Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, June 10, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 91

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Frank and Danse Williams

Hon. M. Mark

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 7 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

E. Ross

M. Bernier

T. Shypitka

C. Oakes

G. Kyllo

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Economic Innovation and Recovery (continued)

Tributes

Sarah Robinson

Hon. M. Rankin

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation (continued)

T. Stone

Hon. R. Kahlon

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 7 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act,

2021 (continued)

Reporting of Bills

Bill 7 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (continued)

J. Rustad

I. Paton

Hon. K. Conroy

R. Merrifield

D. Davies

J. Sturdy

S. Bond

L. Doerkson

S. Furstenau

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued)

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

S. Bond

G. Kyllo

C. Oakes

THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2021

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

FRANK AND DANSE WILLIAMS

Hon. M. Mark: I rise today to honour the memories of Frank Williams and Randy

Williams, or Frank and Danse, as most of us in Commercial Drive knew

them. The brothers were renowned on the Drive for their beautiful

carvings and their generous spirit. Many of us benefited from a humorous

anecdote, a kind word or helpful advice from Frank and Danse over the

years.

Sadly, in a short two months, both men lost their lives. They will

be very much missed.

Their path to our community on Commercial Drive wasn’t an easy

one. It began in Ahousat. They are Nuu-chah-nulth. As children, they

were taken away to residential school and, after that, passed through

various foster homes. Entering adulthood, they and their sisters and

brothers had little of the opportunity many of us in this chamber would

have taken for granted. Throughout their lives, Frank and Danse endured

what many in this chamber will never know.

In spite of that, they loved and were loved, had an eagerness to

connect with people and, as I’ve already said, a generosity second to

none. To Merrilee, Justin, Frankie, Dylan, Ashley and extended family,

we are together in your grief.

Their death certificates don’t say it, but these two remarkable

men died victims of systemic anti-Indigenous racism. Recently this House

has taken its first steps in accounting for the profound harms that

racism inflicted on Frank and Danse and the thousands more who suffered

early, heartbreaking deaths and those thousands who live amongst us in

our communities.

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act was only

the starting point. I urge all members to every day remind themselves

that there is much more to our journey, to every day ask themselves:

what more can we do to realize the promise that we’ve made?

[1:05 p.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage Bill 7, Electoral Boundaries Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call the continued estimates for the Ministry of Forests,

Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

In the Birch

Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety

and Solicitor General.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 7;

N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 1:06 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: Attorney General, do you have some introductions to make,

maybe?

Hon. D. Eby: Ready to go.

M. de Jong: Well, I guess the obvious question on

section 1, without much

fanfare, is: why 93?

Hon. D. Eby: I have to admit to the member that I was briefly distracted by my

technical setup here and missed his question. I wonder if he could

repeat it.

The Chair: The question was: why 93? But if Abbotsford West wants to

repeat it, go ahead.

M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Chair. I merely asked the Attorney whether he could

explain why the government settled on 93 as the number.

Hon. D. Eby: A couple of things. B.C.’s population has grown by approximately

half a million people since the last commission process in 2014-15. Six

was an additional number of seats previously permitted for an electoral

commission to add. So between those factors, looking at the reasonable

MLA-to-constituent ratio based on this population growth and mitigating

some of the pressure on the commission, which they might feel, to reduce

the number of electoral districts in less populated regions of the

province led us to allow them to recommend up to six additional seats at

their discretion.

M. de Jong: The Attorney, in the past stages of the discussion, has referred

to the population growth, which is a fact. I may, in a moment, come back

to the impact of the current census. But I’ll come back to that in a

moment.

[1:10 p.m.]

It sounds, though, as if the Attorney and the government have

settled somewhat, in their mind, that based on the population growth

that we know about today, there is a number or an optimum ratio or a

ratio beyond which the government is hesitant to go in terms of the

number of people an MLA might be representing.

When the Attorney says,

“We’ve got population growth of X, and for that reason we thought the

commission should have the option of increasing the number of MLAs by

Y,” that does suggest that there is some notion of a ratio. Is that so,

and if so, what is that ratio?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right to note that the ratio of the average

electoral district population, the ratio of seats to the overall

population, dictates the average electoral district population. So with

our population growth, if we look at the last Electoral Boundaries

Commission with 87 seats, the average electoral district population at

the time of the last commission was 53,119 constituents on average per

MLA.

In order to maintain that ratio, we would need to add somewhere in

the neighbourhood of 11 additional seats. So that’s not what we’re

putting forward. Looking at historic commissions — the ’98-99 Wood

commission, which allowed up to six additional seats; the 2005-2008

Cohen commission allowed six additional seats — it seemed to make sense

to us.

But the member is right to note that this does have implications

for the number of constituents per MLA. If the Electoral Boundaries

Commission elects to add one additional seat, that will be 59,171

constituents per MLA on average. Drawing another example, if they decide

to add enough seats to get us to 91 members in this place, there will be

57,221 constituents per MLA. If they add all six, it would be 55,990

constituents per MLA.

All of these numbers, the committee will note, are significantly

in excess of the ratio from the last Electoral Boundaries Commission. If

we look further back, in ’98-99, there were 47,146 constituents per MLA

in British Columbia. When we look next door to Alberta, they have an

average of 46,803 constituents per MLA. British Columbia is the third

most populous province, but it has the second highest number of

constituents per MLA after Ontario.

M. de Jong: That is helpful and relevant information. So it was a purposeful

decision to allow the overall ratio to increase. Holding it at present

levels would, as the Attorney has mentioned, have required providing the

commission with the option of adding more than six seats. I think he

mentioned 11.

The government, by purposeful decision, deemed that to be

— maybe excessive isn’t the right word — more than it wished to

authorize, recognizing that the average ratio between an elected MLA and

the number of constituents would increase by the numbers that the

Attorney has mentioned. Is that all a fair

summary?

Hon. D. Eby: That sounds accurate.

[1:15 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Can I ask the Attorney…? We’re in the midst, I guess, of a

national census. This has been touched upon in various stages, earlier

stages of the debate. But I’m not sure this has been addressed

definitively on the record.

Two questions, really. Will the commission be conducting its work,

when the commission is commissioned, on the basis of the 2021 census

data? In that regard, if it is — I guess even if it isn’t — has the

government, in making some of the decisions that went into drafting Bill

7…? Did it make any assumptions about what that census will show for the

population of the province?

Hon. D. Eby: So two parts to the member’s question.

The first, in terms of the commission itself, it’s entirely at

their discretion which population numbers they choose to use in doing

their work. The first scheduled 2021 census release of data is, we

understand, going to be in February of 2022. That’s while the commission

is still in progress. They could theoretically do some preliminary work,

while waiting for that data to be released, and then finalize it based

on that data. In the alternative, they could work with B.C. Stats to

generate projections for population on a go-forward basis to complete

their work, independent of the timing of the census.

As far as what the team and the ministry used in their work —

their policy work related to the bill — I’m advised that they base their

work on B.C. Statistics published data, population projections, which

are released quarterly. The most recent, we believe, was in February of

this year. That was the data that informed the decision around the six

additional seats.

M. de Jong: It sounds, therefore, as if the commission, once constituted, will

have the opportunity…. Well, I guess I should back up.

Is the commission provided at the onset with information from the

ministry, from the vital statistics division, about those projections?

First question.

[1:20 p.m.]

