’s have been investigated and assessed properly. And if not, then we pursue them.

DEATHS OF MOTHER AND SON IN PRINCE

RUPERT AND INQUEST RECOMMENDATIONS

ON TRANSIT SERVICES

J. Rice: Today Michelle Watson spoke publicly about the tragedy that took the lives of her sister Angie Robinson and her nephew Robert. Her sister was a single mom whose son had severe autism. The coroner’s inquest found that Angie did not get the support and respite care she needed from this government. Angie’s sister said today: “Robert would have been here had our child welfare system been operating effectively. When Angie’s services were cut, there was no longer anything for her.”

Faith Bodnar of Inclusion B.C. said today: “We are a province in crisis when it comes to children with special needs.”

This was a preventable tragedy. When is this government going to stop making excuses and start providing the resources needed to repair the real damage they’ve done to families in this province? When are they going to address two key coroner’s inquest recommendations and finally act to provide safe, adequate public transportation for the communities along Highway 16, otherwise known as the Highway of Tears?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Firstly, our hearts go out to the family who’s grieving and to the community and all of the individuals who loved and cared for Angie and Robert.

The reality is that their situation raises important issues. Inclusion B.C. does very important work advocating on behalf of British Columbians with developmental disabilities and their families. I’ve enjoyed working with them in the past. Today they’ve also raised some very important issues.

We are always looking at ways that we can improve the way we deliver services, the way we deliver supports to families. There is no argument that families who are coping with disabilities that their children have, families that are coping with the stresses — financial, emotional and physical — of dealing with these tremendously complex issues, are struggling. They all struggle. What we do as a government is attempt, as best we can, to provide supports and services to assist those families in managing and creating a good life for themselves and their children.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Anton: I have today the report of the B.C. ferries commissioner, Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2015 .

[1430]

K. Conroy: I seek leave to present a petition.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

K. Conroy: This petition, originated by Gloria Lisgo, a retired registered nurse from New Denver, has over 4,200 signatures, of which 86 percent are residents of the Kootenays and 14 percent are tourists. It requests that the B.C. government enforce regulations 7.03 and 22 of the Motor Vehicle Act to bring an end to illegal levels of noise pollution and excessive speed by motorcycles.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I call continued debate on Motion 26.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 26 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

COMMISSION REPORT PROPOSALS

(continued)

L. Krog: I’m delighted to rise to continue debate on the motion before the House respecting the Electoral Boundaries Commission report. When I was closing on Thursday evening, I was talking a bit about the urban-rural divide in British Columbia. Of course, with boundary changes, obviously, that becomes of increasing importance over time, and certainly for the constituency I represent, which is Nanaimo.

Historically, in 1871 of course, Nanaimo was both an urban and a rural constituency. Nanaimo was a small

[ Page 9744 ]

community at that time. It didn’t have city status. It had the Bastion, of course, that great historical entity, the symbol of the Hudson’s Bay Company — and colonialism and imperialism, arguably.

A stirring symbol that reflects the way that the First Nations….

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member is calling me to go back to the Magna Carta. He obviously didn’t pay attention on Thursday. I suggest that he read the Blues . I know many of the members are anxious to go back to the Magna Carta. Perhaps it would provide some salutary direction to the government in its ethical behaviour today.

However, I come back to my point. Nanaimo was a recognized constituency in 1871, when we became the province of British Columbia. As the member pointed out the other day, of course, it extends back well before that, into colonial times.

Nanaimo today is a very different constituency. When I was first elected, in 2005, it included a great deal of Cedar and Gabriola Island — a number of rural elements to it. I actually had, honest to God, genuine farmers — people who produce things that we consume. Over time, with boundary changes, there has….

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member is pointing out that we have legal services. Yes, we certainly do have legal services. And we have one of the most beautiful courthouses, I will point out to that member, in the province of British Columbia. It is another Frances Mawson Rattenbury.

I commend the member if he’d love to come to Nanaimo and spend some time in the courthouse. Indeed, given what’s happened last week and the comments made, who knows who will end up in the courthouse in the province of British Columbia from time to time? One can never be too sure about these things.

It was a recognized centre, and it was an historic part of the province — the community I represent. But over time, Nanaimo’s boundaries have changed somewhat. It is now what I would describe as a strictly urban-suburban constituency. Extending from Needham and 5th, out to the Parkway, everything inside the Parkway up to Mostar, which turns into Rutherford Road, down to Hammond Bay. You hang a left on Hammond Bay, so to speak, and then you head down Brickyard. It’s strictly urban-suburban, so it’s a very different constituency.

[1435]

I might say that with respect to the boundaries, when I had the honour of being elected in 2005, coming back to this place, it wasn’t long after that — when statistics were available, before the Conservative government of Mr. Harper decided to kill the long-form statistical information…. In fact, it was the third-poorest constituency in the province of British Columbia. Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was the poorest. I believe Vancouver-Hastings was the next up the line and then Nanaimo. So I am used to representing a population who is often without much hope and who look to this government for support on a whole series of bases.

The most important thing about the Nanaimo constituency with respect to the matter of this debate, I would argue, is that the proposal for its boundaries is, in fact, a fair and reasonable one based on population. Now, I must say I’m not, from a strictly crass electoral perspective, of course…. Not that electoral politics ever, ever enters into the minds of the members of this chamber.

There is a slight variation which will benefit my neighbour, the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, and give me a little bit of what was formally his turf and amend slightly the boundaries for the member for Parksville-Qualicum, the hon. minister. But in essence, Nanaimo, the city and the old city, remains whole with these recommendations and the boundaries proposed.

I come back to my point about the rural-urban divide. There was a time, of course, when the constituency of Nanaimo contained a number of active mills, when forestry was king. Prior to forestry, it was coal. Indeed, as many of the members know, the establishment of the historic Bastion in the constituency of Nanaimo, which has been changed so much over time, represented the interest of the governor of Vancouver Island at that time, Sir James Douglas, recognizing that “Coal Tyee,” as he was known, an aboriginal who pointed out this black rock, was of enormous and significance importance to the Hudson’s Bay Company and, indeed, to the British Empire.

Until then, to fuel that incredible fleet, to fuel commerce around the world, you were running things on coal or sail. Of course, steam was coming in, so the importance of having a ready supply of coal to fuel ships docking at Victoria, particularly with the great gold rush of 1858, was incredibly important. It provided a great basis for interest by the powers that be that existed in London — a great deal of interest in the outport, this far-flung little outpost of the British Empire which was Fort Victoria and, of course, Nanaimo.

The Nanaimo constituency is an historic community in this province. It’s the third-oldest city in the province of British Columbia, actually, after New Westminster and Victoria. And of course, I do want to point out to the members opposite who are chirping in from time to time during the course of this debate that Nanaimo was a city long before Vancouver.

It’s not something that I like to emphasize too often in the House, but I suppose one could make a joke about, you know, it’s quantity over substance or quantity over quality, but I’d be hesitant to make that remark. The member for Vancouver–West End is thinking that maybe one of his colleagues has turned against him, and

[ Page 9745 ]

of course, that would never be my suggestion.

