2014 Legislative Session: Second 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, May 5, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Pathways Clubhouse in Richmond

J. Yap

Asian heritage

J. Shin

Community service organizations in Brentwood area

R. Lee

Courage to Come Back Award recipient Kris Stanbra

K. Conroy

Animal abuse prevention

J. Thornthwaite

Nelson Food Cupboard and access to healthy food

M. Mungall

Oral Questions

Temporary foreign worker program and employment of B.C. workers

J. Horgan

Hon. S. Bond

Temporary foreign worker program and skills training for jobs at smelter project in Kitimat

J. Horgan

Hon. S. Bond

Temporary foreign worker program and protection for workers

M. Elmore

Hon. S. Bond

Contracts for information technology services

G. Heyman

Hon. A. Wilkinson

M. Farnworth

S. Simpson

Closing of youth custody centre in Victoria

C. James

Hon. S. Cadieux

M. Karagianis

Petitions

A. Weaver

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2014

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2014

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 27 — The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act, 2014

S. Robinson

Hon. C. Oakes

L. Throness

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 27 — The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act, 2014

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014 (continued)

S. Hammell

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

G. Holman

B. Routley

C. James

M. Karagianis

G. Heyman

R. Fleming

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (continued)

C. Trevena

Hon. D. McRae

M. Mungall

[ Page 3451 ]

MONDAY, MAY 5, 2014

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: I'd like to rise in the House today to introduce a group of students from the University of British Columbia Medical Undergraduate Society. These are the future physicians of British Columbia. Their organization represents over 1,100 medical students in the province who receive direct exposure to our medical system. They spend thousands of hours in the health care field all across the provinces. It's really great to have them here with us today, and I hope they enjoy their visit. Will the House please make these future physicians very welcome.

J. Darcy: I'd like to join the Minister of Health in welcoming the young doctors, or the doctors of tomorrow, who are here today. Several members of the opposition caucus also had the opportunity to meet with them, and they are brimming with knowledge and enthusiasm and hope for the future. They have lots of ideas for how to improve our health care system. I just want to join with the minister in saying what a wonderful opportunity it was to meet with them.

Their message was: "We want to be heard. We want to contribute to discussions about health care in British Columbia."

Welcome, also, to the undergraduate student society of young doctors, wherever they are sitting.

An Hon. Member: They're over there.

J. Darcy: There they are. Wonderful.

I would also like to take the opportunity to welcome one of my constituents from New Westminster, Jason Yelmarsen, a wonderful young man and exceptional volunteer who makes a great contribution to politics and our community. Please join me in welcoming Jason Yelmarsen to the Legislature today.

D. Horne: On behalf of the Clerk, I would like to introduce a good friend of his and colleagues: Niall Johnston, of the World Bank, and his friends Claire and Nicholas Cann, who are residents of the U.K. and visiting various parts of Canada over the next couple of weeks. May the House make them truly welcome.

L. Popham: I've got some friends visiting from Saanich South today. I have Claire Yoo, Byung Lee, Hak Sik Choi, In Sook Kim, Sang Kon Shim, Kyung Ja Kim, Woo Sik Hwang, Eun Ho Lee, Chang Ju Mun, Yeong Ho Byeon, Hyung Wook Kang and Jin Hee Lee. Welcome to the House, and thanks for having lunch with us today.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I hope the House will join me in welcoming a delegation from the B.C. Technology Industry Association, a body that is responsible for $23 billion of economic activity in this province. I'd ask the House to welcome Paul Lindahl, Michael Delage, Malcolm Mann, Arnold Leung, Warren Wall, Greg Malpass and the president of the BCTIA, Mr. Bill Tam.

M. Karagianis: I have several introductions to make today, if you'll bear with me. First of all, I'd like to welcome, from my constituency, part of our Korean delegation here today. From my own constituency, Byung Choon Lee, Chong Tong Lee, Bong Gun Park, Heon Woong Kim and Jae Im Kim.

I'd like to give them a very warm welcome.

There are so many personal close friends here in the gallery. I feel a bit giddy today, seeing them all up here. I think others will be introduced by my colleagues, but I'm going to introduce a couple of my good friends that are here who work in my office. Please give a very welcome to Jayne Ducker and Lawrence Herzog.

I'm sure all the rest of you are going to get introductions from somebody. If not, I'll stand up again.

E. Foster: I'd like to introduce a constituent of mine who's visiting in the House today: Susan Plato from Vernon. Susan has lived in Vernon for about 11 years, after visiting there on vacation for over 40 years. Susan is the grandmother of a B.C. Leg. intern, Ethan Plato. I'd have the House make her welcome.

[1340]

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. Horgan: Well, thank you, hon. Speaker. That must be me. [Applause.]

Thank you. Joining us in the gallery today as part of the Korean delegation is a constituent of mine, Myung Chung Kim. I want to welcome her to the precinct.

I have an inventory of other folks who've come today from parts west of here, in the great state of Juan de Fuca. I'd like to introduce my sister Kathy Palmer; Cate Jones; the already aforementioned Lawrence Herzog; Jayne Ducker; Kim "Irrepressible" Manton; Shannon Russell, my constituency assistant; Ravi Parmar, who helped get Belmont high school built, thanks to the good work of the Minister of Education; Lucy Mears, my part-time CA, Hans Frederiksen and his better half, Rosemary — Hans is also a part-time CA; Larry Fofonoff, the Friday volunteer guy; Sharon Wilkinson; Sheldon Kitzul; Grant McLachlan; Vikki Sweeney; a guy named — it says here — Nate Horgan, who would be my good son.

[ Page 3452 ]

Not joining us today are my gooder son Evan, who is travelling in Ontario, and the love of my life, the delightful and always overwhelming Ellie Horgan. Would the House please make them all very, very welcome.

G. Heyman: It's my pleasure to join the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services in welcoming Bill Tam and the other representatives of the B.C. Technology Industry Association.

The association does tremendous work assisting entrepreneurs and new businesses to get going with mentoring and coaching. They have great programs and for over 20 years have been making a tremendous impact on B.C.'s economy.

It also gives me great pleasure to introduce my constituency assistant, who's joining the member for New Westminster's constituent up in the gallery today. Jarrett Hagglund has done a tremendous job helping to get my office up and running — and, in fact, me up and running. He's a great member of the community, very active, has a great sense of humour. I notice when I return to the constituency on Fridays and talk to the constituents who come in for meetings that they never fail to be extremely complimentary about the assistance they receive from him. Will the House please join me in making all of these people very welcome.

A. Weaver: As we all know, community associations and action groups are absolutely vital in ensuring residents in our regions have their voices heard. Today in the gallery I'd like to introduce five residents from around greater Victoria who are very active in their communities.

First is Dr. Fred Haynes, who's the chair of the Saanich Community Association Network and past president of the Prospect Lake Community Association.

There's also John Schmuck, president of the Quadra Cedar Hill Community Association and vice-president of the Saanich Community Association Network; Marsha Henderson, former member of Royal Oak Community Association and a member of the Sewage Treatment Action Group; Russ Smith, member of the Sewage Treatment Action Group; Shellie MacDonald, member of the Prospect Lake Community Association and member of the Sewage Treatment Action Group; and finally, Richard Atwell, director of the Sewage Treatment Action Group. I will have the honour of presenting a number of petitions on their behalf later today.

I would also like to welcome the members from the Korean community who are from my riding. It was unfortunate that I was not allowed to know the names of these people, but I do want to wish you the very best. Welcome to this House, and please come and visit my office any time.

M. Elmore: I'm very pleased that my good friend, Annette Beech, is here. Annette is a real stalwart, well known in Victoria, a leader. She's the president of the caregiver, temporary foreign workers and immigrants association.

She's joined also by Laila Pires, one of the founding members of the Bayanihan Centre here in Victoria, vice-president, currently, of the Victoria Filipino-Canadian Association; and board members Helen Schaefer, adviser of the caregivers, and Sarah Atud, board of directors of the caregiver association; joined by Jim Stanley, a supporter, and also joined by a number of temporary foreign workers working here in the Lower Mainland, joining us here. I ask everybody to please make them welcome.

[1345]

Hon. D. McRae: Across British Columbia, in communities large and small, there are volunteer firefighters who dedicate themselves to making our communities safer. They give up birthdays, holidays. They are often called out late at night. I want to say thank to them.

Today in the House I am very fortunate to have a resident from the Comox Valley. A friend of mine, John Ward has served with the Comox Valley volunteer fire department for 25 years. He is here, joined by his wife, Krista, and his daughters Stephanie and Lindsay. I would like this House to please wish John a thank-you and a welcome to this Legislature but, also, to celebrate all volunteer firefighters for the work they do in our communities.

R. Fleming: I want to join with my colleagues in welcoming some members of the Korean community of greater Victoria who are with us here in the House and who live in the constituency of Victoria–Swan Lake, my constituency. With us today we have Shin Dong Soo, Jang Eun Jin and Han Hyo Lim. I would ask the House to please make these folks most welcome here in the House this afternoon.

J. Shin: I have a series of very special introductions to make today. Firstly, we are joined in the gallery by my very good friend and a constituent, Lil Cameron. She's an election veteran, and she helped me survive my first. From women's rights to co-op housing issues, she's my favourite splash-maker in the community, standing up for us. Would the House please make her feel very welcome.

Also in the gallery are two of my biggest supporters from the Metro Vancouver Korean-Canadian community, Piwon Suk, the new president, and Sung Hwan Kim, the new vice-president of the Korean cultural society. They are organizing the 13th annual Korean Heritage Festival that will take place in Burnaby's Swangard Stadium on August 16. With the generous support of Burnaby city, I think we are expecting a great event. Would the House please make the two of them feel very welcome as well.

Lastly but not least, I do have the distinct honour today

[ Page 3453 ]

of welcoming my friends from the Victoria and Saanich area, all 34 of them joining us. In particular, I would like to introduce Rev. Raphael Hong and, Father Byung-suk Park of the Victoria Korean Catholic church. I didn't know there was a Korean Catholic church. It certainly reminded me of my catholic roots.

It is estimated there are 2,000-strong Korean-Canadians on Vancouver Island, and I won't soon forget the support that I received from the community last year.

Would the House please make my extended family feel very welcome. Of course, I'll make sure that everybody has a chance to meet our wonderful Korean delegation. We've had members from the other side, all across the floor, visiting us as well.

Hon. J. Rustad: I've just had an opportunity. My executive assistant, who just joined our ministry in August, is up in the gallery — Mark Knudsen. I wanted to have the House recognize him and to thank him for all the great work he does.

C. James: I have two constituents who are visiting the gallery today, part of the south Island Korean delegation and very active in the Korean community here: Jeong Hae Kim and Jong Hee Kim. Would the House please make them very welcome.