Then secondly, it sounds as if the commission will have an

opportunity and the option, if they choose to exercise it, to compare

those projections, if they are provided to them, with initial data from

the national census that the Attorney is indicating will be available in

February of 2022. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The act is not prescriptive at all in terms of how the commission

obtains its data or from where, in terms of population statistics. It is

entirely within their discretion to obtain data from B.C. Stats and

compare it with the February census data release and make determinations

based on that. So they certainly could do that.

Typically, I’m advised, the commission itself directly obtains the

information that it needs from B.C. Stats or from Statistics Canada,

rather than going through the ministry. Although they could, I

understand the practice is that they tend to go directly to these

sources to get that data.

I’m also advised that the previous Electoral Boundaries Commission

was faced with a situation of a fairly stale set of census data from

2011, because their work was happening in 2014-15. I’m advised that they

obtained projections around population directly from B.C. Stats in order

to do their work.

M. de Jong: I think one final question in this area. Have the Attorney or the

members of the ministry who have been working through this become aware

of demographic trends today that they believe are noteworthy or

significant and that they would hope and wish the commission takes

account of in conducting their work over the next period of months and

years?

Hon. D. Eby: Staff have advised me that when they were looking at the data, the

census data around percent Indigenous members of a community or people

census. So in terms of the immediate data available to the Electoral

Boundaries Commission, that is obviously…. It was dated for the purposes

of the commission in 2014-15, but now that’s about a decade old.

Although I do not seek to influence at all the independence of the

commission, I’m sure that the census data, as it’s released, will be of

interest to the commission in their work.

[1:25 p.m.]

Worth noting, I think, the dated nature of the Statistics Canada

data coming from 2011, and again, just underlining for the member the

independence that the commission has in how they use the information

that B.C. Stats is able to provide to them, as well as the information

they can obtain directly from Statistics Canada. What they may find

influential or not, I suspect we’ll go through in some of the discussion

in relation to sections of the act, where they’re asked to look

specifically at certain considerations. But other than that, it really

is in their hands.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. de Jong: Maybe what I can do is give the Attorney a little bit of an

outline of how I hope we can meander our way through clause 2 — broadly,

in two sections. I do so as much for his assistance as the staff that

are helping him.

The Attorney will know that some members of the House, certainly

members on the opposition side of the House, have articulated in a

fairly passionate way concern around the decisions the government has

made with respect to the language around governing principles. Some of

my colleagues would like, and will have an opportunity through the

course of the committee stage debate on

section 2, to particularize

those concerns and seek the Attorney’s response, reaction, answers to

some of those questions. We’ll come to that momentarily.

I’d like to take a moment. I’m going to be assisted by my

colleague from Skeena in a few moments. I want to lay out for the

Attorney, right at the forefront, the nature of the examination. I don’t

want him to be concerned that I’m trying to sandbag him or surprise him.

I’m going to lay out for him the nature of my query, and then we’ll

break it down and go through some of the component parts.

The bill, in its entirety — it’s a short bill — provides

instructions, guiding principles, a mandate to the Electoral Boundaries

Commission that will be created in accordance with existing laws. The

proposition that the opposition has been advancing is that by virtue of

how the principal

section of the legislation is being changed, it’s

going to have an impact. The opposition says a negative impact. And by

the way, I share that perception.

I’m not at the moment…. I don’t want to become bogged down in the

details of that argument. But I do want to ask the Attorney to consider

this proposition: that, in dealing with questions of rural

representation — parts of the province that heretofore have enjoyed an

element of protection under Boundary Commission legislation — there will

be an impact. There has been an argument in the House about the

magnitude of the impact and the nature of that impact and the manner in

which one deals with that impact. But there will be an

impact.

I’ll go further. I will suggest that with the removal of the

protections that have existed thus far, the likelihood is that ridings

in certain parts of the province are going to grow much larger. Some may

disappear.

[1:30 p.m.]

I will concede at the outset that none of us knows for certain how

the commission will deal with these matters. But given the decision to

remove the protections that were in place, it is far likelier than not

that the impact will be to grow the size of constituencies, and to that

extent, alter the nature of the representation or the manner in which

certain communities are represented. The Attorney, if he wishes to take

issue with that, will certainly have an opportunity to do so.

I say that because for the first part of the exchange, I’d like to

focus on, in particular, the degree to which that is significant for

Aboriginal communities. It won’t surprise the Attorney to know that we

are still trying to ascertain — I think as an opposition, I think as a

society — the degree to which the passage of Bill 41 in the fall of 2019

is impacting upon the development, introduction and passage of

legislation in this place.

I want to say this right up front. I say it, and I hope I don’t

get anyone into any trouble, saying this. I was grateful that the

Attorney made his staff available for a briefing when the bill was

introduced. They provided helpful information and, I think, answered

forthrightly. One of the questions that I put to them in that briefing

was around the consultation that would have taken place with First

Nations around Bill 7, prior to its introduction in the House. The reply

I received was that there hadn’t been any — that that was the role of

the commission.

Now, I appreciated the forthright answer. It did surprise me. It

did surprise me that on a piece of legislation that deals with political

institutions and the manner in which Indigenous communities are

represented…. It certainly affects other communities as well.

In rural parts of the province, where there are particular

sensitivities around this, and given what we had heard from the

minister’s colleague at the time that Bill 41 was being discussed, I was

surprised that the government would appear to be taking the view that

the responsibility for conducting consultation could be delegated to a

commission that was about to be established, albeit established pursuant

to statutory provisions.

It was my impression — and, I thought, the government’s impression

— that when change of this magnitude was being proposed and the

triggering mechanism for that change was affecting, as it will, First

Nations, Indigenous communities, the obligation rested with the Crown,

and that that obligation existed prior to the introduction and passage

of the legislation that would ultimately lead to the change.

I’m going to explore that a little bit with the Attorney, what

I’ve said a lot, and this may be an appropriate spot for him to offer

some initial response to what I’ve said.

Hon. D. Eby: It sounds like we’ll be on this for a little bit, so maybe, at

this point, it might just suffice to clarify something for the

member.

[1:35 p.m.]

I welcome the opportunity to be able to brief the member in

advance of a bill coming into the House, through staff, for two reasons.

One is it makes for a better discussion when we get here. Also, it

enables staff to dig a little bit deeper into the areas of interest to

the opposition and, therefore, better inform the public about our

intent.

I can tell the member that, as is our approach with bills that we

believe relate even broadly to the interests of Indigenous People, we do

reach out to the First Nations Leadership Council. We did do that in the

case of this bill. They did not indicate an interest in having further

information nor consultation about the bill. We did provide notice and

an opportunity for a further information briefing and so on to the First

Nations Leadership Council.

The member rightly notes that it properly is the practice of

commissions to consider Indigenous Peoples’ interests in setting

boundaries and in their work. I have little doubt that that will be

front of mind for this commission as well.

M. de Jong: All right. Well, thank you. I think that’s a good place to start.

It sounds like the Attorney has indicated to the committee that in this

case, in the case of Bill 7, prior to its introduction in the House, the

government alerted or contacted the leadership council.

I’m not sure if they provided a draft copy of the bill or if it

was a general invitation to engage on the question of electoral boundary

reconfiguration. I’m not sure what the government proposed or invited

the leadership council to participate in, and I am interested in that. I

hope the Attorney can provide a little bit more information and whether

that was in the form of a letter, as I say, or whether the draft

legislation was provided.