I’m delighted to represent this community and honoured to do so and very honoured, also, that it is a constituency that throughout its history, has had excellent representation. Certainly, in my lifetime, in the constituency referred to as Nanaimo, I was ably represented — wait for it, Members — by Mike Hunter, the Liberal member, from 2001 to 2005. I’m glad some of the members over there recognize that there’s such a thing as a good Liberal.

Prior to that, it was represented by Dale Lovick from 1986 on. Mr. Lovick’s period of time as the representative for Nanaimo itself also takes us back to one of the issues which Judge Eckhart and Justice Fisher recognized, which was a problem with British Columbia electoral politics, which was the issue of dual ridings. In the 1986 election, when Mr. Lovick was first elected to the Legislature, he and Dave Stupich won that election, but it was a dual riding, a dual constituency.

[1440]

By the 1991 election, when the Vander Zalm/Rita Johnston government finally was confined to the ash heap of history, the concept of dual ridings was gone. I suspect, on the basis of electoral reform and people’s attitudes now, it’s likely gone in perpetuity in British Columbia.

One of the reasons is because over time, as this report reflects, the concept around what electoral boundaries commissions do and the work they undertake has become respectable. In other words, there is a significant element of public trust in what electoral boundaries commissions do, and so it should be.

As I’ve pointed out…. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway provided me with the wonderful

article I referenced on Thursday: “The Cat and Mouse Politics of Redistribution: Fair and Effective Representation in British Columbia,” by Dr. Norman Ruff, my old poli-sci teacher from UVic back when the earth was still cooling. It was published in B.C. Studies — No. 87, autumn 1990.

We have moved away from that kind of gerrymandering approach to electoral politics. What this report, the final report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, represents is the essential quality of what good work can be done when you have a completely non-partisan commission.

We have three members of the commission: Mr. Justice Thomas Melnick, justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, who chaired; Beverley Busson, OBC, former commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and Keith Archer, PhD, the Chief Electoral Officer for the province of British Columbia. All were required by statute; all were appointed pursuant to statute.

Most interestingly, I think it’s really important to note that the commission itself…. The third individual — who’s not a member of the Legislative Assembly, who’s not a retired Supreme Court judge, who’s not the Chief Electoral Officer…. That appointee is appointed or nominated by the Speaker of this assembly after consultation with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Now, members may laugh and see this as bureaucratic. Some people at home may not think this is a terribly important thing. But, in terms of ensuring trust in the democratic process and the work of electoral boundaries commissions, this is extremely important.

As I suggested in my remarks on Thursday, one of the reasons I believe that the total number of submissions in person, arguably, was down from the previous commission some years ago, of Judge Eckardt, was because there is public trust in the process. It is because people don’t feel they have to attend and make submissions, other than what are often, I will call, narrow submissions, based on geography and interest, not on the quality of the work to be done by the commission itself, not complaints about the electoral process, but….

Interjection.

L. Krog: We are indeed well governed by the process. The hon. member says we’re well governed. Well, we just went through question period, and I think some would clearly dispute that. Even the press gallery, actually, saw some of its members come out in person — people we haven’t seen for a while — and show some interest in the debate today. It would suggest to me, notwithstanding the member’s protestations — and I’m sure he’ll have an opportunity to rise and speak later — that perhaps things are not all well in wonderland, in British Columbia.

But I come back to my point. We are well served by the legislation that appointed this commission and that allowed it to function appropriately.

And what is its mandate? Well, its mandate is fairly straightforward. It is to make proposals to the Legislative Assembly as to the area boundaries and names of provincial electoral districts. As the document itself says: “If our deliberations dictate that the number of electoral districts should be increased, the Electoral Boundaries Commission…allows us to make proposals for up two additional electoral districts, to a maximum of 87.”

That is what’s happened. We’ve picked up a couple of seats in British Columbia. That’s probably a good thing. I don’t think I have to mention to the members in this assembly who represent constituencies of some geographic size that feeling that you can represent appropriately all of your constituents is a great goal but not always available to one, in practice.

[1445]

By the time that one spends their time travelling back and forth between Victoria and then trying to attend in various communities, that becomes a real issue.

I come back to my point about the rural-urban divide. It is important that the commission recognize that

[ Page 9746 ]

geography, on occasion, does trump population. And that is what the commission has recognized: that the vast geography of this province means, quite simply, that you cannot have constituencies that have an absolutely equal — or as close to equal as possible — population. It is not only impractical; it is, I would argue, from a representative perspective, undesirable.

We are living in a representative democracy. We’re not living in a democracy where every person elected to this assembly is elected by a constituency of equal size in terms of population. It would be practically impossible.

The commission has recognized, very clearly in this case, as have previous commissions, that it is important to do the best that it can. But it recognizes — as the law recognizes and the commission has decided in this case — the principles under

section 9(1) of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, which, as the report says, instructs us to be governed by the following:

“(

a) that the principle of representation by population be achieved, recognizing the imperatives imposed by geographical and demographic realities, the legacy of our history and the need to balance the community interests of the people of British Columbia; (

b) to achieve that principle, the commission be permitted to deviate from a…Provincial electoral quota by no more than 25%, plus or minus.”

And we may propose electoral districts with population deviations exceeding plus-or-minus 25 percent where we consider that very special circumstances exist.

The reality is that in a constituency like Surrey–Green Timbers, I believe a healthy person in a few hours could probably walk all around the boundaries. I’m sure the member for Vancouver–West End could probably do the same thing. I suppose, in a day, if I were feeling tremendously athletic and were in better shape, I might even be able to do it in my own constituency. But I would defy the member for Peace River North or Skeena to achieve that, even with the benefit of a flying machine, so to speak. It’s not realistic, so the Boundaries Commission has the opportunity to recognize that geographic reality in coming to its report and making its recommendations.

It’s not just the act that guides the work of the commission. It is also the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have had case law help us to determine what is the fair and appropriate process to undertake.

It may well be that even with the commission’s good work, there will be a constitutional challenge. There is nothing in the law that forecloses that opportunity or possibility to the citizens of this province, or any group of them, who wish to make that choice. If the commission has done its work well and the Legislature has done its work well — and there is no guarantee on that — then this report, the subsequent passage of legislation, will survive that potential legal challenge. But we can never know that.

The fact that we live in a democratic society where it is possible to do that — to go back to the Magna Carta, because I know the members love to hear me use the term — in and of itself, is a remarkable and dramatic achievement that took a great deal of time to reach. That we would be in a position that we would try and guarantee the fairness of our system and the representative democracy that it stands for, to ensure that British Columbians, voters across this province, citizens, feel represented appropriately…. Not an easy thing.

When I look at my own constituency, as I say, Nanaimo itself has the honour to be represented, in part, at least….

[1450]

Interjection.

L. Krog: Well, the member says by me. I’m very flattered, and I thank him for that recognition. But it also has the opportunity to be represented by two other very able MLAs — from Parksville-Qualicum, who’s waving over here as if I’d forget her, and the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, who likewise is delighted to represent portions of the city.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Now, I’ve been so kind, and the member has to breach the rule about commenting on absences. I think the rule-breaking has become so common on that side of the House, they feel they can get away with anything.