B. Ralston: I want to introduce a few further guests of the official opposition this afternoon. Kyung Soon Park, Hyun Ji Lee, Jae Wook Lee, Hyung Ae Kim, Sea Hyuk Hong, Jay Yoon, Mal Yong Park and Sor Ryang Jackson.

S. Simpson: I'd like the House to make welcome my partner, Cate Jones, who is here today to watch the proceedings. Please make her welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PATHWAYS CLUBHOUSE IN RICHMOND

J. Yap: This is Mental Health Week, and I'm pleased to rise today to speak about Pathways Clubhouse, the Canadian Mental Health Association's operation in Richmond. Pathways Clubhouse offers support to people who live with mental illness. Pathways provides both youth and adults dealing with mental health issues with a stable housing environment, physical fitness, education support, employment support, social activities and a sense of community and belonging.

[1350]

It's open every day of the year. Pathways celebrates the person's strengths. Recently, Pathways participated in an independent review of the value created by the dollars received from their funders and donors. Once the review was completed, Pathways Clubhouse learned that they produced a total of $14 in societal value to their members and the larger community from every $1 that they receive.

The staff at Pathways Clubhouse understand that individuals are unique. The programs that they have created reflect that members come from various walks of life and, as a result, should have access to programs that suit their needs.

Some of the programs include the social program, the young adult program, the public education program and the Bounce Back: Reclaim Your Health program.

By creating a warm, communal and inclusive environment that embraces and celebrates members for their talents and strengths, Pathways Clubhouse gives members encouragement and the opportunity to rebuild their lives. They make a positive impact on the community of Richmond.

Madame Speaker, I know you will join me in congratulating and thanking Dave MacDonald, executive director of Pathways Clubhouse, and his team for making a positive difference in the lives of people living with mental illness.

ASIAN HERITAGE

J. Shin: For many of us British Columbians, working our chopsticks; knowing the basic readings in a few Asian languages, from ni hao to sat sri akal ; drinking bubble tea; bobbing along to bhangra; and watching the latest Korean shows have become our way of life. It turns out that in 2001 Canada made the month of May Asian Heritage Month for us to indulge in doing more of exactly that and to also celebrate the long and rich history of Asian Canadians dating back to the 1700s — and also honour their incredible contributions to our country.

In British Columbia the Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society has developed a broad and inclusive definition of Asians — from Sri Lankans to Singaporeans — to promote public understanding of Asian arts, culture and history and also create synergy and collaboration with our communities.

Just this past weekend I had the pleasure of attending their annual explorASIAN Festival with several members of this House. Now, I thought I knew my Vietnamese and Filipino culture very well, but I was blown away by their beautiful music and dance performances that I've never seen before. There I was, reminded once again: where else but in beautiful British Columbia?

This summer, on August 16, British Columbians will be able to enjoy the biggest Korean festival yet, led by Mr. Suk and Mr. Kim, who are in the House today. We expect to draw more than 50,000 people from all over B.C. to Burnaby's Swangard Stadium for the festivities. My friends in the gallery and I will certainly be there, and I hope that you will join us as well.

I would like to finish with just one last thought. Despite the difficulties and challenges that all of us as members of the House and as public servants face, I want to take this opportunity to personally express that every time I

[ Page 3454 ]

do rise in this House, I am reminded of all of the work and sacrifice paid for by generations and generations of people for me to be even able to take a seat in this House as a young Asian immigrant woman.

We still have a lot more work to do, but I'm so profoundly proud of the mosaic landscape that we see in this chamber today to represent the people of British Columbia and to be able to call such respectful people that are in this chamber my colleagues. It's an incredible privilege. On behalf of Burnaby-Lougheed, thank you.

COMMUNITY SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

IN BRENTWOOD AREA

R. Lee: I rise in the House today to recognize four wonderful community service organizations that have moved into the Brentwood area in my riding of Burnaby North, one of the fastest-developing areas in British Columbia.

Every one of us has had times in our lives when we have needed support. These services provide the Brentwood community with interconnected services and resources that help to better support so many people's lives. Burnaby Meals on Wheels, YMCA of Greater Vancouver, MOSAIC and Burnaby Community Services are just a few of these services that I would like to recognize today.

Burnaby Meals on Wheels was formed in 1968 to promote health and independence by providing nutritious local and affordable food to people who, for physical, mental health, social or economic reasons, are unable to meet their dietary needs.

[1355]

The YMCA of Greater Vancouver also has a long history of supporting active living for families. They provide a safe space for children and youth to be engaged in and have fun.

MOSAIC has assisted new immigrants and refugees through its numerous multilingual services since 1976.

Lastly, Burnaby Community Services, founded in 1971, is known as an information centre that breaks down barriers and inspires community-building and also compassion. It is responsible for a variety of programs, including everything from Burnaby Camping to the Christmas bureau. Whether it's a toy drive, providing transportation to a senior, sending a child to a summer camp or helping people find community resources, it creates opportunities for those in need.

I would ask the House to please join me in recognizing the efforts of these four diverse and valuable community organizations.

COURAGE TO COME BACK AWARD

RECIPIENT KRIS STANBRA

K. Conroy: Thursday, May 8, the Coast Mental Health Foundation will be hosting the Courage to Come Back Awards in Vancouver. I'm looking forward to attending and watching Castlegar resident and good friend Kris Stanbra receive the award in the physical rehabilitation category.

Her story is an amazing one of courage and determination. Growing up in Castlegar, Kris was an active, athletic young girl involved in all kinds of sports. Even after graduation she continued to participate in team sports wherever she lived.

In 1978 Kris met and married Larry, the love of her life. They bought their first house and started thinking about having a family. In 1980, though, a tragic car accident changed their lives forever. Kris broke her back in two places. She was told she would never walk again, never have children and that 92 percent of marriages fail after an injury like hers.

She persevered, though, and with her family's help began the painful journey of healing. It took five years, but she went from her wheelchair to forearm crutches to a cane. She was also able to carry two children to full term. Clarke was born in May 1982 and Cole in January 1985.

She often says that she feels fortunate to have survived an accident like hers, that she was lucky enough to become strong enough to be able to pursue her dream of trying to make a difference in other people's lives — in the lives of people that may not have been as lucky as Kris.

She became a determined advocate and volunteer, active in her sons' lives and also giving back to the community, region and province in so many ways. I urge you to go to the Global website and see her detailed story and the many ways she has contributed.

Kris is not only an inspiration but an extremely positive influence on all who know her. She keeps her own mobility struggles quiet, never complaining, as she has truly accepted the things she can't change. Instead, she uses her brilliant vision and boundless energy when she takes on an advocacy role, serves on disability organization boards or volunteers on yet another project.

Kris Stanbra, married for 36 years, mother of two, walking with a cane, proving the doctors wrong — an incredible, giving, courageous woman who so deserves the Courage to Come Back Award.

ANIMAL ABUSE PREVENTION

J. Thornthwaite: April 23 was Animal Abuse Prevention Day in B.C. But as animal lovers across the province were observing the day, a troubling news story was quietly making the rounds. Three cases of animal abuse were being investigated in the southern Interior. A four-month-old German shepherd was found in a provincial park suffering from multiple pellet-gun wounds, a cat required extensive facial surgery after a pellet-gun shot to the face, and a small dog was found dead after being locked in a crate and abandoned at the end of a

[ Page 3455 ]

mountain road.

We're all familiar with images of abuse. We've seen them in print, on the web and on TV. We've seen dogs and cats crammed into tiny cages with inadequate food and water, pets beaten so badly they require surgery and animals neglected to the point of being near death.

How can you help? Don't be a bystander. If you see signs of an animal in distress, report it immediately. Recognizing signs of abuse is not just important for the welfare of animals. More often than not, they aren't the only family members being abused.

I encourage every British Columbian to take a look at the "Take action for animals!" Thunderclap campaign. Learn how you can help.

[1400]

Spread the word and prevent animal abuse in our province. Perhaps one day we may earn the right to say that we truly treat them like man's best friend.

NELSON FOOD CUPBOARD AND

ACCESS TO HEALTHY FOOD

M. Mungall: People living in poverty cannot afford sufficient nutritious food. Many turn to food banks to help them meet this most basic need. This week people across Canada are increasing awareness of hunger in our communities, because many people still believe that lack of food just isn't a problem for Canadian families.

The truth is that poverty lives here too. It isn't just a problem happening somewhere else. Rather, people in our own communities, people we know, don't have enough nutritious food to eat.

The Nelson Food Cupboard has been serving the West Kootenay region for over ten years. I was one of the first managers of the little food bank that could. Back then we saw about 800 visits per month; 25 percent were children. Parents would come in, many of them single moms.

Although we kept food like cereal and granola bars aside for their kids, there was never a day in my two years there that I knew I was sending parents home with enough food for their children. Demand always outstripped supply, despite raising over $80,000 in food each year.

Today not much has changed at the Nelson Food Cupboard. People still come looking for bread and hoping for protein, fresh fruits and veggies. However, one thing has most certainly changed. This past March the little food bank that could saw 1,400 visits, up 20 percent from last year.

Food Banks Canada also reminds us that child clients at food banks are up, now at 30 percent. Families in Canada are going hungry — not by choice, not by neglect, but because poverty lives here too. Awareness of this is the beginning for making change, the beginning to making sure that everyone has enough healthy food to eat.

Oral Questions

TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER PROGRAM

AND EMPLOYMENT OF B.C. WORKERS

Madame Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition. [Applause.]

J. Horgan: My colleagues and I want the record to show that the member for Kootenay East led the applause on the government side. I appreciate that very, very much.

My question is to the Minister of Jobs. Today in British Columbia 142,000 people are looking for work, and thousands more are living hand to mouth in part-time jobs. Youth unemployment is at 12 percent, and we're going into the summer season where students are going to be looking for work. Yet we've learned here in Victoria that 50 applicants for entry-level jobs at McDonald's were turned down and ignored, and instead, temporary foreign worker applications were applied for and granted.

My question to the minister responsible for jobs is: does she agree with me that that's a slap in the face to 142,000 British Columbians looking for work today?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I appreciate the fact that all of us in British Columbia want to be sure that British Columbians are first in line for jobs in this province. One of the things I do know is that we currently have single-digit unemployment rates across our province.

There is more work to be done, and certainly over the last number of months we've seen that the trend goes up some months and down other months. But I can assure you of this. The most important thing we can do for British Columbians is continue to look for ways to grow the economy, to make sure that people are choosing to invest in British Columbia so that we can provide the kinds of jobs that British Columbians want, need and deserve.