He’s indicated that the leadership council either declined to

participate or somehow signaled that they had no interest in

participating. So I’d be interested in a little more detail around both

sides of that transaction.

Hon. D. Eby: Initially the leadership council received the information by

email. There was a follow-up email with staff. Then our ADM spoke to

policy staff directly, walked staff through the proposed changes in the

bill. So to the best of our knowledge, the First Nations Leadership

Council had the full set of information about what was proposed to be

done in the bill and declined further engagement on this.

[1:40 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Can I ask the Attorney whether he believes legislation of this

sort — and that’s probably too general a question — whether this

legislation, whether Bill 7, triggers any of the protections, guarantees

contained within either articles 5 or 19 of the UN

declaration.

Hon. D. Eby: The short answer is that we believe that the proposed legislation

is consistent with the entirety of the declaration as adopted, including

sections 5 and 19.

With respect to

section 5, just note that the declaration does not

reference electoral boundaries specifically, but it does say that

Indigenous people have the right to strengthen their own political and

cultural and social institutions. But when they do that, that doesn’t

mean that they give up the right to participate fully, if they so

choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the

state. Should Indigenous people so choose, the opportunity to ensure

that their right to participate fully in, in this case, the political

life of the state in relation to the governance of our province is

certainly at the time the commission does its work.

With respect to

article 19, we believe that we do have the

responsibility to engage with Indigenous people on this bill, even

though one of the lenses you could put on this is whether Indigenous

people are uniquely or differentially impacted by legislation. You could

make the argument that everybody in a rural area or everybody in an

urban area is impacted by this type of legislation and that there’s not

a unique or differential impact on Indigenous people.

[1:45 p.m.]

Even so, we went to the First Nations Leadership Council to advise

them about the content of the bill and to see their interest in being

involved at this stage. We do feel the legislation is introduced

consistent with our obligations and that it is, itself, consistent with

the obligations.

M. de Jong: The second part of the Attorney’s answer was of particular

interest to me. He didn’t use this term, to be fair to him, but it

sounded like an argument to me that suggested the standard for

consultation under the declaration and Bill 41, which adopts the

declaration in B.C., may change depending upon whether or not we are

dealing with a law of general application that applies across the

fold.

Now to be fair, he didn’t use that term. But he did, I think,

suggest that in situations where the impact on an Aboriginal community

was not appreciably different than on other communities, that somehow

influenced the nature of the obligation that accrued to the

Crown.

I say that because when we were debating the bill, I thought that

at some point, we might begin to hear that argument. I put the question

directly, with respect to

article 19, to the Attorney’s then colleague,

the minister. I won’t read the quotes. Hopefully the Attorney trusts me

enough to know that I’m….

He was adamant that…. The requirement, under

article 19, reads as

follows: “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the

Indigenous Peoples concerned through their own representative

institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent

before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures

that may affect them.”

At the time the declaration was adopted by Bill 41, the

responsible minister made it clear that the obligation set out in

article 19, he said, applied to laws of general application, not just

circumstances where there was a particular impact on a First

Nation.

I guess the first proposition I’m going to make to the Attorney is

that the argument he is advancing for why it would not have been

necessary to, for example, obtain free, prior and informed consent….

Maybe his position is that the Crown did acquire free, prior and

informed consent with respect to Bill 7. But the obligation to engage in

that consultation existed.

Secondly, he is, I think, suggesting…. It seems to be that he’s

suggesting to the committee that that obligation was discharged by

notifying the leadership council. It won’t surprise him to know that a

follow-up question now and subsequently will be…. There are individual

First Nations and communities who are going to be impacted, as are other

communities. It doesn’t sound like any attempt was made to speak or

consult with them specifically. Whether it was the Kwadacha or the….

Well, we can go through the list.

[1:50 p.m.]

Is it the Attorney’s and the government’s view that, in

circumstances where the level of representation in a provincial

institution — like this parliament — and the nature of the

representation is going to be impacted, there was no obligation or there

is no obligation on the part of the Crown to consult directly with the

communities most directly impacted?

Hon. D. Eby: There was a lot there in the member’s question. First, let me say

that it would not be government’s position that engaging with the First

Nations Leadership Council discharged a legal obligation to consult and

accommodate in relation to First Nations rights. However, we definitely

believe — I believe, anyway — that consulting and engaging with the

First Nations Leadership Council on a proposed law of general

application, like this one is, is good practice and helps us identify

issues that should be addressed in more detail and concerns that may

lead us to take a different approach.

With respect to this particular legislation, these are high-level

principles, pursuant to which the Electoral Boundaries Commission will

do the work. We do not know what work the commission will do in terms of

drawing boundaries — what impacts, if any, will be seen by any

community. An outcome could be maintaining all of the existing

constituencies in rural and northern areas.

The time for the engagement with the Indigenous communities that

might be affected is at the time that the commission is doing its work

in considering where to draw the boundaries. This is an established

element of the commission’s work. It’s really a commonsense approach to

the boundary setting and totally appropriate and consistent with the

UNDRIP obligation that says that should an Indigenous community wish to

participate in that political activity in terms of drawing boundaries

for seats in relation to the state, they will be able to do that. That

is when that right would be realized.

M. de Jong: Well, there are a couple of things that flow from the Attorney’s

response that I think are worthy of exploring.

Firstly, he introduced a term into the conversation that I found

interesting. He talked about, in circumstances such as this, the idea of

consulting with potentially impacted First Nations as good

practice.

[1:55 p.m.]

I’m going to suggest to the Attorney that in these early days

post-passage of Bill 41, we are interested in determining more than just

good practice — trying to ascertain what the legal requirement is. If

the Attorney’s view and the government’s view is that in respect to the

realignment of political boundaries that capture and provide for

representation of First Nations communities, the only obligation that

exists post–Bill 41 passage and the declaration is to engage in good

practice — okay, I’m not sure I’d agree. A lot of people will be

interested to hear that.

I hope the Attorney…. My suggestion to the Attorney is that the

declaration in Bill 41 imposes a legal obligation. That is what we heard

from the government. That is why the government touted Bill 41 in the

first place. But if now what we’re dealing with in the Attorney and

government’s mind is merely engaging in good practice — okay, that’s

instructive.

Secondly — and again, my purpose here is not to be needlessly

argumentative — I do take issue with something the Attorney just said,

which is: “Well, we don’t know if there will be any changes. The

commission could decide to maintain all of the existing

boundaries.”

The Attorney knows that’s not the case. He and the government made

a decision to remove the existing provisions of the legislation that

could have required that to happen or could have led to that happening.

But the disappearance of those provisions guarantees that that will not

happen.

I’m happy to have a thoughtful conversation with the Attorney

about the impact of these overlapping legislative instruments. But

let’s, I hope, do so on the basis of reality. And the reality is that by

virtue of the provisions that the government has introduced and the

Attorney has included in the bill, there will be changes. There will be

changes that directly impact communities in rural parts of British

Columbia, including many, many Aboriginal communities.

I suppose, to be straightforward about the issue that I want to

explore…. In introducing legislation that triggers a process that could

lead to an isolated Aboriginal community moving from one constituency to

another or finding itself in a constituency that is a whole lot larger

than the already large constituency it is in, I would have thought that

there was an obligation on the government, prior to the introduction of

that legislation, pursuant to the provisions of Bill 41 and the UN

declaration, to speak directly with that community first.