It is, as I have said many times in this chamber, a great honour to represent the good people of Nanaimo. I mentioned the names of Mike Hunter and Dale Lovick; but also Jan Pullinger, one of the first of that many of the hundred women elected to the B.C. Legislature that we have most recently honoured; and at the same time, prior to that, Dave Stupich; and Frank Ney, for a short term, 1969-1972.

Now, if there was a character who drew attention to the great city of Nanaimo, that was Frank Ney — of course, a name associated with the bathtub race but who did say, rather unkindly, of my community, many years ago, that if it came to culture versus corn, Nanaimo would take corn over culture any day.

I know I’ve mentioned that in the House before but only because I wanted to emphasize that we’ve have come a long way since then. The Boundaries Commission, in creating this nice, tight little constituency of Nanaimo, recognizes that.

Indeed, one of the things that has helped make Nanaimo a dynamic community for the extension of this boundary is the creation and existence of Malaspina College, as it then was, now Vancouver Island University, previously, the old Nanaimo Vocational School. We have just passed…. I think it’s roughly the 75th year since the founding of the Vocational School.

It is the incredible international aspect of Vancouver Island University that helps make Nanaimo the wonderful place it is. I believe the figure is 17 percent of the students at Vancouver Island University are inter-

[ Page 9747 ]

national students — 83 countries. If I recall the words of the president, Dr. Ralph Nilson, from an address the other morning, 83 different countries have students at Vancouver Island University. The city of Nanaimo itself has a population of about 88,000, just slightly larger than the city of Victoria.

When the Boundaries Commission was met with presentations around this area, one of the things they considered was the existence of Vancouver Island University and the fact that a number of the people who worked there or students who attended there lived within close geographical proximity.

In essence, they extended the boundaries across the inland Island Highway — another wonderful achievement of the previous NDP government, who finally built the inland Island Highway after decades of Social Credit promises that went unfulfilled. The extension of the boundaries across the highway takes into account a number of subdivisions and the homes of people who actually work and/or attend Vancouver Island University. That was a significant shift for the constituency, but a very positive one.

In addition, to try and keep the population within balance and, again, to do the right thing in accordance with the principle of the act and the Boundaries Commission’s work, they extended the northern boundary of the constituency immediately to the south over by one street, from Fourth to Fifth. But all in all, the Boundaries Commission has done good work in Nanaimo, and Nanaimo is, I think, reasonably happy with the proposal as it stands and as is set out in the final report of the commission.

I think it is important to recognize also, however, that the proposals contained in the report are just that: they are proposals and recommendations. They’re not the final decision. The final decision lies with the members of this assembly.

[1455]

Now, the wonderful thing about the whole process is that the deliberations of the commission itself were obviously conducted in private, but the hearings themselves were all public, just as the deliberations by the members of this assembly, which will determine whether the recommendations as proposed by the Electoral Boundaries Commission are accepted, will likewise be conducted in public, open to public scrutiny, an opportunity for the citizens of British Columbia to determine whether or not the members they have already elected to this assembly are actually doing the right job on behalf of the people they represent.

Now, the commission’s work is not entirely perfect. I won’t mention the name of a previous MLA I know who was somewhat unhappy that the old term “Yale” wasn’t left in the description of that historic constituency. These things happen from time to time. We have to recognize that things change. Yale is not quite as significant a population as it once was.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member for Chilliwack-Hope is perking up. I’m delighted to see him paying attention to the debate.

Yale isn’t quite the centre of commerce that it used to be. I hate to disappoint the member. Perhaps he should drive up there more often and determine that. Chilliwack might be a somewhat larger centre now and provide more economic activity.

I have to recognize that my community doesn’t depend on king coal any more. I don’t think there’s any likelihood there will be a significant enough strike for the provincial government to send the troops in to put it down either, which many regard as the basis which has led to the great divisions in British Columbia’s politics historically — the vicious assault, if you will, on the workers who were struggling to better their lives. I could wander off and talk about the Dunsmuirs and coal for a very long time, and I don’t wish to do that.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member says: “Tell us about the CCF.” Yes, I say with great pride that the predecessor to my party, the CCF, actually enjoyed a strong and long history in the Nanaimo area. Indeed, this will not shock any of the members opposite. The first Socialist Party of British Columbia member elected was elected in Nanaimo, I believe, in 1903. There’s a long history of radical politics and concern for the welfare and well-being of people in this province reflected in my community.

When the Boundaries Commission considered its report, I’m delighted and pleased that they chose not to change the name. They actually left it simply as Nanaimo. Sometimes people have asked me: “So what do you represent? Is it Nanaimo-Cowichan? Is it Parksville-Qualicum? What is it exactly?” I can always say with great pride that it’s just good old, plain Nanaimo. No adornment. No need to add a Lantzville to it. No need to add a Ladysmith to it or a Gabriola. Nanaimo — the great city of Nanaimo.

One of the sad parts is…. I must say with some regret that when…. I mentioned that I had lost the rural areas of Cedar and Gabriola Island. I also lost all of the Snuneymuxw First Nation reserves, both No. 1 and No. 2. Although obviously many of its members live within the boundaries of my constituency, I don’t actually have any of that land as part of my constituency anymore. I must say that Chief John Wesley and his newly elected council are doing the best they can with the limited resources they have to try and improve the lot of their people, and I wish them well in that endeavour.

As the members may know, we had a fairly radical turnaround in the election of our council in the last municipal election, as did many of the members here in the communities that they represent. Certainly, we have achieved

[ Page 9748 ]

a certain notoriety — not that welcome — for having a somewhat divided council. I’m sure, in time, that common sense and objectivity will prevail, and people will act in the best interests of the people that they represent.

The commission had a big job, and it was a difficult job. Legislative constraints were placed on it, as well, in terms of preserving 17 rural seats. That may well open up whatever we do here to the constitutional challenge that I talked about, and that is a risk.

As someone who was raised in Coombs, B.C., before it became — I won’t call it a tourist trap; that would be derogatory — certainly, a well-known tourist destination, as it is now, I have a great affinity and sympathy for those who come from rural British Columbia and the people who live there and work.

[1500]

They are the people who, throughout this province’s history, contributed greatly to, as I often reference them, the four great initial industries, if you will, of this province that are reflected so beautifully outside this chamber in the dome: agriculture, mining, forestry and fishing. That’s what a lot of those people did to make their living and to contribute to the great wealth of this province.

I didn’t make reference to it the other day, but when you talk about the boundaries of constituencies and the history of this province, you can’t help but reflect on that wonderfully amusing work, George Bowering’s history of British Columbia, B.C.: A Swashbuckling History .

It talks about the many…. I hesitate to call them robber barons, but let’s just say they were people who came to this province with a very much “cut it down, mine it out, fish it to death” kind of attitude and made great fortunes, some of which built some of the most magnificent homes in the great city of Vancouver, which the members there across the way and some members on this side of the House represent.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: What about Oak Bay?