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

J. Horgan: Again my question is to the Minister of Jobs. Fully 50 percent of the applications for temporary foreign workers have happened on the watch of this Premier. Unemployment is higher in British Columbia than in any of the western provinces — 12 percent youth unemployment. Entry-level jobs are how young people get into the workforce. They're being denied, and those

[ Page 3456 ]

positions that are available to them are being given to temporary foreign workers.

[1405]

Fully one-quarter of the temporary foreign workers in Canada are in British Columbia. That's absolutely disproportionate to our population. If, in fact, there is a jobs plan in British Columbia, which I believe I've heard a bit about, why is it that British Columbians aren't at the front of the line getting jobs that they need to grow their families and grow their communities? Why is that, Minister?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said in my first answer to the Leader of the Opposition, obviously we want to make sure that employment rates continue to grow in the province. That's why on this side of the House we've been very clear about our agenda from day one.

We're going to make sure that we're supporting economic investment in this province, that we're looking at how we create jobs. And I have not been shy, to be very clear, about the fact that employers absolutely must pay attention to the rules, be rigorous and make sure that there are appropriate supports and measures in place.

British Columbians should come first, and not one of us on this side of the House — or anyone in this House — wants to see an employer that abuses a worker, either temporary or those who live and work here in British Columbia.

We're going to continue to focus on a plan that actually builds the economy, trains workers in this province and ensures that British Columbians come first.

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

TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER PROGRAM

AND SKILLS TRAINING FOR JOBS AT

SMELTER PROJECT IN KITIMAT

J. Horgan: I'm sure that the 142,000 unemployed workers in British Columbia are grateful for the minister's good wishes, but perhaps something more practical and substantial might be in order.

I would ask if the minister has taken any tangible steps. Can she table any letters, any correspondence, any indication at all that she has been in touch with the federal government and advised them of the concerns of British Columbians about how this program has gone so very much off the rails?

I also want to ask the minister…. We've known about modernization in Kitimat at the Rio Tinto smelter project for 20 years. The B.C. Liberals have been in power for 14 of those 20 years, yet now we're just revitalizing our training programs so that we can meet the needs of a growing economy. So 20 years we've known about the project in Kitimat, and just now, after 13 years in power, the government is going to do something about training.

Can the minister tell us what steps she's going to take to ensure that all of the jobs that are ready for us in the future go to British Columbians? Not just rhetoric, Minister. Show me some substance.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we've laid out a clear strategy since May of last year that made it very clear to British Columbians that we were going to concentrate on growing the economy by saying yes, when appropriate — not a matter of either-or when it comes to the environment or the economy.

So I am delighted. I am anxiously waiting, as is every member on this side of the House, to find out how the new Leader of the Opposition is going to stand up and tell British Columbians how they are going to learn to say yes, just once. We know this: previous to this it was no, maybe so, the Kinder surprise moment. We have seen absolutely no demonstration that the Leader of the Opposition…. I'm looking forward to it. I can hardly wait for the discussion to see if there is a plan somewhere to say yes.

We're going to say yes, and we're going to make sure that we grow the economy and bring new jobs to British Columbia.

[1410]

TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER PROGRAM

AND PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

M. Elmore: It's clear that this government obviously has said yes to the exponential expansion of the temporary foreign worker program, for the highest ratio in the province. As well, there is no oversight of this program, and the Labour Minister wagging her finger at employers doesn't actually deliver in terms of ensuring workers are protected.

The number of temporary foreign workers in B.C. has increased dramatically in the last ten years. During the same time the government has cut their employment standards enforcement staff by 50 percent and closed half their offices.

We've heard stories of people being abused on the job and threatened when they complain. That seems to be the only recourse for workers, to come forward with this complaint-driven process, and yet the province seems unable to take steps to protect them.

Even federal minister Jason Kenney commented on the low penalties for employers in B.C. who abuse the program. These workers are vulnerable. Their ability to stay in the country is tied to their work. If they lose their job, they have to leave the country, so they are reluctant and frightened to complain about any workplace abuses.

What has the minister done to ensure that the 70,000 temporary workers in British Columbia are not abused in the workplace because of their vulnerable position?

[ Page 3457 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, as I said previously, there is not a person in this House that suggests or supports the fact that when a temporary foreign worker comes to British Columbia in good faith, expecting to be cared for and treated with respect and dignity…. When they're not, of course, there need to be sanctions against employers.

We do need to remind the member opposite that while it is a federal program, we have been very supportive of the changes that Minister Kenney has made and is planning to make. In fact, we have had numerous discussions about this. On our recent trip to Ottawa, where we took investors and also First Nations and others to meet with the federal government, we made it clear that in British Columbia we expect that British Columbian workers will come first.

We also asked Minister Kenney clearly to take rigorous enforcement action when that does not occur with employers. There is a role for the province through employment standards, through support with immigrant settlement services agencies. We do provide support to temporary foreign workers, and we have made our views known very clearly to the federal government.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kensington on a supplemental.

M. Elmore: I wouldn't say I'm heartened to hear that the government has had conversations with our federal counterparts. It is incumbent on this government to take action, to take responsibility. In this province there are steps that can be taken, and there are expectations for the government to deliver.

Whenever questions are asked about this program, the minister gestures to the east and says it's a federal responsibility, implying that the province is powerless to take any action. Other provinces take a different approach.

When faced with a similar crisis a few years ago, the government of Alberta thought that this was important enough to go to 12 communities in the province and talk to everybody from employers to the workers themselves in order to really understand what was going on. Of course, this government is uncomfortable talking to British Columbians, unless it's through a TV ad, a staged event or the Internet.

What is the minister doing to actually understand the economic and human problems caused by this government's laissez faire attitude towards temporary foreign workers?

Hon. S. Bond: As I've said numerous times in this House and in public, we are looking at a number of ways, including, as I've said earlier, the Alberta model, the Manitoba model. We've worked very closely with the federal government to look at how…. If an employer abuses the program, there need to be sanctions — and very serious ones.

[1415]

There does need to be some context. The member opposite uses the number 74,000 temporary foreign workers. I would respectfully ask the member opposite and her colleagues, perhaps the new Leader of the Opposition, to answer whether or not, with a rigorous program, proper protocols, there is ever a need for a temporary foreign worker to be in British Columbia.

We have worked very closely with industry, with the federal government, with First Nations and have determined that there will be periods of time in our province with economic development where they are necessary. We want to ensure that the program is rigorous, that it is appropriate and that any abuses are clamped down on immediately.

CONTRACTS FOR

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES

G. Heyman: This Liberal government entered into a 15-year contract with Hewlett-Packard Advanced Solutions for web-hosting services as well as a ten-year workstation support contract with IBM. Yet the 2013 official government price book for these services indicates that based on a typical four-year lifespan, this government is paying $158 a month or the equivalent of $7,600 for a computer we could buy at Future Shop for $800.

Taxpayers are also being billed $180 a month for web-hosting services that could be provided for $40 on a Victoria-based company's professional plan. Hon. Speaker, $9 million of the overall workstations budget each year and $21 million of the web-hosting budget could have been saved and used to offset cuts by this government to important health and education services, social assistance clawbacks and clinic closures. As programs and staff are being repeatedly cut, can the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services explain why $30 million is being wasted on bloated contracts with multinationals?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It's a pleasure to have the members of the B.C. Technology Industry Association in the room for this question, because they, of course, understand that it's not a matter of going to the corner store and buying a personal computer when you're servicing 300,000 employees. There are a few other factors involved, like web-hosting, security, installation, maintenance and training, which the member opposite seems to think are unnecessary. I compliment the tech sector in this province for making this a leading-edge organization that relies on well-balanced, outsourced contracts to manage our IT services.

[ Page 3458 ]

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: I understand full well that there's a range of services provided. But while he might not like my comparative-shopping skills, a 2011 Deloitte spending review conducted for his own ministry noted that the industry standard length for these contracts is three to five years. Yet these rich contracts with IBM and Hewlett-Packard are for ten and 15 years.

Deloitte said that these abnormally lengthy contracts mean taxpayers are stuck with workstation support payments that are 17 percent above the industry standard. In addition, we're on the hook for bloated web- and data-hosting contracts 59 percent higher than the industry standard. That's $30 million wasted every year.

The government certainly didn't enter into these lengthy contracts that were offered as a great deal to taxpayers. That's not the reason at all. Will the minister admit that his government has bungled its IT procurement contracts and take action to save taxpayer dollars that are needed to support families and communities throughout British Columbia?

[1420]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite talks about his comparative shopping skills, and he does indeed need to do some homework on them. We have 99.9 percent uptime of our systems. We have robust, reliable systems that face up to 100 million viral attacks a year, which are rebuffed at a 100 percent rate.

We have a data-hosting centre in Kamloops, B.C., Canada, that we're very proud of, where our data are protected and safe and the services available to British Columbia are on 100 percent of the time. We intend to continue this enviable record of deployment of top-end IT.

M. Farnworth: Well, the Minister of Technology likes to stand in this House, and he is praising just how great everything is, so one would think that the government would have no reluctance in sharing the details of this wonderful contract. But instead, the reality is somewhat different. According to a posted freedom-of-information document, this government has wasted almost $125,000 in legal fees to fight the release of the IBM contract to the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association.

Can the minister please tell this House about this contract of which he is so proud — why the government wasted so much taxpayers' money in trying to keep it hidden?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Since the members opposite make such active use of the freedom-of-information legislation — and that is their role, their duty in our society — one would expect them to be better familiar with the rules related to FOI. When commercially sensitive information is involved in a freedom-of-information request, it is severed by professional, trained staff in the ministry who are subject to no political oversight. Their task is to administer the legislation in accordance with the act, and that's exactly what happened here.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The minister talks about a timely release of information? It's been a decade, trying to get that out of them.

Let's face it. The real reason it took a decade for the details of this contract to come out, a decade and $125,000 wasted, is because the deal is a bad deal, and Deloitte says so, to the tune of $30 million. Will the minister just admit that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There are few things more pleasurable in politics than responding to an empty question.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In spite of the protests from the other side about empty questions and empty answers, what this government is working on is reaching full employment in this province through engaging this economy, building the private sector and encouraging investment. Of course, all of these are concepts that are relatively foreign to the members opposite. So we'll look forward to some leadership from the other side in making sure that there are questions posed during question period.

S. Simpson: My question is to the Minister Responsible for Core Review.

[1425]

Does the Minister Responsible for Core Review agree with the Minister of Technology that $30 million in overspending is okay? Or is he concerned about the findings of Deloitte, and will he call on the minister to do his work around the core review? Or is it okay to let this have a pass but to attack the agricultural land reserve?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I'm glad to hear that the members opposite recognize that our agricultural sector is, in fact, technologically sophisticated, moving to the future, using land to the maximum possible benefit. And it's ironic that the member opposite has decided to attack an outsourcing contract which allows this government to balance its budget, which allows this government to deploy better service throughout the public service and allows the member opposite to ask interesting questions about agriculture.