The track we seem to be on from the government is: in that

circumstance, the obligations under Bill 41 are met by notifying the

leadership council and leaving the rest to the commission, and

delegating to the commission responsibilities for further consultation.

That seems to me to be the approach that the government is taking. I

have concerns that that is inconsistent with Bill 41.

But I guess the two questions that flow…. Is that the approach? Is

that an accurate

summary of the process we’re on? Am I correct, in

surmising from that, that the government doesn’t see any obligation to

speak with an individual First Nation whose community might be directly

impacted by the legislation that we are debating today in the

House?

[2:00 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member made a big deal about my use of the word “practice.” I

think, maybe to clarify, although I thought it was implicit, that it’s

good practice, when partnering with Indigenous People, to go above and

beyond what you believe your bare minimum obligations are under any law.

That’s what I think.

The member can’t hear me. I’ll repeat myself.

The member made a big deal about my use of the word “practice.” I

thought it was implicit in my statement. But just to be clear, in my

opinion, when partnering with Indigenous People and in terms of the

commitments our government has made, good practice is to go above and

beyond what you believe your bare legal obligations might be.

This bill legally does not implicate

section 35, constitutional

treaty rights. So you could argue, which I had said in my original

answer, that there was not an obligation to reach out here. But reaching

out to an umbrella organization that represents the three senior

leadership organizations in the province is a good opportunity to

identify issues or concerns that maybe you didn’t see, which is what we

did.

I was intrigued to hear the member say that the proposal of this

bill, removing these, essentially, strictures on the ability of the

commission to independently determine effective representation and

appropriate seats…. He said it guarantees a different result.

Guarantees. So an independent commission charged with constitutionally

protecting people’s right to vote and ensuring effective representation

guarantees a different result than what his government put in

place.

Well, that’s interesting and may be instructive for the member

about why we’re allowing the commission to operate independently of, of

course, the opposition, the Third Party and the government. We believe

that this is work that should be done independently.

Finally, I don’t know if there’s a misunderstanding here, but this

bill does not draw the boundaries. This bill establishes the body

charged with going out and engaging with British Columbians, including

Indigenous communities, including rural Indigenous communities that

might be affected by their work, including urban Indigenous People — I

know that Surrey, if they’re not currently, may be the largest urban

Indigenous population in the province — about what those boundaries

should be and what effective representation means for those communities

and how best to accomplish that.

We’re establishing the consultative body to do this work. Whether

or not a given Indigenous community wishes to engage with that work is

up to those communities. That is their right protected under

UNDRIP.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’m trying to respond to the member’s proper concern, in my

opinion, about the rights of Indigenous People and our obligations under

UNDRIP and our obligations constitutionally. But I’m struggling a little

bit about the idea that we know now — we already know — which

communities will be affected and how they’ll be affected and that we

should consult with them about that when, in fact, all we’re doing is

establishing the body that is going to be doing that work.

M. de Jong: I will resist the urge to engage further. I was hopeful that the

Attorney, although he clearly doesn’t agree with me, would understand

the nature of my inquiries and submissions. But that’s fine. It has been

partially helpful, I think, to have the exchange.

My colleague from Skeena is standing by and has some questions

that I’m hopeful the committee and the Attorney will

entertain.

E. Ross: To follow up on the previous questioning…. We’re talking about two

different things here.

I think it’s getting blurred between the words “engagement” versus

“consultation,” which are separate. You’re talking about the commission

going out and doing some work, based on the bare minimum that this

government actually had done in terms of what they call consultation,

which nowhere comes near the definition either in case law or even in

UNDRIP, the bill that the government just passed. In saying that, as

well….

Maybe I’ll just cut right to the chase here with the Attorney

General. I’m missing something here. I think the Attorney General

clearly laid out how they would not be delegating the responsibility of

consultation on Bill 7 to the commission. I hope I got that right. So

there will be no consultation from the commission. All they’ll do is the

engagement.

In saying that, the honour of the Crown to consult and the duty of

the Crown still lie with the provincial government. On the flip side of

that, in terms of the Crown’s due diligence, is the Crown aware of any

legal authority given from the 203 communities across B.C., on behalf of

their communities, that hold the rights and title? Is the Crown aware of

any authorization that came from these rights and title holders to the

leadership council that expressly authorizes them to act, in terms of

responding to consultative measures?

Hon. D. Eby: I think the member is right that we, perhaps, have not been as

clear as we should have been in our discussion about the difference

between

section 35, rights and title, treaty rights, and engagement with

respect to the leadership council, in respect of this bill.

With respect to rights and title, protected by

section 35, treaty

rights…. This bill does not affect those rights. There is not a legal

obligation on the part of government to consult and accommodate, as

there would be if those rights were implicated by what the bill

proposed.

[2:10 p.m.]

However, I believe, and I think it’s a good idea, that government

go above and beyond our bare legal obligations in engaging with

Indigenous Peoples, so whether or not, and to what extent, the First

Nations Leadership Council has a mandate from the nations across B.C. is

a fair question for the member to ask. However, they do have some

mandate, and they do have some experience and some insight to bring to

government to help us identify blind spots that we may have or concerns

that we may not have anticipated.

That is why we still go forward to the

First Nations Leadership Council and engage with them on bills like

this.

I hope that that clarifies for the member the distinction between

those two areas in terms of what I understand his question related

to.

E. Ross: No, it doesn’t answer the question. I truly understood what the

Attorney General was talking about in terms of

section 35 and the

pursuant case law. I understand that fully. What I don’t understand are

the new obligations brought in under Bill 41, the UNDRIP bill, which

actually, in my mind, was aimed at highering the obligations of the

government in terms of addressing Aboriginal interests.

In this case here, my question was, if the government is going to

use the leadership council for consultative purposes, is the Crown aware

of a document between the 203 First Nations of B.C. and the leadership

council that authorizes the leadership council to speak on behalf of 203

First Nations in respect of these types of measures?

Hon. D. Eby: As I said to the member’s colleague, government would not use the

First Nations Leadership Council for the purposes of consultation and

accommodation related to

section 35 protected rights.

E. Ross: You know, it kind of contradicts what you just said. You said that

you went to the leadership council and you got their blessing. You were

talking around the purpose of the commission versus

consultation.

I agree with the Attorney. You keep citing

section 35 and

Aboriginal case law. I agree with you 100 percent. But you’re neglecting

your own UNDRIP bill in terms of the benchmarks that you set.

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member. Thanks.

E. Ross: Through the Chair.

As well, it comes down to a number of the foundational principles

that are actually laid down in case law, which I don’t see in UNDRIP. I

actually heard it mentioned here a couple of times as well, in terms of

how Aboriginal interests will be protected and, to that same extent, how

they will be consulted.

There’s a phrase used that said, “Well, it’s open to argument,”

where it might not affect First Nations in respect of their neighbours

in rural areas. Well, that’s not true, whether you’re talking about

UNDRIP or you’re talking about case law, because Aboriginal interests

are unique. If the Attorney General wants to cite Aboriginal rights and

title case law, please look up the term sui generis. This actually

speaks to the honour of the Crown. It actually speaks to the

relationship between the Crown and First Nations. It’s well

documented.