A. Weaver: Lovely homes in Oak Bay.

L. Krog: And Oak Bay. I see a little city rivalry going on here. I knew the member for Oak Bay might be offended, and so as the member across has rightly reminded me, yes, there are some pretty nice homes in Oak Bay too — again, built by the fortunes of predecessors.

Now, of course, that would remind me that the magnificent Craigdarroch Castle was built with the money made from coal in the great city of Nanaimo. It was one of the ultimate symbols of the great wealth that was extracted from this province. And of course, up the road now, Royal Roads University, Hatley Castle, the home of the…. I believe he was both Premier and Lieutenant-Governor in his time, if my recollection is correct. Dunsmuir Jr., we’ll call him. That, again, represented the kind of wealth that came from our initial industries.

I’m proud to represent the constituency of Nanaimo, a constituency that has, as part of its history, coal and logging, a little bit of mining on the side — precious little apart from the coal. But it now, within the boundaries of the new constituency as recommended by the Boundaries Commission, includes Vancouver Island University. It includes a fairly significant high-tech sector that many people simply aren’t aware of.

It includes a magnificent although aging hospital, the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital. But I’m sure the government, as we get closer to another election, may wish, in its opportune way, to propose, perhaps, some funding to build a new and better hospital. I know that other communities in the province have received them from time to time, although I must say that I would hope it would be done on the basis of merit and not on the basis of politics.

I would remind the members opposite that back in the ’90s, after the vicious campaign of 1991 when we saw great electoral change in British Columbia, the proposal was that there should be a cancer clinic built at Kelowna or Kamloops. Kelowna, of course, elected Liberals, and I think…. Well, and Mr. Serwa, a Socred. I should remind that we did have what were referred to unkindly as the seven dwarfs, who survived the ’91 election. Kamloops elected two New Democrats.

The Harcourt government of the day did what it often did, at a significant political price. It chose to put the cancer clinic in Kelowna because it was the right thing to do and therefore paid an electoral price in Kamloops, which saw that community elect a Liberal and a New Democrat in 1996, not two New Democrats as it had previously.

But I digress. I come back to my point about Nanaimo and the great constituency of Nanaimo and what this commission has recommended. The commission has done the right thing. It has kept Nanaimo whole. It has, at the same time, recognized that it’s important to take into account those mild variations that occur over time when one has a chance to look at boundary commission recommendations, previous ones, and the practical impact of those decisions.

[1505]

That is a bit of a problem. I think that’s a fairly rare circumstance, where in order to get from one constituency to another, you’ve got to pass through. Now, I know the

[ Page 9749 ]

member from Alberni certainly faced the same problem, where you would have to come through the Parksville-Qualicum constituency to get out to Alberni, where he had his office in Alberni. And I think the concept of trying to maintain two offices is not always easy.

Apart from that refinement, I would think that the commission has done its work and has done its work well. So I just want to say, in closing, that I will vote in favour of the motion and approve the final report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

I wish to express my thanks to the commissioners for their work. I certainly wish to express my thanks to the members opposite, who have been so gracious and kind to me during my remarks, always filled with applause and goodwill and love and affection that’s so often absent from this chamber. I can’t….

Interjection.

L. Krog: “My cup runneth over,” the member says. I always like a little biblical quotation. But I’m reminded also…. Isn’t it a line in the Bible that the mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine?

That’s what the commission has done here in arriving at the recommendations respecting the boundaries of constituencies across this province, but most particularly my constituency. For their work, again, I express my thanks.

I express my thanks also to those citizens who took the time to come out and express their interest in and their comments upon the preliminary report of the Boundaries Commission and, indeed, made their initial submissions. It is an exercise in democracy that, I think, reflects well on the people of British Columbia and, most importantly, reflects well on the process. We didn’t have a lot of people out protesting or complaining, and there has never been a suggestion that the commission somehow packed a bias or was ill-informed or came to its conclusions for obscure or unknown political reasons.

The fact is this is what a functioning, democratic process should look like, where the people are satisfied that it has been conducted openly and fairly. The results are reasonable, and the people of British Columbia will have their opportunity, based on these new boundaries, to choose, hopefully, a new government in 2017.

D. Ashton: I rise today to speak to Motion 26, the electoral boundary issue, following the wonderful oration of the member for Nanaimo. I will get to the answer substantially quicker than he has.

I will say that at this point in time, the world is always changing, and one of the foundations of our democracy is representation by population. Rep by pop, as it’s sometimes called, recognizes the geographic realities in provinces like British Columbia.

B.C. is like other jurisdictions in Canada, such as the western provinces, Quebec and Ontario, that are characterized by large urban centres in the south and relatively lesser-populated regions in the north. Rep by pop therefore ensures that the electoral districts with lower populations are meaningfully represented in this Legislature. It ensures that rural districts are not dominated by smaller, densely populated urban districts and have an equal voice in parliament.

In a country such as Canada, exceptions are made to recognize unique circumstances. One federal riding in Canada, Nunavut, covers more than two million square kilometres, but Nunavut has a third fewer voters than the average urban riding. Making it larger to include more people is not feasible. I, for one, would not attempt to go door-knocking in a constituency as large as Nunavut.

In a democracy like Canada, we need to make arrangements to accommodate remote communities, and this is the case right here in British Columbia.

Electoral boundaries are established in our province by an independent commission that is out of the hands of the politicians. We want to ensure that electoral representation is fair and not influenced by government. In British Columbia, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act requires that a review is conducted after every second election, and this brings us to our current debate.

[1510]

In 2014, the government introduced the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act. This legislation gives the independent commission the ability to adjust the boundaries of all electoral districts while preserving the existing number in the north and in rural regions.

It became clear during the last Boundaries Commission process that three regions in British Columbia were at risk of losing representation in the Legislative Assembly. People in the north, Cariboo-Thompson and the Columbia-Kootenay regions would have lost representation if the current act had not been amended.

The intention was to help the commission balance the population between the districts and ensure effective representation. The bottom line is that we need a fair and effective representation for all British Columbians, and the act recommends an increase of two electoral districts from 85 to 87 to better reflect the increase in populations in the areas of Surrey-Richmond and New Westminster.

Adopting the commission’s final report will result in changes to 48 of the current electoral districts. I should interject here that my riding, Penticton, will not change as a result of the commission’s recommendations. However, substantial changes will be taking place in the Fraser Valley, Hope, Princeton, the Comox Valley and mid–Vancouver Island.

An example. In the Comox Valley, Cumberland and Royston and the southern Comox Valley are included as part of the proposed Mid Island–Pacific Rim electoral district. In terms of seat increases, the commission recommends the addition of two additional districts in Richmond and in Surrey.

[ Page 9750 ]

To arrive at the recommendations, the electoral commission consulted widely with British Columbians and held 44 public hearings and considered dozens and dozens of written submissions. I would therefore like to thank, at this point in time, the commissioners for their work in helping preserve our democracy here in British Columbia. The changes we adopt will be in place for the next two elections, and the work of the commission will be greatly appreciated for the years to come.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the opportunity to make some remarks on the motion that is before the House that endorses the work of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. It’s extensive work that was conducted in every region across the province and involved the participation of a number of members of this House. Most importantly and critically, it’s members of the public who followed the work of the commission and attended meetings and shared their opinions with those three distinguished commissioners who have produced the final report that was made available to us in September and that will, I understand, be before this House in the very near future in the form of legislation.