[ Page 3459 ]

CLOSING OF YOUTH CUSTODY

CENTRE IN VICTORIA

C. James: The closing of the Youth Detention Centre in Victoria is just one more example of this government making a major decision without looking at the impact. It's a mess.

The Justice Minister wants to wash her hands of the whole ordeal, despite the fact that it's her ministry that is responsible for consulting with police — specifically the part of this plan that will lead to youth being placed in adult jails. The Children and Families Minister says that they didn't want to consult with anyone — families, employers, the centre or the police — until the decision was final. Well, that's the opposite of how wise decisions are made.

To the Justice Minister, will the government put a halt to this backward decision and begin a real consultation process before determining what to do with the centre, if anything?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We have consistently had one of the lowest rates of youth custody in the country. That means that we are, as a province, operating at less than 56 percent capacity.

The closure of the Victoria Youth Custody Centre is an operational decision. It is not in the best interests of youth to have them in facilities where there are not enough youth that we can continue to provide important programming like education, vocational services, substance abuse, aboriginal liaisons and such, with such declining numbers.

It is a decision that I understand, for many on the lower Island, is troubling. Certainly, I appreciate the police chief's concern, because we certainly don't want our youth in custody in police cells for any longer than is absolutely possible. Consultation will continue with our partners before the closure.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: I can tell you what's troubling. What's troubling is this minister and this government's response to troubled youth who need support. That's what's troubling.

The youth in this facility are receiving educational counselling, vocational supports. They have their family and friends close by, and the minister's solution is to send them off to Burnaby? It shows how out of touch this minister and this government are with programs for children and youth.

Despite opposition from police, from lawyers, from advocates, this government's solution to the mess is to put youth into adult jails. The Victoria police chief says: "The police department is adamant this is not an appropriate place to house young offenders." The Victoria mayor says: "It's not appropriate for youth to be in these cells."

Can the Justice Minister, who is responsible for this, explain why she thinks it's appropriate to put vulnerable kids into adult jails and why her ministry didn't consult with the police?

[1430]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The reality that British Columbia has seen a 65 percent decline in the number of youth in custody is a success. We have had that success because of our outstanding restorative justice programs and alternatives to custody programs in the province of British Columbia.

It is not sustainable or responsible to continue to fund overresourced facilities for a continually declining number of youth when we can provide better services and programming when we have adequate numbers of youth in a facility.

M. Karagianis: I hear that the Minister of Children and Families is admitting that youth are going to have to go in with adults. My question is specifically to the Justice Minister.

Sgt. Steve Eassie of the Saanich police department says: "If an adult offender was banging or yelling a young person would hear them if they were housed in the Saanich department's cells." That is in fact in contravention of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which makes it very clear that youth must be kept separate and apart from any adult. The courts have repeatedly ruled that that means out of sight and out of sound.

Now, this decision to close this facility was made at the cabinet table. I'd like the Justice Minister to tell us: did she ensure that this decision complies with the current law?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I have stated repeatedly, we don't want our youth in police custody any longer than is absolutely possible. The declining numbers in youth custody are not unique to British Columbia, although we tend to lead. These are challenges that are faced across the country.

We, at the current time, have three youth justice facilities in the province, which means that if a youth is in conflict with the law in Burnaby or in Prince George or in Victoria, there is an immediate location for them to be housed. If that youth is in conflict with the law in Terrace or Kamloops or Kelowna or Fort Nelson, it is the practice and has been for some time that they will be held temporarily in police custody until arrangements can be made to transfer them to the youth facilities, which is done successfully around the province.

We are continuing to have discussions with our partners in the justice system in the Victoria area. I expect we will be able to find a solution.

[ Page 3460 ]

[End of question period.]

N. Simons: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: In the House today there are a number of youngsters with their parent teachers from school district 46, the SPIDER home school program. They're a lovely bunch of kids and lovely parents as well. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them here.

Petitions

A. Weaver: I rise today to table three petitions, the first from the Sewage Treatment Action Group, the second from the sewage coalition and the third from the Prospect Lake District Community Association. All of them are residents of the capital regional district, calling for a pause and review of the proposed sewage treatment plant here in the CRD.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the Ministry of Social Development continues. In this chamber, committee stage of Bill 10, to be followed thereafter by committee stage of Bill 27.

[1435]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — PENSION BENEFITS

STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 10; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

section 1.

M. Farnworth: In

section 1 we're talking about actuarial excess, commuted value and defined contribution provisions. Also, the definition of a "designated beneficiary" now includes a person that's designated by the surviving spouse of the member in the pension plan. This enables the spouse of a deceased pension plan member to designate a beneficiary for the surviving spouse's benefit.

As I understand this, this would be if, for example, the individual receiving the pension passes away. There's a surviving spouse who gets the pension rights associated with the plan, and when that individual passes away, there may well be the opportunity to designate another beneficiary.

Does the secondary beneficiary have to be approved by the person who had the original plan? For example, the original individual — can you give pension survivor benefits to somebody that they don't approve of?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised the answer is no.

M. Farnworth: So the surviving…. They would have to have, ahead of time, any agreement with the original pension plan receiver?

[1440]

Hon. M. de Jong: I was just confirming with our learned staff, because these are always very technical issues around pensions.

In the case of the secondary designation that I believe the member was referring to, it would not be necessary for the person making that designation to have received the prior approval for someone who, in that circumstance, is probably deceased.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

M. Farnworth: This

section is pretty straightforward. It does make a correction, and it means the superintendent can refuse or may refuse to register an amendment to the planned text if the amendment "does not comply with this Act or the regulations" rather than the act and the regulations.

My question to the minister: are there circumstances where this has happened? If so, does it happen very often? Do you have a number on the number of times it may have happened?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the short answer is that the amendment purports to fix a problem that has been identified but has never been acted upon.

I am further advised that in 20 years there has only been one instance where the superintendent declined to register, but it wasn't for the reasons dealt with here. The amendment wants to make it clear that a plan must comply with both the act and the regulations.

Sections 4 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

M. Farnworth: This

section allows for "prescribed

[ Page 3461 ]

surplus in a solvency reserve account to be withdrawn in circumstances set out in regulation." Can the minister explain how these solvency reserve accounts are intended to work, what the current situation is in the province of British Columbia and how this particular

section has come into being — what has triggered it?

[1445]

Hon. M. de Jong: The concept of the solvency reserve account derives from legislation tabled a couple of years ago. There are as yet no solvency reserve accounts in operation. The expectation is that through the passage of this legislation and its proclamation, that will occur.

The account allows…. The notion behind a solvency reserve account is to permit employers — and this is specifically employers — in plans that are fully funded with respect to a hypothetical windup or solvency basis to access a solvency surplus.

The idea, the motivation for this is to encourage employers to build up excesses in plans. Again, the concept is that they will be more likely or prepared to do that if there is a mechanism to withdraw that and if the capital doesn't become trapped there. That is the notion behind the concept. As yet there are none. I am advised there are none operating in B.C.

M. Farnworth: Given that there may not be any operating in B.C., clearly, with this

section there is an expectation that there will be SRAs operating in the province, and the regulations need to be in place. Can the minister give an example of the kinds of plans that would be covered by the changes anticipated in this particular section?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that it would likely impact…. It's more or less restricted to a traditional single-employer defined benefit plan.

M. Farnworth: That would be the traditional defined benefit plan in either the public or the private sector.

If that's correct, my next question would be in terms of how this was developed. It was developed, I guess, in concert with or following on what's taken place in Alberta. There was the pension standards committee that did the original report. What was the makeup of the committee? Who was involved in that exercise?

Hon. M. de Jong: The first thing — I don't want to gloss over it. The member began by asking about the distinction between public and private. I am advised that the relevance of these provisions is restricted to private sector plans.

[1450]

With respect to the committee that was undertaking the work, both British Columbia and Alberta had a group of three — a lawyer familiar with pension statutes, a plan administrator and a labour representative. There were three from B.C. and three from Alberta, from those areas.

M. Farnworth: I expect, given that the private sector defined-benefit pension plans are, in fact, administered by a union, they would also be.... It strikes me, then, that this

section has got the support of both labour and the employer side for putting into the pension plan?

Hon. M. de Jong: We are not aware of any concerns on the part of labour, and the consensus seems to be that because it encourages additional investment into the plan, it's actually something that would be welcomed.

M. Farnworth: That's my understanding as well. In terms of the regulations that are required, when is it expected that the regulations will be in place once this piece of legislation is in fact passed?

Hon. M. de Jong: The target is for the regs to be in place before the end of the calendar year.

M. Farnworth: Is the minister anticipating any sort of discussion or consultation involving the formation of the regulations, or is it primarily going to be based on the report that was done by the pension standards expert committee?

Hon. M. de Jong: As the member correctly surmises, the work between now and its completion is ongoing. There is an advisory group that has been in place, remains in place — lawyers, plan administrators, actuaries, an exciting group of experts in the technical matters of pensions.

These are very, very important matters for the long-term health of families and employees. That group is in place from both B.C. and Alberta.

The question I thought I might anticipate from the member is: does that continue to include representation from organized labour? I'm advised that it does.

Sections 12 to 26 inclusive approved.

section 27.

M. Farnworth: In this section,

section 80, these changes make it easier for a member's spouse to receive their pension after the member's death. Obviously, there are some improvements here. Can the minister explain how, with the passage of this, it would be different from what is in place now?

[1455]

Hon. M. de Jong: Here in, hopefully, accurate language and language most of us can understand is what's trying to be achieved. There are circumstances, depending on the nature of a plan, where a plan member can make de-

[ Page 3462 ]

cisions about what they are going to receive as a pension. Sometimes that involves spousal entitlements.

A spouse can consent to certain things happening which may result in the member receiving a larger pension, but the trade-off for receiving the larger pension is a surrender of some survivor benefits or spousal benefits. That obviously engages the rights of the spouse.

The

section in its entirety talks about how to obtain the consent of that spouse, and most particularly the change relates to the time and the timing around which the spouse provides that consent.

Whereas it was previously not more than 90 days before the member's pension commencement date — and I'd better make sure I get this right — the new requirement is that the consent was signed by the spouse not more than 90 days before the member's pension commencement date. That's the significant change there.

Then the second change relates to a waiver of death benefits, which in the new construct must be signed before the member's death, the principle being that rights can only be waived while they still exist. After the member's death, the death benefits will have been transferred to the person entitled to them.

[1500]

The other feature to this is delivery of that waiver to the administrator can occur after the member's death. But the signing must take place prior to death.

M. Farnworth: I have a question for the minister. This may be the wrong section, in fact, to ask it, and if it is, that's fine.