But I get the feeling now that there are two things happening

here. The Crown — the B.C. government, in this case — wants to treat

First Nations as just regular stakeholders. As well, they want to do

one-stop shopping in every single legislative initiative that comes out

of the House by going to the leadership council, with no idea on whether

or not the leadership council has the authority to speak on behalf of

203 First Nations. We’re talking about whether it be under UNDRIP or

whether it be under Aboriginal rights and title case law.

[2:15 p.m.]

If the Attorney General truly believes that they’ve gone above and

beyond to address Aboriginal interests, then how do they reconcile the

fact that the Attorney General hasn’t really — or the Crown, for that

matter, has not really — paid particular attention to the rights and

special needs of Indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons

with disabilities in the implementation of this declaration? I’m talking

about UNDRIP. How can you be sure if you haven’t consulted with the 203

communities, if you haven’t heard their interests and you haven’t

relayed that? You haven’t had meaningful consultation.

Hon. D. Eby: Well, the answer is quite straightforward and is that the body

that does the engagement work across the province, not just with

Indigenous communities but with communities across the province and

individuals who are interested in the political life of the state —

that’s what this bill establishes. So I don’t say that the engagement

that the member describes has been done. I say that this bill

establishes the body that will go out and do that work.

E. Ross: Yes, I understand that, but with no consultation, apart from the

leadership council. So how are the remote communities supposed to know

that this is actually even happening, unless you do the pre-consultative

work that everybody encourages the private sector to do? Go out and do

your pre-consultative work, and then make your applications.

In this case, the government hasn’t even done that. They just

actually went to the leadership council who, in my opinion, do not

represent the interests of First Nations in these types of measures.

They definitely don’t represent rights and title. I know that for a

fact.

Like I say, I would have agreed with the Attorney General, every

word that you said under the rights and title case law. But the

government’s UNDRIP bill has changed all that — the vagary, the

confusion around the declaration. Most of this stuff has already been

done in Canada.

But there are also a number of declarations that talk to highering

the level of consultation that this government actually hasn’t done yet.

There’s a difference. I’ll say it again. There’s a difference between

engagement and consultation. In this case, the government is saying:

“Okay, our consultative duty is only with the leadership council, no

matter what the issue.” We’ve heard this a number of times in terms of

legislation that has got through the House. In terms of the real work to

be done, that will be done through engagement.

Maybe that gets back to the question. If the Attorney General

truly believes that they will do more than the bare minimum and do more

of their due diligence to uphold and honour the Crown, can the Attorney

General tell me: is there a document, an agreement that normally goes

with legal obligations, that says the leadership council, in this

respect, has the right to say yes or no to consultative measures taken

by the Crown on behalf of 203 First Nations of B.C.?

Hon. D. Eby: The member asked how rural Indigenous communities would know about

the work of the commission, them going out to consult with British

Columbians, including Indigenous communities, about where boundaries

should be drawn and what effective representation means for those

communities.

There are a number of avenues. One of the most effective, I’ll

note, is the work of the local MLA letting communities know that this

work is happening.

In addition to that, commissions historically have advertised in

newsletters, newspapers, Internet and radio ads to let people know that

this work is happening so that they can participate.

[2:20 p.m.]

Now, I would understand the member’s objection a little more

clearly, I guess, if the Electoral Boundaries Commission said: “We don’t

need to talk to any Indigenous communities. We’ll just talk to the

leadership council and then we’ll draw the boundaries based on that.”

Because that would obviously be incredibly problematic.

They need to go out and do their work, talk to British Columbians

and also, as they have historically, engage with Indigenous communities,

both on and off-reserve, talk to them about effective representation and

the needs of their communities and where the boundaries should be and

engage with those communities directly.

What we’re doing here in the House today is we are setting up the

body that’s going to go out and do that work. I hope that clarifies

things for the member. I don’t think that although the boundaries

commission is independent, I don’t suggest that they would fulfil their

obligations as a commission by simply talking to the leadership council

about where the boundaries should be. I think they need to do that work

directly, and historically, they have done that.

E. Ross: To the Attorney General, that’s actually not the

question.

Given the honour of the Crown and the duty of the Crown, and how

the Attorney General keeps referring to how they will go above and

beyond the due diligence based on the case law as well as UNDRIP, my

question is: is the Crown aware of the delegated duty from 203 First

Nations in B.C. to the leadership council to represent them at the

high-level consultations that the Attorney General is talking

about?

I’m not talking about the engagement on the ground. I’m talking

about the work that the Attorney General says that they already did in

consultation, which the government thinks went above and beyond, to

address the consultative duties of the Crown. So my question is: does

the Crown have proof that the authority was granted by 203 First Nations

to the leadership council, and will that document be tabled?

Hon. D. Eby: So to be totally clear, there is no legal consultative duty or

obligation on the Crown in relation to this bill, because it is our

legal position that there are no

section 35 treaty,

constitutionally-protected rights that are implicated by this

bill.

The member keeps saying that there was this high-level

consultation and accommodation discussion that the nations across B.C.

were shut out of. That is not the case. There was no discussion like

that, because there are no

section 35 protected rights implicated by

this bill.

There was an engagement with the First Nations Leadership Council

to say: “Hey, this bill is coming in front of the House. Do we have any

blind spots here? Are there any particular concerns you want to draw to

our attention? This is happening. Do you want more information about

it?”

That’s an important thing, in my opinion, to do, independent of

whether or not we believe that there are

section 35 protected rights

implicated.

I hope that clarifies things for the member.

E. Ross: Like I said at the beginning, I agree with the Attorney General

when he’s talking about

section 35 and the pursuant case law, but UNDRIP

has highered that standard. In fact, the Attorney General refuses to

mention their own commitments in the UNDRIP document itself.

Now, vague as it may be, during the debates when this bill was

first introduced, this was going to be the promise of everything to

First Nations. Are we going to consult in every single piece of

legislation? Yes. Are we going to consult in administrative issues? Yes.

We’re going to make sure that in everything, we’re doing a partnership

with First Nations. Then we find out, through different departments in

the government, that no, that’s not the case. We’re going to go through

the leadership council.

[2:25 p.m.]

Maybe I’ll ask the one last time. In terms of UNDRIP and the

higher expectations of due diligence from the Crown that the government

themselves actually told us about…. They told us: “We’re going to get

away from all of these agreements. We’re going to get away from these

negotiations and all of this oppositional stuff. We’re going to include

First Nations in everything, legislation. We’re going to do reports,

annual reports. We’re going to do all this stuff. It’s going to be

great.”

So all I’m asking is…. When the Crown consults with the First

Nations Leadership Council — and it’s up to the Crown to do its due

diligence — is there an understanding or an agreement or some kind of

written paper that says: “Yes, the leadership council, in these matters,

had the right to speak on behalf of 203 First Nations in

B.C.”?

Hon. D. Eby: To clarify, government does not believe that consultation with the

First Nations Leadership Council substitutes for consultation with

affected Indigenous communities in relation to any

section 35 protected

rights.

When establishing a body like this, our expectation is — and it is

the historical practice of these bodies, who are independent of

government — to go out and engage with people across the province,

including Indigenous communities, and to consider their interests in

drawing boundaries. So we’re establishing the body that will go out and

do that engagement.

If the commission went out and only talked to the leadership

council and only said, “Hey, leadership council, where should these

boundaries be? Okay. We don’t need to talk to Indigenous communities

across the province now. We’ve talked to the leadership council,” we

would have to fix that. But of course, that would never happen, because

that’s not how these commissions work.