Today, we discuss simply an overview of that work and what it means for, certainly, the province in the next general election in 2017, but I think most importantly, the process itself. Those are the kinds of remarks I want to make this afternoon. It’s about how the commission’s work evolved and just some general observations on what we expect to be in the legislation.

On that basis, because of the wording of this motion, which affirms the conclusion and suggests no amendments to that report, my remarks will be all the more positive in anticipation that legislation that does reach this chamber in this fall sitting will not alter at all the conclusions of the commission.

I think the most appropriate place to start for me, as other members have done on Hansard in this debate — on the record — is to thank all three commissioners who were appointed back in May 2014 and put a lot of work into arriving at a final report that will guide us into the next general election.

Those three individuals are, of course, Mr. Justice Thomas Melnick, who is on the Supreme Court of British Columbia, who chaired this commission and did an extraordinary amount of work…. He interacted, from my observation at the meetings that I attended, very well with members of the public who brought forward their views, as did Beverley Busson, who is a former commissioner of the RCMP, who was a member of this commission; and Keith Archer, who not only has a doctorate but serves, of course, as an independent officer of this House as our province’s Chief Electoral Officer.

[1515]

All three of those individuals, I think, deserve a huge measure of thanks from the 85 members of this House, but from all British Columbians, because the manner in which they discharged their duties and carried on a tremendous volume of work to get us to the stage where we are this afternoon is not inconsiderable. It’s important work, and we have an end product here, an outcome, that just commends the work that was done.

Now, I know there were some twists and turns along the way. The last time I spoke to the issue of the Boundaries Commission and electoral boundaries in different parts of the province was, of course, around the debate over Bill 2. I think that there were a lot of concerns that were shared by the opposition members primarily — actually, exclusively. Concerns that the tradition of having an independent commission, which is not that old…. In fact, an unfettered, independent commission is only a few decades old in the province of British Columbia.

There was a general concern that we were moving from an independent commission model that was free from political intrusion and the unsightly and unfair attempt…. We see it in other political jurisdictions, where politicians essentially sit down with other politicians and draw up their own boundaries — based not on the concerns of their constituents, but based on their own self-interests. The concern was that we were moving from an independent model to one that was semi-independent.

That was because there were a number of constituencies that were, if you like, red-circled or grandfathered, that had some history in the province of British Columbia, but many of them were absolutely inexplicable. You could not delineate between rural…. Although government said it was about protecting rural B.C., there were a number of regional urban hubs included in that.

The concern was that the real denominator between what these 17 ridings had in common is that well over half — in fact, 11 of the 17 — were held by Liberal incumbents. There was no rhyme or reason to which constituencies were included. It was not well articulated by government, so that became the talking point. What they had in common was that most of them were held by members of the government side.

There were also concerns about communities that were not included in this list, that there was partisanship by omission in terms of communities that were clearly rural, where there were historic concerns about constituents having a reasonable access to their MLA — you know, constituencies that are constrained by either island ferry service or the lack of roads between them becoming overly large. A number of those were not included in the instructions that Bill 2 gave to the commission.

I’ll return to some of those concerns around Bill 2 later.

I do want to say that we are very fortunate in British Columbia that over time and, let’s face it, due to certain outrageous, scandalous events in history, we have arrived at a more mature, fair process for deciding what electoral

[ Page 9751 ]

boundaries look like in British Columbia.

My colleague and, I think, others have already referred to the infamous Gracie’s finger, an example of how actual gerrymandering took place once upon a time in British Columbia. Actually, not in the too-distant past. We’re talking about 1979 and the scandal that that brought down upon a government that was actually re-elected on a gerrymandered boundary.

That ensured that going forward…. To my knowledge, it’s still the case that, for example, failed candidates of a political party were no longer allowed to chair that commission. In fact, the Eckardt commission had been chaired by an ex-politician. Not a successful politician, but it was chaired by somebody who belonged to the governing party.

[1520]

You don’t see that in British Columbia anymore. To my knowledge, you do not see the ability for elected officials to directly intervene before a final report hits the Queen’s Printer and is introduced to MLAs, as we did in 1978-1979 when the minister who introduced the bill, Grace McCarthy….

I don’t mean to run her down, because she is associated with many distinguished things and reforms in British Columbia, but this was her worst hour. There’s no question about it, and it spoke to a government culture that took advantage. It had motive and opportunity. It took advantage of a situation that could be manipulated and abused for partisan purposes.

It was the Gracie’s finger episode that changed things, that stopped the ability for a minister to intervene — in this case, go to dinner and go to lunch and apply pressure on commission employees — to change the boundaries of her own riding. This is the genesis of what became known as Gracie’s finger: a neighbourhood in Vancouver that had no connection with adjoining established neighbourhoods, that took a relatively safe seat and added polls that typically returned the government in 70 to 80 percent numbers and included it in that riding.

Sometimes the greatest motivator for reform is not, in fact, the positive movement of people who take charge of their democratic institutions. It’s the failure of them to serve the people’s interests that gives a glaring example that then sparks the uproar of opinion that leads to reforms and changes.

Thank goodness we are in that place in British Columbia where those kinds of egregious interventions that were called out by the leaders of the then opposition New Democrats and the Conservatives that sat in the Legislative Assembly — that that example did not go by lightly. It ended the culture and the possibility of intervening. In effect, I don’t think gerrymandering is too strong a word for it. That’s exactly what it is.

That still exists in many parts of the world. Some of it is changing ever so slowly. In the state of California, not too far from here, the spectacle of governing caucus members sitting down in a back room and carving out their own ridings that seem to have everything to do with race and socioeconomic status and nothing to do with the natural lay of the land and the constituency to which people geographically adhere to — that’s coming to an end in states like California. But it exists, massively, even in the United States still.

The 2012 congressional elections were yet another reminder of how, in this case, the Republican Party was able to manipulate many of the key congressional districts to their advantage beginning by using, actually, state legislatures, where gerrymandering is perhaps less scrutinized than at the national level.

In the United States — I think this will come as a shock to many members of the House and to the public in Canada because this is a problem that we have largely solved through our reforms over time — you actually have a multi-billion dollar industry, a political industry that does data profiling and analysis of voting tendencies and demographic shifts and supplies information, sometimes in a clandestine manner, to get into the hands of legislators who actually have the task, the responsibility, of creating their own state legislative districts which then set a pattern, of course, for national congressional districts.

Just to give people a sense of how this can be distorted, we have states where the governing party can lose by up to eight or ten percentage points and have 20 percent more elected representatives. There are a couple of examples where these electoral college changes exist.

[1525]

The size of the industry, as I mentioned earlier…. I’m just trying to consult my reference here, which is the New York Times , and I trust that people will grant me that that is a valuable source around this issue.