I'd like to use an example. One of the contentious issues when a relationship breaks down is the issue of division of assets and, in particular, the division of the pension assets. Yet we know in many cases…. There are numerous examples of the relationship breaking down and, particularly if it has been an abusive relationship where the one party, invariably a woman, wants out of the relationship under any circumstances and is not thinking, you know, ten years down the road that the pension asset is…. They have been together, let's say, 20 years. They have a stake in that, but they want out, and quite often the agreement is not a fair agreement.

Would this

section impact that spouse's rights to actually get what, in reality, really is hers by virtue of a relationship, of having been together for, let's say, 20 years, for example?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I agree absolutely with the member about where these issues tend to arrive in terms of the breakdown in a relationship. What I wanted to also, though, provide a candid and hopefully accurate response to is: to what extent does this statutory instrument provide additional protection, or protection, where there is a desire to dissolve the relationship or there might be intimidation, abuse even?

I think it is, though, to be as fair and accurate as I can…. While this legislation governs the operation of plans and the circumstances in which entitlements might arise or change depending on consensus, it's probably the Family Law Act, and dealing specifically with the division of assets and division of pensions, where those protections exist.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's answer. As I said, I wasn't sure this was appropriate, but I just wanted to make sure whether or not this

section had an impact on the Family Law Act. I appreciate the minister's response, and we can move on to the next section.

Section 27 approved.

section 28.

M. Farnworth: This particular section,

section 28, is, I guess, one of the more important changes in this particular piece of legislation, in that it allows for the transfer of pension plan assets to purchase an annuity from an insurance company and thereby move some of the risk from the plan to an insurance company. It's not something that's been done, as a rule, here in B.C., but it is done in other jurisdictions in the U.S. and the U.K.

[1505]

Can the minister explain how this is going to work, the impact that they expect that it will have, if any, and how this particular

section has come about?

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple things. First of all, the option that this creates is one that the plan by the trustees would decide whether or not to exercise. I'm advised by the very capable staff joining us that, in fact, recently this was done in British Columbia. It has certainly not been overly common, but there was a significant bulk annuity purchase, so it seems plans are identifying this as an option.

I'm advised that for members of some plans, particularly smaller, single-employer plans, receiving annuity payments may actually be less risky than receiving pensions. That diminishment of risk derives from the fact that insurance companies must comply, for example, with minimum capital requirements.

Their annuities are guaranteed by the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Compensation Corporation so that, with respect to the annuities and the operation of the insurance companies, there's a whole host of built-in safeguards that will provide some additional securities.

The trade-off, of course — and the rationale for the

section — is pension plans by their trustees are far more likely to explore that option on behalf of members if the plan's liability to those members is removed after the purchase, subject to all of the appropriate requirements having been met.

[ Page 3463 ]

M. Farnworth: In terms of an annuity and the plan, if it's under a defined-benefit pension plan…. Let's say the defined benefit is that you're going to get $1,000 a month, and it's inflation-protected, so it changes each year. Under most annuities, though, you give, let's say, $100,000, and you get, for the sake of argument, 500 bucks a month until age 92 or whatever the term of the annuity is.

Will they be required to have an annuity that is, in fact, inflation-protected? If you're to have the same benefits, then one would think that if the plan is purchasing an annuity, it means obligations that that annuity would also have to be inflation-protected. Is that the case?

[1510]

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised the answer is yes, the term being the same form and manner as the pension plan.

M. Farnworth: This proposed change is not, then, a change that is going to be intended or can be used in a way to say: "Okay, we have a pension plan. We're not particularly happy with the pension plan, so we're going to go to an annuity." Yes, it deals with the risk issue, but it's also not an opportunity to get out of obligations or to lessen or decrease benefits that are already existing in the plan.

Hon. M. de Jong: I and those who advise me would all agree with that statement.

M. Farnworth: In terms of how this has developed, did it come out of the experts' report on pension plan standards that was done a few years ago, which the other changes have come out of? Where did this change originate from?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that this particular issue came up in the course of discussions between B.C. and Alberta and really emerged in response to discussions that focused on some of the practical challenges facing plans and ensuring practical challenges that relate to ensuring the ongoing operation viability in minimizing the risk to plan members in developing some options that plans could avail themselves of.

M. Farnworth: Will this particular

section require additional regulations to bring it into force, or is it going to come into force as is, when the piece of legislation is passed?

The second question to that would be: if so, what is the anticipated timeline for the development of the regulations, and is there work that has been underway?

The third part of that will be: who's involved with the regulations from employers and from labour's side?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's the same group as I mentioned earlier.

Yes, certainly, additional regulations are required.

Secondly, work is being undertaken by the same group, with the addition of at least one major insurance company in Canada.

Thirdly, the same timeline — by the end of the calendar year.

Section 28 approved.

section 29.

M. Farnworth: Just on this particular section…. This removes the time limit on records that may be required of the administrator by the superintendent after the termination of a pension plan. I take it, then, that with this

section the time limit required on the records is indefinite or for as long, I guess, as the pension plan members are receiving benefits. What is the current time limit?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's fair to say that this amendment represents a change of thought on the part, ultimately, I suppose, of the government.

[1515]

There is presently no prescribed time frame. It never operationalized to that extent. But the idea is that when there is a termination of a pension plan, the superintendent will, perhaps, likely require certain documentation.

In its present form, the act contemplates, as the member pointed out, that following termination of a plan, the superintendent would have X number of days, weeks or months to gather the information necessary. Upon reflection, the government believes a preferred approach is that there be no limitation on the ability of the superintendent, following termination of a plan, to gather that information. He or she should have the right to do so and not be restricted by a limitation period.

Sections 29 to 37 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: First, may I thank Marcus Gill, Michael Peters and Cynthia Callahan-Maureen for their assistance to us during these debates — and the hon. member, of course.

I move that the committee rise to report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:17 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 3464 ]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — PENSION BENEFITS

STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 10, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2014, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 27, The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act, 2014.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 27 — THE CULTUS LAKE PARK

AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 27; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:19 p.m.

section 1.

S. Robinson: I have a question for the minister. I'm very interested to just note for the record: who or what body initiated this change and for what purpose?

[1520]

Hon. C. Oakes: We received a letter from the city of Chilliwack requesting we look at that. As well, a petition was tabled in the House by the MLA, with over 900 area residents requesting this.

S. Robinson: Can the minister provide us with the timeline about when this letter was received and when the petition was tabled?

Hon. C. Oakes: The petition was tabled in the House in July of 2013, and the letter coming from the city of Chilliwack came in March.

S. Robinson: I just want to clarify — March of 2013 or March of 2014?

Hon. C. Oakes: In 2014.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

S. Robinson: I just wanted to make note of when this will come into force. If the minister could tell us, that would be great.

Hon. C. Oakes: This act will come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and will be in effect for local government elections of 2014.

L. Throness: I just want to make a few remarks to the bill as the MLA who's principally concerned with the bill. If the minister has comments, she can make them.

First of all, I simply want to point out that the bill is already doing its work of accountability. Last year in July I tabled a petition of some 926 names. The Cultus Lake Park Board passed a resolution opposing the petition, but this year, when Bill 27 was tabled in the House, the board saw the writing on the wall, and they passed a resolution supporting the bill, which had supported the petition. So they reversed their former position.

I think that's the beauty of accountability. It shows that the bill is already doing its work even before it's passed. I want to thank the members of the Cultus Lake Park Board for doing that. It shows that the democratic incentives are now in place for them to do that, so I very much appreciate what they've done.

I also want to report to the House that I attended and spoke to a spring general meeting of the Cultus Lake Community Association about two weeks ago, and they expressed their appreciation to the government and to the minister for this bill, so I want to pass along their thanks as well. I want to thank the minister and her staff in her office, as well as the ministry staff who've been so accommodating and worked so hard to bring this forward. I also want to thank the official opposition.

The Chair: Member, on

section 7 of the bill. Are you speaking on

section 7 of the bill?

L. Throness: I asked if the minister would like to comment. I'm just finishing my comments now. Is that all right?

The Chair: You can ask the question. If she would accept it or not…. That's up to you.

L. Throness: Okay. Perhaps, then, I could just say that I would be happy to cooperate on future governance improvements in my riding with the minister and ask if she has any further comments on this section.

Hon. C. Oakes: It's always encouraging when we can look at governance and help communities with that. I would like to thank the member for bringing this forward. It's great to see a petition that comes forward actually get implemented into a bill.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 3465 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 27 — THE CULTUS LAKE PARK

AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 27, The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act, 2014, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 2, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

S. Hammell: I'm pleased to again rise and join the debate on Bill 2, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act. I was speaking on this bill the last time it came to this House, and I'm pleased to be able to conclude my remarks.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

As I said prior, I have two major concerns about this bill. One is the need to preserve the independence of the Electoral Boundaries Commission and, in fact, avoid a conflict of interest by all of us who think that it is our place to direct the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

The second is to support the principle of representation by population unless special circumstances can justify a discrepancy. And then the rule of thumb: if it goes over plus or minus 25, there must be some very special circumstances.

This is a position that has been supported by the Supreme Court of Canada. I can quote their last judgment on this, and I'll do so. "Notwithstanding the challenges posed by our province's unique geography, demography and transportation circumstances, we believe we should exceed that limit and resort to the 'very special circumstances' legislation provision only in truly exceptional or extraordinary circumstances." We think that doing anything else or to do otherwise would debase the meaning of "very special."

I'll move to my concerns around the first issue that I'd like to speak about. As I mentioned prior, but it can bear repeating, in this House we are very, very aware of the need to avoid being in or being perceived as being in a conflict of interest. To protect us, we have a conflict-of-interest act that itemizes clearly what we can and can't do, and we have a Conflict of Interest Commissioner.

[1530]

The taxpayers pay that commissioner to ensure that there is someone who is always backstopping decisions made by members in this House so that we can have a second set of eyes looking over decisions we make to ensure that we are not only accountable to ourselves and our caucuses but accountable to the people of British Columbia and that we are truly outside of a conflict of interest.

In that spirit, we disclose our assets yearly. We not only understand that we must tell people we're not in a conflict but we also must show it. We go to this lengthy process of disclosing our assets. We put that disclosure with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and then he proceeds to make that disclosure public.

When it comes to a conflict of interest, as I said before in this House, I don't see any decision in this place that has more direct effect on the interests of every single member of this House than the electoral boundary decisions. Every one of those decisions either directly affects us personally or our members personally.

I understand that we need and want to be part of a decision-making process that affects us directly. But that is why we have selected an independent boundary commission. Every eight years an independent boundary commission reviews the constituency boundaries and names in B.C. This ensures that the constituency boundaries keep pace with population change.