We’re setting up the commission that is going to go out and do

exactly the work the member says needs to happen. It needs to happen. We

need to set up the commission. And not only that, we need to give the

commission the independence to make the right decision, independent of

what the political parties in this place think the boundaries should be.

We’re setting up an independent commission with this legislation, with

no restrictions on where they can draw the lines, sending them out,

charging them to do exactly the work the member says we need to do. I

hope that clarifies things.

E. Ross: I take exception to that, with no restrictions. Aboriginal rights

and title, whether you describe it in your UNDRIP document or case law,

is unique. But you keep coming back to this idea that everybody will be

treated equally, and we’ll get the interest on the table. But at the

same time, when I heard the member from Abbotsford question you, you

were saying: “Oh, we already sent a letter to the leadership council,

and we got no response.”

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member. Thank you.

E. Ross: So what is it? You go on and talk about…. Sorry, through the

Chair. Members of this House want to talk about the distinction between

rights and title versus the politics, while I’m trying to get to the

core of the issue in terms of rights and title and Aboriginal interests

and how it’s being handled.

I do understand, clearly, the rights and title and case law. I

know the infringements. I know all that. What I don’t know is

government. Are you going to live up to commitments that you made in

your own UNDRIP document? That’s all I’m asking. If so, where is the

authorization from 203 bands to the leadership council that actually

gives the authorization to say: “Okay, they had no interest. We’re just

going to move along then.”

That is not how rights and title works. That’s not how

consultation works. It might have worked 20 years ago. But times have

changed. I’m not talking politics here. I’m talking something

fundamental to Canada. I’m talking about the constitution. I’m talking

about 40 years of court cases that led us to today, previous to UNDRIP

being introduced.

I’m asking a straightforward question. Is there a document between

203 First Nation bands that authorizes the leadership council to act on

their behalf in terms of Aboriginal interests?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Just because the member says his question is straightforward does

not make it so. The member repeatedly says: “Rights and title, the sui

generis rights, all the litigation….” He says: “How come government can

trample over those with this?”

It is government’s position that there are no

section 35 rights

implicated in this bill. That is our position. The member has said now

two or three times he agrees with me 100 percent on that. It might be

his position that that’s not the case — even though he has said that

several times — but I think he agrees with me 100 percent. I believe him

when he says that. So if we both agree that there are no

section 35

rights and title rights implicated in this bill, then we’re exclusively

talking about what the UNDRIP piece, layered on top of that, obligates

government to do.

There is actually a provision in the UNDRIP legislation that talks

about this. It says that Indigenous Peoples have the right to maintain

and strengthen their own political and cultural systems and that that

doesn’t come at the expense of their right to participate in the

political, economic, social and cultural life of the state, British

Columbia.

This bill is exactly the mechanism by which Indigenous People will

have the opportunity, if they choose, including nations, including

individuals, including urban Indigenous People, people who live in rural

communities…. If they choose, they can participate in this process. We

are setting up the engagement process by which those communities and

individuals can participate fully, as is their protected right under

article 5 of UNDRIP.

The member could rightly say: “Hey, you didn’t need UNDRIP to do

that.” No, we didn’t. But it’s consistent with UNDRIP. It’s consistent

with our obligations under UNDRIP, and that is the process that we’re

setting up.

M. de Jong: I’ll just probe this momentarily. By the way, I understand that

there are frustrations on all sides here. I actually find the

conversation useful in terms of getting a sense of the government’s

approach and response to these matters.

The Attorney just referred to

article 5 in UNDRIP. Fine. He, I

think, purposely chose not to address

article 19, which makes it clear:

“States” — the province — “shall consult and cooperate in good faith

with Indigenous Peoples concerned through their own representative

institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent

before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures

that may affect them.”

I hope that we have established that Bill 7 may affect Aboriginal

communities, First Nations communities. I hope that is not an issue.

When we discussed the impact, the significance of

article 19 at the time

of its incorporation into the laws of B.C. via Bill 41, the government —

through its representative, the minister — made it clear that

article 19

applies to laws of general application. It’s intended to apply to

British Columbia’s provincial legislation.

Then the minister said this: “I think it’s safe to say that

there’s going to be deeper and more involved consultation between the

province and First Nations — or those nations affected, certainly, or if

nations are affected as a whole. That is what’s contemplated within the

bill. The province is expected to ‘consult and cooperate in good faith,’

as called for in the UN declaration….” — referring to

article

What my colleague, I think, has been pursuing with the Attorney is

the enhanced obligation that the government assumed and said it was

assuming at the time of Bill 41 and whether or not that has been

discharged. As I understand the Attorney’s response, it is that

obligation…. I’m not sure if he disputes the obligation, but that

obligation will be fulfilled by the commission.

[2:35 p.m.]

I think that’s what he’s saying: “We have assigned that

responsibility, or we have delegated that responsibility, to the

commission.”

To the Attorney’s mind…. It seems to me what he is arguing before

the committee is that that is sufficient. That the creation of that body

— with, by the way, no requirement…. The Attorney chastised me a few

moments ago for speculating about outcomes and processes. He was pretty

willing a few moments ago to speculate on his own about what would take

place on the basis of past activities.

I’m not sure the Crown can delegate. If the obligation has been

assumed by the Crown with respect to this legislation, can the Crown

delegate that responsibility to an agency over which it will have no

ongoing…? It will be independent, as the Attorney said.

Is that the Attorney’s position? That the obligations that were

assumed under Bill 41 —

article 19, the enhanced obligation to consult —

the Crown can satisfy them by passing a piece of legislation that says

to another agency, “You go out and talk to British Columbians”? And I

guess it’s just an unspoken assumption — because I can’t find it

anywhere in this bill, and I certainly don’t see it anywhere in the

Electoral Boundaries Commission Act — that the obligations assumed via

Bill 41 must be satisfied.

I’m trying to keep the editorializing to the minimum. That seems

to me to be the Attorney’s argument — that whatever obligations were

assumed by government under Bill 41 will presumably be satisfied by the

commission, we hope. Is that it?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member asked a really interesting question about delegation of

responsibility in terms of the Declaration Act. As interesting as the

question is, it is not, in my opinion, implicated here. Government is of

the position that we have introduced a bill that is consistent with our

obligations under the Declaration Act.

Our expectation is — like all government-delegated authorities,

whether to a tribunal or otherwise — that the commission would take

notice of the law in British Columbia in doing their work, including the

Declaration Act, that they would conduct their work accordingly and that

they would be aware of — in my opinion — their need to engage with

Indigenous communities that might be affected by the boundaries that

they draw. The process is that they go out. They engage with communities

across the province. They draw up a map, and then they seek further

comment on those maps.

Let’s say that the commission just failed to recognize that there

was an Indigenous community that was affected by a boundary. I have no

doubt that a local MLA would identify that and bring it forward, but

really, we’re choosing people who are independent, who understand the

importance of the work and who understand their need to operate within

the law of British Columbia — which includes the Declaration Act and

concern about the rights and interests of Indigenous people. This is the

body that will be going out and doing the work to draw the boundaries,

independent of government.

Just one further piece: it’s important to know that what this bill

proposes to do is to make the rules of engagement for the commission

broader and more flexible than they were previously, so that these types

of rights can be accommodated.