In the case of an organization called REDMAP, which is a Republican state leadership contracted organization, we’re talking about big money — tens of millions of dollars. For example, there was a strategy that was unearthed by a journalist that looked at $30 million in slush fund money that was provided through partisan-affiliated — well, they say they’re non-partisan, but they’re partisan-affiliated — PAC organizations to help a party win five state legislatures, which would then have an influence on those 2012 congressional elections.

Now, as I say, that’s not too far from where we live. That’s a democracy that often calls itself the beacon and the model for the rest of the world to emulate. It’s a feature of a democracy that neighbours us that we have to be on guard against infiltrating jurisdictions like British Columbia.

We have some of the problems that U.S. states have around big money. We have had no interest from this government in bringing in campaign finance reform legislation, even though a number of other jurisdictions…. Federal rules under Elections Canada now govern contributions and, in fact, ban and outlaw big

[ Page 9752 ]

business and union contributions. It’s about individuals. That’s something that British Columbia’s democracy would absolutely benefit from.

We do have to look back at Bill 2 and understand that you can never be complacent around a boundary commission process. There will always be an attempt — and I think there was — to introduce political advantage. Even in our independent system, government names the commissioner and the commission, and under Bill 2, instructions were given about what seats will be protected from population and demographic shifts and which ones will not be.

I said earlier that I salute the commission’s work. I think they were given quite a difficult job, made more difficult by the fact that 17 ridings, more than 20 percent of the constituencies in B.C., were excluded from what is called the 25 percent rule. That is to say that their population must not deviate plus or minus 25 percent from the average size of a constituency. We look at British Columbia — 55,000 constituents on average, 85 constituencies, adding up to 4.4 million British Columbians — and 17 of those ridings were allowed to exceed that 25 percent deviation rule.

Now, it’s an important rule. Why? Is 25 percent an arbitrary number? No, it’s one that has jurisprudence behind it. This is one that comes out of a number of Supreme Court decisions. In order to protect a key demographic principle, which is that all votes are equal — one citizen, one vote — you get to a point where if you unduly weight the value of somebody’s vote in a very small constituency, it essentially cancels out the ability to influence or the equality rights of a vote cast by somebody in a larger urban riding.

A very difficult set of marching orders for the commission to try and accommodate all this. I think, given that there were additionally tasked with having to add two seats in fast-growing areas of the province, they did a remarkably good job of being able to come to the map that was produced that we are considering and the other set of recommendations here.

You know, the provincial overview that I provided…. I’m not going to go into any detail about every single constituency. I think the member for Nanaimo has done a very thorough job of talking about some of the granular details of each different constituency and boundaries that, admittedly, even by his own account, are ones that he has perhaps not even visited.

[1530]

As the respondent for the opposition caucus, I thank him for giving that kind of scrutiny and oversight to the map that was produced by this commission. Because of his painstaking detail, I will not need to go into that level. But I do wish to talk about my own region for some minutes, and my own constituency in particular. I imagine that that pattern will continue. I have said that we are very fortunate to live in a parliamentary democracy where politicians don’t sit down in back rooms and engage in gerrymandering practices — or at least in far less overt and disgraceful conduct than in other democratic jurisdictions.

However, it doesn’t mean that I don’t have any interesting comments or observations to make. Well, they might not be interesting, but I certainly have observations to make about my own constituency, where I live and where I am very privileged to try and represent, to the best of my ability, the people I was elected to represent.

On the south Island, I think one of the key concerns was, obviously, what the map would look like. The capital regional district does not have the demographic growth that many regions of British Columbia have. However, it does have, within the region, some areas that are growing quite quickly.

I’m thinking in particular of the Western Communities. You look at communities like Langford and Colwood, which my colleague, the member for Juan de Fuca represents — very fast-growing areas. Other communities, represented by colleagues like in Oak Bay–Gordon Head, are much less so. My own constituency of Victoria–Swan Lake is somewhere in between.

What has happened, though, between the last time the Boundaries Commission did its work in 2008 and this iteration, is that we have gone from a population that really couldn’t quite support seven MLAs in the south Island but was what you might call a 6.5-member region, with one of the boundaries stretching over the Malahat into the Cowichan Valley area and becoming the other half of a riding — very difficult to represent for that member up and down the Malahat with communities that don’t have a lot to do with each other on a day-to-day basis.

That is now a problem, thanks to the modest but steady population growth, particularly in the Western Communities, as I mentioned. The south Island is now almost perfectly, if I may say, a seven-member riding — with about 350- to 360-odd-thousand people living in the south Island dividing quite neatly into a map of roughly 53,000 to 55,000 constituents per MLA.

In the 2008 draft, there were some concerns that the draft that came before this House recommended something that was quite a lot different and something that was not natural to the lay of the land, the geography and the way communities have been built up over time.

In effect, what was recommended was that Saanich North and the Islands remain substantially the same but that the Saanich Peninsula be flipped sideways in its orientation and no longer have a north-south set of boundaries that were important to communities but be flipped over into an east-west orientation — one that really doesn’t match the way people’s schools, communities and neighbourhoods have evolved, let alone the municipal boundaries. It was a confusing map, yet for a time, it looked like it could be the way this region would be divided and its boundaries would be formed.

[ Page 9753 ]

In the final analysis, it was rejected. Now, that concern existed, perhaps, for this commission, because they would have reviewed the work of the previous commission. But they never, in fact, looked at that seriously, although I am aware of at least one individual associated with the Conservative Party who urged that the east-west draft that had been put into the dustbin in 2008 be dredged up again and considered.

[1535]

Because nobody else spoke for it, I think it’s good that the commission listened to the public and had a good understanding of how the capital regional district political boundaries work — its school district boundaries, for example — and came up with a map that in reality doesn’t change very much.

I had the opportunity, upon the invitation, to present to the Boundaries Commission, and I did so. I actually had very few comments about Victoria–Swan Lake. There are almost no changes in my constituency. But I did think it was interesting that on the principle of trying to keep things simple and trying to have MLAs not cross municipal boundaries unnecessarily and divide up too many municipalities between too many representatives….

In the case of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, which has always been the entire municipality of Oak Bay and the Gordon Head portion of Saanich, now that would include a small sliver of east Fairfield on the border of Oak Bay — the city of Victoria, in other words. This introduces another municipality and, therefore, divides Victoria’s representation in terms of MLAs not between two MLAs, which it has always been historically, but now three.

My concern was just simply that the commission didn’t need to make those shifts. If they wished to include more Saanich constituents in Oak Bay–Gordon Head, they could easily have done so. Victoria has always had two MLAs. In fact, at one time, this was a two-member, oddly elected system in some of those Socred years, in the ’70s and ’80s. It then became single-member proper ridings in the 1980s.

My constituency was known as Victoria-Hillside in the 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2005 general elections. Victoria–Beacon Hill, the same. Listen, it’s not a huge distinction, but knowing Victoria quite well, both as a former elected councillor and now as an MLA privileged to represent at least the north half of the city, I did think the commission, interestingly, divided a community like Fairfield-Gonzales in two and between two MLAs, and that wasn’t necessary.