Every eight years we are engaged in this process, and every eight years there is the possibility of having those boundaries gerrymandered. In the past we have managed to get through this process with an independent commissioner and commission overseeing the process and reporting to us directly. Never before have we had the restrictions that we've seen fall before this House that have come with this bill.

The Legislative Assembly reviews the commission's proposals. So an independent commission puts a proposal in front of this House, and before it is passed into law, it is reviewed and we vote on it. We vote to approve or reject the recommendations made by the independent boundary commission process. If the commission's proposals are approved or approved with alterations, the government is then required to bring those recommendations in through a bill.

We are this time putting the cart in front of the horse. What we are doing is amazing. We are directing the boundaries commission to freeze portions of our prov-

[ Page 3466 ]

ince and say that these boundaries can be changed within but not without.

This year an electoral boundary commission will be appointed by May 14, so I understand why this bill is back in front of the House — because the clock is ticking. Once that commission is in place — and, as I understand it, there has to be consultation with the Leader of the Opposition — then the commission will have 12 months to produce a report. Then that report becomes public.

Then it has six months to produce a final report, which may amend the proposals of the first report. Then the recommendations that come to the House and are voted on in this House will take effect before the 2017 election.

The commission will consist of the three appointments — a judge or a retired judge of the B.C. Supreme Court or the B.C. Court of Appeal nominated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; a person who is not a member of the Legislative Assembly or an employee of the government nominated by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly after consultation with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition; and the Chief Electoral Officer appointed under the Election Act.

[1535]

There is a great deal of protection for us from getting into the middle of a conflict of interest. As soon as we poke our fingers into this situation, then we will more than likely create a mess, because we have a very clear interest in exactly where the boundaries are that affect us. As I said last time, nobody in the province cares more about your constituency than you do.

I would go as far as suggesting that most people don't even know where the boundaries of the constituency they live in lie. Most people, really, have more to do with their day. They're busy looking after their families. They're looking after their children. They really, much as it may be a surprise to all of us, don't even think about us. In fact, if they think about us, often they think about us in the wrong place. I remember one of our members said a very strong supporter of his saw him on the street and asked him how everything was going in Ottawa. He had just been voted in, not too long ago, as the MLA for one of our constituencies.

As much as it moves us and is good in terms of our ego — I know that some of the ministers on the other side had a lot of trouble with me when I said this last time — most of them don't even know our names. I remember very clearly doing a bit of a poll one time after I was elected, in the beginning, and the very strong response was: "Sue who?" People didn't know who their MLA….

Interjection.

S. Hammell: Oh yeah, I'm sure they know now. In fact, more people move in and out of our constituencies than we even tend to believe. Not only do they not know who they voted for or don't really remember or what level of government they voted for, often they voted somewhere else in the last election and only have made the move to a new constituency and haven't got a clue who their MLA is.

But we sure know. If anyone says to me, "I live in Surrey," I say: "Where do you live?" I know precisely where my boundaries are. I know whether that person lives in or out of my constituency. It's just in my best interest to know who is inside my constituency and who isn't. I would suggest that most of us take this kind of fond approach to those people who do live within our constituencies. We may do that to our constituents, but I'm not sure that the love and care is quite as reciprocal when it comes to them caring a lot about what we do and what we do every minute of the day.

I think most constituents — and it certainly is my experience — if they do know who you are and that you might be their constituency, certainty don't know where your office is. Most of the time they will be quite sort of pleasantly surprised that it may be within range of where they live and that if they ever might need it under some circumstances would be able to approach you.

The point I'm making is that our interest in our constituents and our boundaries and our poll boundaries are much more intense than our constituents and their interest in us. Of course, they are quite interested if we do something they don't approve of, but I don't really think they are that concerned about the boundary and whether it moves here or there. I do think we could get those constituents interested in the principle of fairness when it comes to redistribution.

[1540]

But going back to the conflict, I think we as MLAs, people who are elected by our constituents to this place, really have no business determining where the boundaries sit.

I think it's fair enough that we can discuss principles. Like, there is the principle of plus or minus 25 percent in terms of representation. But we have a very, very clear interest in being re-elected, if we are choosing to run. It is, therefore, much more of an interest for us where those boundaries lie. My suspicion is that if you move the boundary here or there, most people would know whether that was a progressive move in terms of your position or some other move.

I think there's a basic, fundamental conflict of interest when we as legislators get involved in determining the boundaries through which the electoral map is drawn. There's no way that this pursuit should continue, because it's a political decision by a House full of politicians who are being driven by their own self-interest — especially when we have, very clearly, the makings of an independent commission and highly skilled and qualified people who can make a decision based on principles that would, in fact, guide the development and the redistribution of the boundaries within our province.

[ Page 3467 ]

I don't think the commission needs our interference. They are just not consumed by the self-interest that we have. They, if left alone, will produce a map through consultation with the people who, in essence, own the democracy of their own province. This bill, on principle alone, should be defeated.

Every government has, I think, struggled with the whole issue of representation by population. The second thing I think we need to support in this House is the principle of representation by population unless under very, very special circumstances, and only under those special circumstances can we justify a discrepancy. This position is supported by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Every single government, I think, in this country has struggled with this principle when they come to the point in their term or cycle where there needs to be redistribution. Obviously, there is a huge discrepancy in our country when it comes to population. When the urban population settles down, to a large extent, along a long strip.... It used to be about 100 miles from the U.S. border. Most of the population sort of snuggles down in that area, across the country. The resulting consequence of that is hugely sparse areas — sparse in terms of population and large in terms of wilderness. These are our northern regions.

It is clearly a challenge to make sure that the representation in the south of the province is full and robust as well as the representation in the north. Maintaining representation in regions with small, diverse populations is difficult because of the underlying principle of representation by population — the recommendation that it can't move between plus or minus 25 percent.

[1545]

Redistribution has always been fraught. It's always a difficult task fraught by conflict, emotion. Sometimes people are quite traumatized by the redistribution or the adjustment of boundary. Again, that trauma comes from our personal interest.

Where I take exception to the legislation that's in front of us is that the government has chosen to freeze 20 percent of the constituencies in three clusters. I think probably that's unprecedented. These protected constituencies will have an average population of 35,000 plus — those are the protected areas, the protected constituencies — where unprotected areas will have a population of 55,000 plus.

Now, I have one of the unprotected areas. I do imagine those numbers will increase. The numbers of population will increase in size in terms of those unprotected areas. If you compare the power of the vote or the power of the person in voting, the person in the protected area…. Their vote will be 1.5 times more powerful than the unprotected regions. I think you try to avoid that unless absolutely forced into that.

Moving away that dramatically — taking 17 seats out of 85 and saying that they can deviate from the plus or minus 25 percent rule — is actually outrageous. There is no justification of very special circumstances that would allow for this kind of deviation.

It takes a reasonable idea, an idea that says that under very special circumstances and under difficult ways of finding another solution, we will, when forced to or when there's a good compelling reason, deviate from the plus or minus 25. But we don't do that. We take 20 percent of our seats and just throw them into this area and say: "That's great. That's okay." So 20 percent or 17 seats will be allowed to move up and down this continuum.

I've listened very carefully to the Attorney General. Her reason was because these seats are sparsely populated. "Sparsely populated" is a very interesting way of talking about them, because it's hard to believe that Kamloops, sitting as the 11th-highest populated city, can be considered sparse in terms of population. Kamloops has 85,000-plus people — Kamloops south — and somehow it's lumped into a sparsely populated region that can then be moved around in terms of boundaries.

I just think this is poorly thought through. For one thing, we shouldn't be doing it. For the second reason, what we're doing is completely ignoring or moving away from a fundamental principle that's been tried and tested throughout this province — not only in British Columbia but in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, in the Maritimes, in Quebec.

[1550]

There is a kind of convention, supported by the Supreme Court, that deviations are allowed, but there's a limit. There's an absolute limit unless there's some outstanding and very special circumstance that drives you to this place.

Not that I think this is a particularly important point, but it is remarkable that all these….

Deputy Speaker: Member, are you designated speaker?

S. Hammell: No, I'm not, Hon. Speaker.

Am I finished?

Deputy Speaker: Not yet. One more minute.

S. Hammell: Okay. Well, I'll just wrap up then.

I think what I've said is that there are two principles through which I'm opposing this bill. One of them is I just don't think we should be doing this. This is not our job. That's why we have an independent commissioner and commission that will look at this and do it without us getting involved in our own particular conflict of interest. I think it also flies in the face of a well-founded principle of plus or minus 25 percent.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, there is something the previous speaker said that I can certainly agree with. These

[ Page 3468 ]

processes of redistribution that come along from time to time certainly do engage the attention, at a minimum, of the politicians who are involved. I suppose that's natural, and that's something that we have seen repeatedly in the past.

To place the discussion the House has been having in some kind of context, in a few days a commission will be appointed. There's a process in the legislation for doing that that actually engages the government, the official opposition's speaker and the Chief Electoral Officer. I think that it has proven, over a few rounds of this, to work reasonably well — the notion being to depoliticize to the greatest extent possible the process of analyzing where political boundaries are.

I would say the journey that this bill has followed through this session has been a little bit unusual. It's Bill 2. It was introduced very early in the session. We began the debate. With apologies to the member for Surrey–Green Timbers, I think she started her comments about a month-and-a-half ago and was interrupted and picked them up today.

It probably bears discussing with the House for a moment the reason for the delay. The reason, very candidly, relates to the fact that I and the government, and the Attorney, believe that it is far preferable on matters such as this to try to arrive at a consensus and have before the House a legislative instrument that all members or the vast majority of members are comfortable with and that the House does not divide along party lines with respect to this sort of matter.

Discussions took place — I say both for the government and, I really have no hesitation saying, for the opposition — in good faith to see whether or not the philosophical differences that have emerged about the approach that Bill 2 purports to take could be bridged and we could arrive at something that would attract a greater measure of bipartisan support.

In some instances in the past we have been successful at achieving that kind of consensus. Regrettably, in this instance, we have not. I emphasize that is not meant to be a criticism of the representatives who engaged in the discussions. I think there was a good, candid exchange that revealed where some of the differences lay, and they have proven to be insurmountable in the present context.

[1555]

Better, though, in my view to have attempted and to have tried. I'm obliged to the Opposition House Leader and his colleague, the Attorney General's critic, and even the now Leader of the Opposition for having invested the time to try and arrive at that consensus.

I feel obliged to convey to the House the belief, which the government continues to hold, that northern and rural areas of British Columbia not lose representation in any appreciable way. That has given rise to the identification of the three regions that, history teaches us, are vulnerable to losing districts. The bill, in its present form, would ensure that districts in those regions would not be reduced, although the boundaries within those regions and the individual districts can be adjusted.