M. de Jong: Just two things. Whether the Attorney accepts this or not, I have

found the exchange informative. I disagree with the Attorney. I disagree

with the proposition that the government, the Crown, has discharged and

is discharging the responsibilities it assumed via Bill 41, but I have

found the exchange on the matter to be informative

nonetheless.

Hon. Chair, my colleague from Peace River South has some questions

for the Attorney.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the Attorney for taking my questions and to my

colleague from Abbotsford West for allowing me a few moments here. I

think the Attorney probably has heard some of my comments already on

this issue in the House, so it’s going to be no surprise to him on some

of the questions. If he’ll indulge me, some of them may even appear to

be personal in nature, but it’s more just to set the stage on an

understanding of the diversity that we have within this

province.

Let me start by just saying, look, we all understand how diverse

the province is, I believe, in the chamber — and the uniqueness of the

different parts of the province. I’m born and raised in Vancouver, and I

moved to the Peace region. Maybe the first question that I’ll ask of the

Attorney, just to kind of set the stage here, for some of the

differences that I want to talk about: can the minister, for the record,

explain to the House: how many square kilometres is his riding of

Vancouver–Point Grey?

[2:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, if you might help me understand the connection to

clause 2 on the bill. I’m just wanting to make sure we have

relevance here.

M. Bernier: My questions will all make sense, Mr. Chair, as I’m just

formulating a couple of questions, obviously, that go to the heart of

clause 2 to make my point around unique circumstances — if that’ll help

— as I get through further questions.

The Chair: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we’re not getting into

personal background of how many blocks someone walks to the coffee

shop or something like that, given that we’re talking about

legislation.

Hon. D. Eby: The short answer is: I don’t know how big it is. To the member’s

point that I think he’s trying to make, I suspect that driving across

it, if there were no traffic, would take me probably about 15 minutes at

a regular urban driving speed. I say “urban driving speed” because it is

an urban constituency.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the Attorney for that. Obviously, we want to talk

about some of these maybe unique challenges or circumstances. The reason

why I ask is because the Attorney is the one speaking to this bill. It’s

just to help paint the picture. I’m not trying to insult the Attorney,

by any means, in doing this.

I just quickly looked on his website, just to look. It’s around 23

square kilometres for Vancouver–Point Grey and representing pretty close

to the average of around 55,000. The reason why I mentioned this is I’m

just curious. To the minister, could tell me, has he had the privilege…?

When was the last time he was at a place like Fort Nelson? How did he

get there? Has he been lucky enough or fortunate enough to have been up

to the Peace region before?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, I have had the privilege to be up to the Peace a few times,

in opposition and in government. I was in Fort Ware…. Was it last

summer? Oh, COVID time. It was the last summer that we were allowed to

travel. I spent some time with the chief and council and the circuit

court in Kwadacha there. It’s a beautiful part of the world, the Peace,

and I do understand the remoteness of some Indigenous communities in the

province.

I wonder if the member has been to the University of British

Columbia lately. I’d welcome him to come down and say hi,

post-COVID.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the offer and, I guess, the banter back and forth on

that. Yes, I have been there — many times, in fact — as I grew up just

around the corner from there.

I want to acknowledge, then…. I appreciate that the minister said

that he has been up there. But I think one of the things we want to

acknowledge, for instance…. I’m going to speak specifically to the Peace

region because under clause 2, with removal of the protections…. Let’s

not kid ourselves again. There were protections put in place for certain

parts of the province, I would argue, for very valid reasons — to avoid

this actual debate that we’re having right now of determination for a

commission to guess what a “special geographic consideration”

is.

Let me paint the picture for the Attorney, if he will indulge me

in that. The Attorney’s riding is 23 square kilometres. The Peace region

is represented by two MLAs right now. Based on population — depending on

how the commission does their work; I’ll ask the Attorney about that,

maybe, in a minute — it would probably justify being only one MLA, based

on the number of people who live in the area. Population density in the

Attorney’s riding is around 2,500 per square kilometre; in the Peace

region, it’s 0.2 per square kilometre. You can see a little bit of the

uniqueness that we have up here.

[2:50 p.m.]

If we were to look at the Attorney’s riding of 23 square

kilometres and the Peace region at 200,000…. With my quick math, that

would be 9,000, so 9,000 of the Attorney’s ridings would fit into the

Peace region. That could be, under the removal of the protection that

the Attorney seems to support, obviously, one MLA for the equivalent

geographical size of 9,000 of the Attorney’s ridings.

Maybe I’ll ask…. This is not by any means expected to trap the

minister. This is, again, just for me and to help paint a picture for

the House. This is not for any other reason, just to do that. Has the

minister ever driven from his riding to Prince George?

Hon. D. Eby: I have.

It’s interesting that the member thinks that by the previous

government establishing these specific areas with guaranteed seats, they

were somehow avoiding a debate. They weren’t. They were just having a

different debate, which is about whether or not politicians or an

independent commission should be drawing boundaries.

The late Dermod Travis spoke on this in January of 2014. He said:

“So in essence what they’re saying to the commission is: ‘Don’t touch

those 17 seats.’ Anything you have to do, you’re going to have to do to

the other 68 seats, and it will, in fact, create two classes of ridings.

It’s going to have 17 first-class ridings if this goes through, with, on

average, about 26,000 voters each, and then it’s going to have 68

second-class ridings, with over 40,000 voters each.”

The Electoral Boundaries Commission themselves, in 2015, commented

on how difficult the admonition was to not impact the number of seats in

those areas while, at the same time, not adding any other seats. They

were “drawn inexorably to recommend electoral districts with growing

population inequality.” That’s not just a bad public policy thing,

population inequality between constituencies. That’s an unconstitutional

thing.

When people like Hamish Telford, University of the Fraser Valley,

with respect to those previous amendments by the previous

administration, say things like, “It appears the government may be

giving the commission too much direction and not giving them the

independence to establish the ridings themselves….” There was a debate.

There was a very significant debate about those changes made by the

previous government.

The situation has only gotten worse in terms of people’s votes

counting for more in some areas of the province and less in other areas,

to the point of being in a constitutional warning zone, I’ll say

generously. This cannot continue. Something has to give. What we propose

to do is give the commission the ability to add up to six additional

seats and to have the independence to go out and ensure effective

representation.

I’ll say this. I respect very much the work of rural MLAs. I don’t

think, with respect, that people who live in more densely populated

areas should have to have their vote count for so much dramatically less

in order to recognize that work. This bill attempts to address both

issues by allowing the addition of six further seats, to take the

pressure off the need to reduce the number of rural seats for the

commission — if they want to add those six seats, they can — and giving

the commission the direction that we need to have effective

representation for communities.

Rural MLAs have a difficult job. Keep that in mind when you’re

drawing these boundaries. You’re allowed to depart, for the sake of

effective representation, from the 25 percent standard.

I have confidence in the independence of the commission that they

will draw the boundaries that are best for the province, that are

constitutionally compliant, that ensure effective representation, that

recognize the hard work of rural MLAs and that recognize the fact that

people who live in more densely populated parts of the province have a

constitutional right to have their vote count.

M. Bernier: I guess the Attorney and I will differ on a few things. It’s

unfortunate that he tries to paint a picture that right now people’s

votes don’t count.

[2:55 p.m.]

It sounds like he’s trying to say people in urban British Columbia

are not being represented in the Legislature and their votes don’t

count. I would argue there’s a difference. This is what we’re trying to

talk about here. There’s a difference.