However, these are not substantive changes. I think that people residing in greater Victoria will adjust quite easily to it. Again, the commission, it must be said, is dealing with a jurisdiction that…. Although it has seven MLAs, there are 13 municipalities here. It’s going to be less than neat and tidy with that many mayors and councils and with some municipalities that are incorporated with as few as 1,000 people.

I did hear some of my constituents arguing for bringing back the name Victoria-Hillside. I think I heard that a lot more in previous years. Sometimes people, including members here in the Legislative Assembly, say privately to me: “Where the heck is Swan Lake?” I think that is less of a problem today than in the past.

I know there’s not just one Swan Lake in British Columbia. I was recently advised of a Swan Lake near Vernon, and there may be others. There may be others in the north part of British Columbia. However, I think people know that this is the Swan Lake of British Columbia. That is well known and appreciated.

Of course, the commission — to go back and call it Victoria-Hillside might unnecessarily alienate and exclude those of my constituents with a particular Saanich identity. Swan Lake is an iconic nature sanctuary in Saanich now, and with 60 percent of my constituents residing in Victoria and 40-plus percent in Saanich, it’s important, I think, to be inclusive. Swan Lake has a significance in this part of the province and in the name of this constituency, so I think that issue disappeared.

[1540]

Somebody is looking it up on their computer now. I would be happy to…. I’ll just put it out there. Any member of either party who would like to see Swan Lake, weather and time permitting, in this legislative session — we’ll see if we can get out there and do a little field trip.

Now, I noted that the Chief Electoral Officer — one of the commissioners in this process — representing Elections B.C. and representing all of us as an independent officer who reports to all elected members, bid for executive support for the Boundaries Commission’s work, put in a proposal and was treated like any other vendor. Now, that’s interesting. Having successfully got the work of supporting the commission, he did a great job.

I think in the annual report, there is a reference to a word that the former Minister of Education liked to use a lot: a shared-services model, where efficiencies were found that did the work with cost savings and with expediency, without any rush to move too quickly. The carefulness was intact.

The Chief Electoral Officer is saying to all of us that there should be a permanence, in fact, to Elections B.C. having that as part of their mandate. I kind of happen to agree.

Electoral organizations. We’ve just been through Elections Canada playing a role in managing a federal election, where there was a very happy outcome in terms of the voter participation. It was able to respond to millions of more Canadians going to the polls than in the previous general election.

I think that should clearly be the goal of our election organization in British Columbia. I think that recommendation should be taken seriously. I also think we should follow up on his recommendation to automatically register all 18-year-olds in British Columbia so they can get to the polls and vote for their interests.

[ Page 9754 ]

D. McRae: I almost lost my place. I was so enraptured thinking about the various Swan Lakes around British Columbia. But I quickly pulled myself out of my geographic vision here.

I rise today to speak about the work of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. I must say as I stand, I do so with a conflicted heart. Of course, I respect the independence of the commission and the hard work they had in front of them, but it does have impacts on some ridings more than others. I would argue that Comox Valley, my home for my entire life, is being impacted — and in a way that is challenging.

The Comox Valley, for those of you who have been there…. Like many of us have been to Swan Lake, I think many of us have also been to the Comox Valley over various times. As an electoral district, it has been in existence since 1991, actually. In 1991, it was represented by a woman named Margaret Lord, followed by Evelyn Gillespie. Members of this chamber will remember working with Stan Hagen for almost two terms and then myself.

Prior to that it was called the electoral district of Comox, and it stretched from parts of the Qualicum area to, I think, just south of Campbell River. It was before my time. It was a larger geographic area, but obviously the population was changed.

I think back about population — how it impacts the changes in our electoral district and also impacts this building as well. If I look in this building and look in this chamber, there are 85 seats. Unlike many constructed chambers that follow the British parliamentary model, we’ve had to make some allowances for it. People often coming to tour the buildings will look down or look through the golden gate here, and they will notice that for some reason it wows out as you get down to this end of the chamber.

I believe when the building was built, in about 1898, there were about 30 MLAs representing the province of British Columbia. Today with 85, it is getting more and more difficult to actually get us all sitting into desks in the chamber. Anybody who’s got up quickly and not protected their fingers with their neighbour beside them knows the price one pays.

The reality is the population has continued to grow. In 1871, the population in British Columbia was about 36,000 through Census Canada. I think it was a bit racially driven at the time because they didn’t do a great job counting First Nations.

[1545]

Even then, if we add 200,000 to such, today our population, where we count all residents of Canada…. We’re now pushing about 4.6 million. It does continue to change and, like the province, so does our riding.

Comox Valley, though, does have some unique features, which I think will be missed as they potentially make changes. We are one of the few districts that share one regional district. We have it for the whole Comox Valley, with the same school district boundaries and the electoral district. It makes it really easy for the residents of our community.

Proposed changes, though, will see parts of our community going to a different riding. Right now to my north there is the riding of North Island, whose member is obviously very proud of her constituency, as I know she would be. I think their population is about 53,000 or 54,000.

Interjection.

D. McRae: It’s 55,000. She knows them all, she says, intimately.

To the south is the riding of Alberni–Pacific Rim, with about 42,000 residents as well.

Comox Valley has seen significant population change in the last 15 years. According to census 2001, there were about 55,000 Comox Valley residents, stretching from Fanny Bay in the south to Oyster River in the north. Today we are pushing 65,000, and we are projected to grow. We are definitely on the higher scale. If we’re using the 50,000 to 55,000 population as a sweet spot, we have exceeded that a long time ago.

I think, since I am speaking about the Comox Valley, I’d like to put some of our communities just on record as I do speak, if it’s okay with yourself, hon. Speaker. To the far west, we have the islands of Hornby and Denman, two unique places by any stretch. Both, geographically, are more isolated, because for Hornby it’s a two-ferry ride from Comox Valley. From Denman….

Interjection.

D. McRae: East. My apologies. I’m just so broken up at this stage here.

Denman Island as well — again, very artistic communities. Hornby has some amazing beaches and some ecosystem, Denman as well. To the south, we have Fanny Bay and Ships Point; the historic town of Union Bay, which was known as a coal export port for a long period of time; Royston, just to the north of that, where they did log exports.

The village of Cumberland — about 3,000 people living there, a long history in our community with coal mining and now today not just celebrating their past history, but they’re going forward as a mountain-biking hub and a really unique place to raise a family. I say unique in a totally amazing, good way. It has more sense of community. The schools are growing. They’re full of families. It’s just an amazing, vibrant community.

The town of Courtenay is sort of the central hub of the Comox Valley with 24,000 residents, providing lots of the services; the town of Comox, which borders the air force base; to the north, the farming communities of Merville and Black Creek. As well, I should also make sure we include the community, near Comox, of Lazo.

[ Page 9755 ]

Our biggest employer is CFB Comox, which has provided employment since World War II, with the air force base, and has been an absolutely key part of our community.

It’s just been a phenomenal place to live, raise a family and, also, to get to represent in this chamber. One of the unique opportunities in this chamber is, while the population is large, you can actually travel into most places in the Comox Valley. I’ll use my constituency office as more of a central place. You can probably reach 90 percent of the citizens within a 20-minute car ride. If you’re going to Hornby Island, obviously with ferries and such, it’s a bit farther. It is a very distinct geographic area.