It's probably also a good time to highlight and remind anyone observing these debates that what the House is purporting to do is to create a mandate and instructions for the commission that will come to life here very shortly. In the past, to be fair, they have sought clarity around their mandates. It's a difficult task they'll have. I understand that there is a difference of opinion about the nature of the mandate and the instructions that the House purports to give to the commission via this legislative instrument.

We, certainly, on the government side — and I think, in fairness, some members of the opposition have articulated this as well — have been hesitant, resistant to the notion of increasing the size of the Legislature. I think that is a reflection of the belief we hold that growing the size and, by implication, the cost of government isn't necessarily the recipe for success, particularly in these difficult economic times.

Whilst it would be our preference, therefore, to hold to an electoral map of 85 electoral districts, we have actually heard some of the concerns that have been expressed, sometimes by members of the opposition, about the deviation that results from lower-populated areas to higher-populated areas and the challenges that the commission will be confronted with in trying to resolve that conundrum, as it has presented itself in the past and will undoubtedly present itself in this round of deliberations that the commission will undertake.

Members in the House, I think, particularly the opposition critic and others, have talked about the constitutional vulnerabilities that exist when enshrining notions of special or very special circumstances into a bill of this sort.

No one, least of all me or the Attorney, is going to deny the challenges that exist there and the need to be alive to those potential arguments and challenges — that being a rather long-winded way of saying: if the discussions did not lead us to an ultimate consensus, I hope members of the opposition will take some consolation or some solace from the fact that in the time it took to conduct those discussions it did provoke some review and some reconsideration on the part of government with respect to at least one dimension of the bill.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

That reconsideration reveals itself in a document that I'll table now, on behalf of the Attorney General, which will be the subject of discussion in committee stage.

[1600]

It's a proposed amendment to Bill 2. I'm happy to read out the text, but in effect, and in fact, it would provide the commission with the option, the authority and the mandate, if it chose to exercise it, to increase the size of

[ Page 3469 ]

the Legislative Assembly by two additional seats, up to 87. It does not require the commission to do so. It gives them that option within the context of the parameters they are operating within.

The specific

section that will be of interest…. Subsection 3(2) of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act would, under the proposed amendment — which, again, will be discussed at the appropriate time…. Instead of what would presently be there — "The commission must make proposals to the Legislative Assembly for 85 electoral districts" — that wording would be replaced if the amendment were adopted.

"If, in carrying out its functions under subsection (1), the commission considers that the number of electoral districts in B.C. should be increased, the commission may make proposals to the Legislative Assembly to increase the number of electoral districts up to a maximum of 87."

That, as I said, is the product of the discussions, the review — the reconsideration, if you will — that the government has undertaken. Some may ask: "Why 87 and not some other number?" We're attempting to balance some competing goals here. Restraining the growth and cost of government is one of them. We clearly assign importance to the question of rural and northern representation, which is why the three regions remain a feature of the bill.

We think that with the opportunity or the option of creating two additional districts, we can help the commission find the tools to define an appropriate balance and deal with the questions of population deviation that have arisen and been addressed by members during the course of this debate.

I'm not sure there's a magic number. In fact, I think the previous boundaries commission said as much, explicitly. All jurisdictions grapple with the question of finding the right balance, and, in British Columbia, some of those challenges are even greater and have revealed themselves over the past number of years and the past rounds of this process.

However, again, I am grateful to the representatives of the official opposition who did, I think in good faith, try to work with the government to arrive at a solution that was satisfactory to them. I do regret that we weren't able to get there in a way that I would find preferable with a piece of legislation like this.

I do, on behalf of the Attorney General, commend this proposed amendment to the House, and I also hope that by making the government intention clear at this stage, that that will be of assistance to members through the balance of the second reading debate and into the committee debate that will follow.

Those are my remarks, and I thank the House for the opportunity.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 2, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014. I don't think there's any piece of legislation that members tend to take quite so much interest in as an election redistribution bill.

[1605]

As arcane as it may seem to people outside this chamber — and people look and go, "Ridings are ridings, and boundaries are boundaries," — the fact of the matter is that boundaries matter a great deal to individual members and to their ability to in fact retain, hold or win a seat.

Shift a particular electoral riding boundary one block east, one block west, two blocks north, two blocks south — it doesn't matter — and the results can be significant, particularly if you are in a riding where you have a narrow or thin margin of a couple of hundred votes, say, for example. A boundary shift brings in a poll that is favourable to your opponent or removes a poll that is favourable for you, and you may end up with a completely different electoral outcome.

It has implications for an individual member. It has implications for political parties, so there is considerable interest in the process and how it takes place.

What's just as important, when we're talking about boundaries and boundary redistribution, is the system under which we operate, which is a parliamentary system. We are different than the United States. The United States, that democracy to the south of us, has taken the art of boundary redistribution to a fine art.

In fact, the term "gerrymandering," which most people understand, originated in the United States. In a nutshell, it is where political parties get together — sometimes in the form of majority, sometimes on a bipartisan basis — and collude to draw boundaries that are favourable to one side or another.

It is a part of the U.S. political system which, over time, is causing them great problems as their boundaries become more and more concentrated in terms of supporters of one party in one riding and one party in another riding. The result is that you have fewer and fewer seats that are classed as competitive, which each party has a chance at winning. That's not what was intended to happen during boundary redistribution. That's what takes place in the United States in too many cases.

Up here in Canada, both at the federal and the provincial level, we have what is supposed to be a non-partisan approach to drawing boundaries, an independent approach to drawing boundaries that draws boundaries on a fair and equitable basis that takes into account the unique geographic, social and settlement aspects, regional aspects, the balance between urban and rural parts of the province, remote and urban, in terms of coming up with boundaries that are fair and equitable.

It wasn't always that way in this province. We have a history in British Columbia of boundary redistribution committees which were anything but fair and impartial. We had a situation in this province where, for a long

[ Page 3470 ]

time, you had what were known as dual-member ridings, where a riding which would….

My own example is a classic example of this. In the Tri-Cities, for example, we had 50,000 people. We would elect one MLA. Yet across the way in Burnaby they would have a riding of 50,000 where they would elect two MLAs, the government knowing full well that the reality was that if you got one seat, nine times out of ten you got the other seat.

It was a practice that served the government of the day well, but at one point they weren't even content with that. At one point the government of the day put in place a commission, the Warren commission, that actually contemplated putting three seats in the Peace River country.

It is an important part of the province. It has two seats today, two seats that are significantly below the average population level in the province and are there because of the importance attached to rural representation, but that was even stretched. That stretched it, to try and put a third seat. That is an example of a boundaries commission redistribution hearing that is not fair, that is not impartial, that is not independent.

[1610]

In the '80s there was an infamous example of government interference in a boundaries redistribution in the riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain, which was held at that time by a longtime member of this House and well-known political figure in British Columbia, Grace McCarthy. The boundary was redrawn after the minister did not like the original set of boundaries that came out, and she would not be the first member of this House to look at a boundary map and go: "Over my dead body is that going to happen."

But the reality was, as an important....

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague across the way is absolutely right. It was called Gracie's finger. What it did was it took a poll of probably 70 percent-plus Social Credit voters out of one riding and added them into the Vancouver–Little Mountain riding where Grace was running, and the result was a much more comfortable margin than she might otherwise have had at the subsequent election. It caused considerable outrage and considerable debate and I think was one of the most important examples in the modern era of the need for an independent commission.

One of the achievements of one of our Premiers here in British Columbia, Bill Vander Zalm, was that in the election campaign of 1986 he said that it was time to do away with dual-member ridings. There were a lot of people in his own caucus, party, who disagreed with that because it had served the Social Credit Party of this province very well. But he said no, that members should be elected from individual, single constituencies. It was a very positive step forward.

He put in place the Thomas Fisher Commission, and that commission was charged with going out and doing a redistribution. As it turned out, that was the first truly independent commission in British Columbia in a very long time. It gave us an electoral map that we had not seen in this province for decades, and that was single-member ridings, electing single members to the Legislature. That was a significant improvement in the electoral process in British Columbia.

That was in place for the '91 election. That's the first one that I have been involved in, in terms of watching how it was proceeding. I have seen a number of others since then. Each time the same issues and questions come up in terms of ensuring the balance between rural and urban, because one of the challenges in a democracy such as ours is the concept of one member, one vote.

You can take it to the extreme, in the United States, where the balance is such that you end up with the gerrymandering that takes place in the United States, where ridings really bear no relationship either to the geography or the population demographics of the areas in which they're being drawn.

In Canada and British Columbia there's a long list now of court rulings in terms of what is an acceptable deviation from the average vote in a riding. In British Columbia we have operated on the principle of plus or minus 25 percent as being an acceptable deviation. So with, let's say, an average population of 50 percent, you could be 25 percent over or you could be under 25 percent, as would be acceptable. But we have in this province some ridings that....

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I notice my colleague is expecting me to be speaking to an amendment, and I can inform them that we will be speaking to that amendment, but in committee stage, and we're still on second reading of the bill. The amendment that was tabled by the government minister was an amendment for committee stage and not an amendment to the bill, and that's why we're not debating the amendment at the current time. We are still on second reading of the bill.

So, hon. Speaker, back to what I was talking about, which was the average size of a riding. Normally, you would think that you would take the population of the province and divide it by the number of electoral districts, and that comes out with an average. By and large that does work, but there are some remote parts of British Columbia with very small populations where it doesn't work.

[1615]

If we're to protect rural representation, we have to ensure that that representation is there. You have ridings — such as North Coast, for example, or Peace River North or Nechako Lakes — that have much smaller popula-

[ Page 3471 ]

tions, but they exist because we recognize the importance of rural representation. The challenge, though, is that over time what has been happening…. It's not just here in British Columbia but in other jurisdictions as well. You are seeing the depopulation of many rural areas and many small towns.

There are many reasons for that, and one could go into discussions around the removal of government services, offices, schools — all those things — as one of the reasons. But the bottom line is this: censuses over the last few decades have shown a depopulation taking place in many small communities — populations declining or remaining stable — and significant growth in urban areas and suburban areas.

The result becomes that if you are to stick with the average of population and maintain a fixed number of seats in the Legislature — in our case, 85 for example — then the only way to address that imbalance is by removing seats from rural areas. That causes a challenge to ensure proper rural representation. That is why, over the years, commissions have added seats to ensure that that balance has been maintained.

In the last go-round the government's initial bill was one that sought to add a number of seats to address the issue of maintaining rural representation and the balance between rural representation and urban representation.

The trouble with that particular approach — I don't lay the blame entirely at the government's feet in that particular one; it was a challenge for the House as a whole — was that the commission came back and said that the number of seats the government was prepared to allocate would not allow the commission to do its job and would not enable the commission to address what the government wanted to take place, which was to maintain that balance between urban and rural without removing seats from rural British Columbia.

The result was what I think most observers would admit — a botched redistribution, in the sense that we had to come back to this House to add even more seats, and a commission that was jammed up against an electoral timetable in terms of, one, when an election is going to be held but, two, when Elections B.C. needs a lead time to be able to put those changes into place.

Constituency associations need time to dissolve, their finances to be redistributed amongst the new constituencies, the executives to be put in place — all the administrative functions. The result was a very run thing — in having the legislation pressed up against the timeline of an election and the result potentially being significant chaos. It was a very difficult period. It was an example of how not to do an electoral redistribution in the way that it was done because of the significant challenges and differences that were in place.

The problem is simple. That basically left in place what was there already and said: "Deal with it by adding some additional seats."

The bill we have before us now does something far greater. What it does is, instead of under the old way of saying that we have some seats in the north, a few of them, that are protected and that will be there regardless of how the redistribution goes — seats such as North Peace, South Peace, Skeena, for example…. What the government has done is put in a piece of legislation that literally red-circles 17 seats that the commission is not allowed to touch. Those are seats that the government says are rural and are special and need to be protected.

[1620]

Now, it's very interesting when the government says that, for a number of reasons. Look at the map and see: "Okay, what seats are they protecting, and what seats are they not protecting?" I'm not going to get into it on the basis of which party won which seat and which party didn't win a seat. I actually think that's immaterial in the discussion on this particular bill.

What is material, though, is what their definition of "rural" is as opposed to what they consider to be urban. For example, my colleague from North Island, who represents the top third of Vancouver Island — hundreds of small islands and coastal communities that take days to visit, many of which have to be reached by boat and are only accessible by boat — is not one of the protected areas. For some reason, it is not deemed remote. It is not deemed rural.

But one of the five largest — depending on who you talk to — cities in the province, what is decidedly an urban area, Kamloops, is a protected seat. Somehow Kamloops is so remote that the ability to get around Kamloops is so difficult. I don't know. I mean, when they were looking at this, did they look at pictures of Kamloops from the 1860s and go: "Oh my god, they don't have paved streets up here. They only have horse and buggy. It must be rural, so that's why it has to be protected"?

All of us know how ludicrous that is because Kamloops is a modern, thriving centre, a major city in British Columbia that certainly is capable of standing on its own two feet electorally and is not under-represented by any stretch of the imagination when it comes to its population. To somehow say that that needs protection just flies in the face of court rulings in the past.

The same can be said for British Columbia's northern capital. This is not like Nechako Lakes or Skeena or North Coast, where you have small communities with vast differences between them. I mean, Prince George has a university, University of Northern British Columbia. It's a thriving major centre of over 80,000 people.

It is British Columbia's northern capital, and yet somehow this government has so little confidence in that, that it feels: "You know what? It needs to be protected. It needs to be coddled." It needs to be carved out and made sure that an independent panel, which would consist of at least one judge and people who have been involved in electoral

[ Page 3472 ]

redistribution process….

Experts would fully understand the difference between North Island and a major urban centre in the province of British Columbia. Likewise Powell River–Sunshine Coast, a riding which is primarily accessible by ferry — our island highway, as many on this side of the House like to call it. And Premiers in the past have always referred to the ferry system as being the marine highway of the province of British Columbia. Yet that is no longer the case today, as the government somehow does not consider it to be a marine highway.

Likewise, they don't even consider it to be a rural area with population challenges. Nothing illustrates that to me more, the government's failure to think this through, than looking at that particular riding.

[1625]

Strong communities depend on good transportation links and good services. Remove those transportation links, and population doesn't want to go there, and you have a declining population. Well, that's exactly what's happening in other parts of rural British Columbia.

How that does not meet the test for a rural riding in British Columbia I don't know — unless maybe the government has something up its sleeve that we don't know about, a massive expansion of the ferry service that we know is going to be so attractive to people that it's going to cause communities to grow. Powell River–Sunshine Coast will become such a major urban centre that it does not need to be classed as remote and rural in the electoral system of the province and therefore does not need protection.

I am waiting to see if that is this case. Somehow I don't think so. I think, in fact, what is happening is that this is a piece of legislation that was drawn up in a back room — as somebody once said famously, on the back of a napkin — without it having been thought through.

I would be really interested to hear the Attorney General stand and answer some questions. In particular, did they receive or did they even seek a legal opinion, a constitutional legal opinion that this particular piece of legislation will stand up to a court challenge? The answer, I suspect, is no. Or if it is yes, it is why this government is very worried about this particular bill and has been wanting to talk about amendments.

The reality is that the bill as it is structured right now does not meet the test of giving an independent commission the ability to determine the boundaries on the basis as they exist right now — which is to take into account the rural interest, which is to take into account the unique geographic constraints and realities of this province.

That's already there. If you have confidence in the panel to do its job independently, which is how these things should be done, then you should let them do that. Instead, on what I think is in recognition of the problems that the government is going to face, they're saying: "Well, maybe what we should do is add more seats."

Well, the problem is that — from what the government has been saying and the indication of what they want to do — we are going to be right back at the same problem we had last time, which is a commission coming back and saying: "You know what? We're not able to do it in the mandate which we have."

That's why, on this particular piece of legislation, what is important is that we get back to the fundamental principles of how electoral redistribution should take place — that is, a panel should be independent; and it should be given its instructions based on what's there and on the ability to produce an electoral map that takes into consideration rural versus urban, the geographical realities that this province faces.

I mean, I will be the first to admit that we are not Saskatchewan, where it's very easy to draw, to say that the top one-third of the province will be divided into two ridings and that south of that you will do a redistribution, because that part of Saskatchewan is so lightly populated.

But in British Columbia we should have the confidence in an independent commission shared by people who understand the issue, who can operate in a non-partisan and non-political way to put together boundaries that meet the needs of the province.

Unfortunately, what we have here is a government that has embarked on a course of action — a course of action that I suspect has been put in place. I have already heard that the minister of the core review was involved in it. The government has set itself on a path that it now realizes is going to bring it nothing but grief when this piece of legislation is challenged in the courts, which it most likely will be. Given the rulings that have taken place to date in this province and in this country, it will be on the short end of the stick again.

[1630]

In fact, the one thing that this particular piece of legislation might just do when it goes to court…. It might, in fact, move this government's record on court challenges ahead of Stephen Harper's record on court challenges and show that — guess what — it's not just the federal government that doesn't seem to understand the law or the constitution of the country, but the provincial government of British Columbia is more than happy to try and give it a run for its money as well. That's not a record that I think the provincial government really wants.

I think what the provincial government should do is be upfront with people.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague says that's something that is foreign to them. And you know what? He may well be right.

I think one of the things that the government could start by doing, if it wanted to give some confidence in

[ Page 3473 ]

the legislation or its position, would be to release the legal opinions, if it has them. Table them in this House. It would be useful for the House to see what legal opinions the government's legislation is based on.

If they are so sure that they are right in the measures contained in this bill, release the legal opinions so that not just members of this House but the public can see them, as well, and it can stand up to scrutiny. It can stand up to the scrutiny of the light of day — that, in fact, taking 17 seats in the province of British Columbia and red-circling them and telling the commission that they have to keep their hands off is somehow acceptable.

The challenge is, I think, that they will fail. An issue that is as fundamental to our democracy as the drawing of boundaries will once again revert from the improvements that were made by former Premier Vander Zalm. I notice a look on the face of the member there. I'll remind him that it was Bill Vander Zalm who brought in the first modern independent, outside of any political interference, boundary-redistribution model in the province of British Columbia. That has gone through the Fisher report. It has gone through, I think, two others since that time.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Ah, after a court challenge.

This particular piece of legislation takes us back to the bad old days in this province. It gets us away from the principle of fair representation. It undermines the principle of an independent panel, and that is not something that we on this side of the House can support.

We have seen the outrage at the federal level over their election bill. I think the government needs to take notice of that. What they need to do is understand that this is a bad piece of legislation, and all the patchworks in the world are not going to make it a good piece of legislation.

What we need is a fair, independent Boundaries Commission drawing the boundaries based on what's already there, that has worked as well. That is why I cannot support this particular piece of legislation.

G. Holman: I will be opposing this bill as well. I've listened to members from both sides of the House, and I'll be voting against it because it's unfair and because it's likely unconstitutional.

[1635]

For example, as has been stated earlier, the constituencies of Skeena, north Vancouver Island and Sunshine Coast all, it could be argued, deserve some kind of protection using the same principles that government has put forward, on the basis of population dispersion and transportation access, and they won't be protected. Again, I'm sure the fact that all of those unprotected ridings that I've just mentioned are held by NDP MLAs is purely a coincidence. I'm sure of that.

As the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, which has its own transportation challenges that are being exacerbated by ferry service cuts and fare increases, I'll be making those representations to the commission, and I'll be encouraging my constituents to do likewise.

The other fundamental problem with the bill is that it protects not just a few constituencies to reflect exceptional circumstances — which, as has been pointed out by my colleague just previously, our existing legislation already allows and the courts have upheld — but fully 20 percent of the seats in British Columbia.

My question to the government would be: why would we waste the time and the resources of the Electoral Boundaries Commission and, even more importantly, the time of citizens of British Columbia to engage and participate in a process with underlying legislation that may very well be unconstitutional? Why would we go through that? Why would we do that? Wouldn't it be much more prudent, a much better use of resources and fairer to all concerned, for government to withdraw this bill, to not give prescriptive direction to an independent commission?

Let them do their work. Let them do the work that the commission was intended to do, the work that governments and opposition parties of all stripes in B.C. have historically agreed it should do. Let the commission do its work and come back to government with its recommendations. Government at that point — as, my understanding, with the previous commission — makes the final decision.

[ Page 3474 ]

Government at that point has an opportunity to make changes, recommend changes, work with the opposition, with the other side of the House, to make changes that they see fit, rather than prescribe a set of directions to an independent commission — which may be unconstitutional. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. It's a waste of time and resources, and it's a waste of the time and resources of the citizens of this province, who expect that an independent commission will be sitting impartially listening to their views rather than being directed by government.

There are very few things that are more fundamental to the democratic process in British Columbia than ensuring that electoral boundaries are chosen by an independent body. This legislation flies in the face of that, so I'll be voting against this bill.

B. Routley: The Electoral Boundaries Commission Act has only been around a short period of time, and we've got the commission that has already made changes. In fact, the Cowichan Valley, for which I'm the MLA, is one of the new areas that became an MLA-represented area in the election in 2009.

[1640]

Prior to that, there were 79 MLAs in British Columbia, and they've had to go about making extra room for us. In fact, one of the seats that I'm sitting in now is probably new, as a result of growing from 79 MLAs to 85.

This bill that's before the House is actually very brief. It's only a couple of pages. I don't know that "gerrymandering" qu