If I compare it to one of my colleagues’, the member for Peace River North…. For those of you who’ve been there, it is a very, very large riding. I think he once said it could take him up to ten hours to drive from one end of his riding to the far end — 160,000 square kilometres in that area. If we’re comparable… I always like good comparables as a geography teacher. If we were living in Europe, the same square footage would squeeze into…. You could squeeze in the countries of Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands.

Now, there’s a bit more concentration of population in those communities and countries, but the reality is, it is just a massive, massive geographic area. It is also ranging from flat prairie in the east to more of a tundra, almost, in the north, I guess — a nice way of saying it — just a beautiful part of British Columbia.

Again, it all comes back to finding that balance. How do we make sure…? You have an elected representative who you want to know his or her community, be strong for their community and have an understanding of their community, but you also want to make sure they’re actually able to visit their community.

[1550]

Again, with something like Peace River North, it’s just a massive geographic area to cover for one individual. For some of my colleagues who maybe live down in the Lower Mainland in the denser community areas, you could argue that you could ride a bike across certain constituencies in maybe ten or 15 minutes. I don’t want to speak to their ability to ride bikes. But some of them are obviously, because of highrises, much smaller than the ones to the north.

We constantly look at ways to revise electoral districts. When I say “we,” we task individuals who are not part of this chamber to go out and talk to citizens across British Columbia. It is a challenge. We want to make sure we allow these individuals to do their best.

My understanding is that, potentially, we’ll see another two more members in this chamber, if this Electoral Boundaries Commission Act is to pass. If you look in this chamber again, we will squeeze two more desks into an already tight room.

Again, the population of this province grows. We want to make sure we have electoral representative ability to have access to this chamber. At the same time, we respect that the northern parts, the rural parts, of British Columbia definitely have some unique perspective. We want to make sure their representation is there and that it is strong.

It is, again, with a conflicted heart that I stand. I am proud of the Comox Valley. It has been a great place to represent. If it were to go to, as they suggest in the report…. They were talking about putting Cumberland and Royston and Union Bay and Ships Point and Denman and Hornby into the Port Alberni–Pacific Rim riding, which again, makes a substantial geographic area for one individual to represent. That riding, then, would stretch from Tofino-Ucluelet on the west coast all the way to Hornby Island on the east coast. The roads just do not travel straight. It’s hard to travel in the wintertime in inclement weather. It will be a challenge.

But I know, the electoral representative representing Comox Valley — or Courtenay-Comox, as the new one may be called — would still represent what is truly Comox Valley. I think it is much easier for those residents just to the south to make sure they are listened to and served. In some ways, they will get two MLAs to work with as they go forward, which would probably be to their benefit.

Comox Valley is a strong place to live. It’s a great place to live. It will persevere every electoral district change that we have, going forward. I look forward to hearing comments from the members opposite coming up, as they speak about their constituencies.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I rise to speak about the Electoral Boundaries Commission report and the motion to support it. I don’t think I’ll dip into Swan Lake, the Magna Carta, the great communities around Comox Valley. I appreciate….

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: Come visit, indeed. I’ll have to visit again.

No, I am here today to talk about some things that I really like about the report, some challenges that I see that will still be with us long past this debate, and some hope that people get better representation and that our government functions better.

What is this process? As speakers have noted, this is a process about deciding who gets to sit in this place. Who gets to sit in this Legislature to defend the interests of their constituents, to advocate for change, to come up with solutions to some of the biggest challenges we have? This is a process, an independent process, which is designed to try and keep the politics out of it, try and keep the partisan politics out of it, and make it about representing people first, not representing parties first or what have you.

[ Page 9756 ]

It’s a process designed, in a sense, to listen to people about where they think the boundaries for their riding should be, where they think communities of interest coincide and where they do not.

It also, we should recognize, attracts the real attention of many partisans in terms of where boundaries should be and how that might affect one party’s vote totals or might hurt another party’s vote totals.

That certainly plays a part of it and is why it’s so important that Judge Melnick, Beverley Busson and Keith Archer — the three in charge of this process — had to work so hard to try and stop the political influence from taking over, where you might see a giant jag of a line disappearing somewhere else to include a community that voted one way in order to try to make it more likely that that seat might go one way. But instead, they listened to the neighbours, to the people who live in those neighbourhoods — hearing from them on what is the community interest and what makes sense.

[1555]

In a process like this, as you try to balance population numbers and you balance growing communities and shrinking communities, that can be really difficult. So I do give them credit, and I thank them for listening to so many people in trying to come up with a strategy to have proper representation by the population. But this is the challenge, this is the big issue that will remain long past this motion, long past this legislation. It’s the question of what is proper representation by population?

Of course, you know that in B.C. we work on an idea that 25 percent of the population can be above or below the average in the province, which is set around 50,000 people. That’s the goal. That’s the hope — that you come into some sort of average so that every vote is equal. Well, that’s easier said than done, because you also have to consider how voices are heard.

In a riding like Vancouver–West End, which I call Vancouver–West End, Coal Harbour currently, as I also currently represent Coal Harbour, I’m connected closely to a lot of people. The challenge in my riding is that a lot of people move. We have people coming in and coming out. So their connection to the riding, their ability to get to know their MLA and to get to speak up for the community life of the riding, can be more challenging, as they may have newly arrived or they may have moved within the riding a few times. So finding them, necessarily, or having them have the time to find their representative, sometimes can be challenging.

Imagine if you were the riding of Stikine. Stikine is a riding in B.C. that is currently about 14,000 times the size of Vancouver–West End, Coal Harbour — 14,000 times the size of my riding, a riding which I can ride my bike across in five minutes. It doesn’t take me 15, as the previous speaker said it might, but, no, about five minutes. It’s a fairly small riding. I guess if you go around the seawall — sure, that can add on some real time. But there aren’t many people who live in Stanley Park, thankfully; although, there are some because of the outrageous challenges of homelessness that we still see in this province.

That’s something to think about. Can you get access to your member of the Legislature quickly and in a way that’s effective if you live in a riding that’s 14,000 times the size of my riding? It’s hard, and I give credit to the current member of Stikine for doing it very well.

Now let’s think about the population numbers between the two ridings. Vancouver–West End, Coal Harbour, as it’s supposed to be, as described in this report, will take in about 57,000 people. How many people would be taken in by Stikine — again, a riding that’s 14,000 times the size? Well, that would be about 20,000 people. So in a sense, you’re getting 20,000 people to 57,000 people, each having an equal vote in this House.

That is a challenge, because, of course, you’ve got to balance out representation by population with the ability to have access to that person who is supposed to be a representative. In a riding with 14,000 times the size, that is really challenging.

It is an issue that I think we’re going to have to struggle with some more in this House. That’s one of the most extreme differences in this report but not the most. There are ridings that are bigger in terms of population size. I don’t think there’s a riding bigger in terms of land size. There you have it.

We’re trying to address that in this report, I see, through the direction of the government — to add more s