I don’t want to create a rural-urban divide, as the minister,

apparently, through this bill, looks like he’s going to try to achieve.

I think we have to acknowledge the rural and urban

difference.

I asked the minister at the onset…. He did answer this question:

has he ever driven from his riding to Prince George? The reason why I

asked that is…. Even though the minister will try to keep going back to

his position, which is, obviously, representation by population only….

That, at the end of the day, means 95 percent of the province, which is

in the rural parts of British Columbia, represented, I believe, by

around 18 or so MLAs…. That, based on population, could drop, maybe,

down to ten or 12 MLAs, further reducing the ability for people to

access their MLA.

Now, the reason why I asked the question is no secret. The

Attorney is a smart person. He knows where I’m going with this. From his

riding to Prince George is the same driving distance as the Peace

region.

Does the minister think that it’s actually fair and equitable

representation that he is setting up with this bill? I’m not trying to

be combative with this. I’m trying to, actually, be quite realistic in

the sense of a person that represents that riding area. Does he feel it

is practical to drive 12 hours in the same riding to visit your

MLA?

This is not just about, I would argue, the MLA. Parties come and

go. MLAs come and go. This is about the person, the people in those

ridings and their access to their voice in Victoria.

Does he believe that 12 hours away is, actually, fair for a person

to have to travel to see their MLA? That’s what it would be like. Would

the Attorney like to drive to Prince George to visit his MLA? Does he

think that’s reasonable?

Hon. D. Eby: Here’s the good news. The good news is it doesn’t matter what my

opinion is. It only matters what the Electoral Boundaries Commission’s

opinion is in relation to effective representation.

The member, I think, has a wonderful presentation to make to the

Electoral Boundaries Commission about the challenges of representing his

community, about the size of it, about the work that he needs to do in

order to do that.

Here’s where I think my opinion does matter. Why this is happening

is that we have a constitutional problem. We have a growing number of

seats in the province where the electoral districts are further and

further apart, well beyond plus or minus 10 percent. We had, as of the

2015 commission — and things have only gotten worse — three

constituencies where their vote power was worth essentially half of the

lesser populated constituencies that were protected. Your vote is worth

half.

The member might think that that’s okay, but it doesn’t matter

what the member thinks. It doesn’t matter really what I think either on

this one. It matters what the courts think about that. Each Canadian has

a guarantee of a not exactly equal but a relatively equal weight of

their vote in terms of determining the makeup of this place.

We have an MLA system. We’re MLAs. We have a party system as well.

If your vote is worth half as much…. If a person in one constituency

needs to get two voters to have the same impact to choose a party

representative for their seat as another MLA that only has to get one

voter, that is not a sustainable situation. The situation has only

gotten worse since 2015. We need to solve this problem.

[3:00 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

These are important considerations the member raises that the bill

specifically instructs the commission to think about when drawing

boundaries. Can there be effective representation? The member used a

bunch of different words that I didn’t use — equal representation;

should it be fair representation? No — effective. The commission has

directed, “Will these boundaries provide effective representation?”

which is adopted from the case law that is also constitutional

litigation related to representation by population.

The member incorrectly says that representation by population is

the only factor — he attributed that to me, but I think he meant the

government — in this bill, because the bill is very clear: “You can

depart from representation by population considerations. You can go

beyond the 25 percent standard in order to ensure effective

representation.”

I do understand that the member has an argument to make, but the

argument is not with this bill. The argument is to be presented to the

commission: “This is what’s needed to effectively represent my

constituency. This is why the boundaries should be in this area.” I

think he should bring that forward.

M. Bernier: I’ll indulge the Attorney by just saying that of course I will be

making that conversation and argument on behalf of the constituents in

the Peace region, who already feel, being the furthest away from

Victoria, covering the largest part of the province….

Let me just explain again why this is important. I know the

minister is going to go back to his points. We’re not going to,

probably, change each other’s minds — guaranteed — during this course of

the debate, but I think it’s important to still express some of these

opinions, not only on behalf of my riding but of the entire Peace region

and of my colleague in Peace River North, when we’re talking about

200,000 square kilometres that could possibly be one riding, based on

population.

I will acknowledge to the minister his comments that under clause

2 — under the act, subsection 9(3)(a), I believe — is where it talks

about “special geographic considerations.” But think about that. If it

doesn’t happen the way….

The Attorney seems to have such faith, I guess, that they’ve left

everything up to the commission, but that’s almost one-quarter of the

land mass in the province of British Columbia that could be represented

by one MLA — four large mines, representing most of the province’s

metallurgical coal; six mills; three hydro dams. By the way, the

majority of the power for the province comes from my riding. And 100

percent of the oil and gas revenue activity that comes to the province

comes from my area. The majority, the largest amount of ALR land, is in

the Peace region.

I know the Attorney knows this, but I’m flagging that again

because I think most would argue that those are special circumstances.

To ask people in an area that doesn’t have cell service or Internet

service in a good portion of the ridings — mine and my colleague’s to

the north of me — who already struggle in a lot of ways to have access

to an MLA because of that, and to be told that now it’s going to be even

worse….

I guess maybe I’ll just ask this as a closing comment. I know

there are others who want to speak to the minister. I’m just curious

because I have not heard him…. I apologize if he’s acknowledged this

already, or any of his colleagues. They’ve given a mandate to the

commission to come back with a report on number of MLAs. Based on

population, the Attorney is basically acknowledging that rural British

Columbia could be cut drastically — the amount of MLAs — if the

commission were to look at population only. Yes, there is that special

clause in there.

[3:05 p.m.]

If the commission comes back and says, “Look, we’re going to be

having to remove a lot of MLAs in rural British Columbia, based on the

decisions that the commission has made, and the majority of those are

going to be put now into urban British Columbia,” to the Attorney’s

point of trying to achieve a more, as he says, equitable — I believe

that was the word he used — vote in the House, does the Attorney, the

Premier and cabinet have the opportunity, then, to deviate?

Are they going to just, carte blanche, accept the full report? Or

are they going to look at that and put in their own determinations and

considerations around what they feel is equitable, fair representation —

and yes, I’m using my words, to the Attorney — depending on how that

report looks? Because the last thing I think anybody wants to see,

including urban MLAs….

Most of my friends on the screen and in the Legislature in urban

areas, I believe, want to see things in the province work equitably and

fairly from border to border, from sea to border. Does the Attorney…?

Have they left this open where they can throw in their own determination

and decision-making after they’ve seen the report?

Hon. D. Eby: There have only been three Electoral Boundaries Commissions since

this act was established in 1989. To the best of staff’s knowledge —

this is not my knowledge; I’m reliant on them for the history — the

Legislature has accepted the recommendations of the commission with the

exception of the 2005 commission, in which there were two sets of….

Ultimately, they presented a map that reduced the number of rural

constituencies, I believe, by four.

There was a lot of concern raised.

They presented a second set of maps and then handed both sets to the

Legislature, and the Legislature chose the set that was not recommended

by the commission, although that map was still drawn by the

commission.

Just in terms of the member’s question on process…. I should have

probably done that first. The commission provides recommendations to

government. So they go out, and they do their study, and they do their

work for a year. Then they prepare a preliminary report and a

preliminary set of maps, and they publish those for the public to

examine. Then based on the feedback they receive from that first round,

they can do — they’re not obligated to, but they can do — a second round

to do refinements or changes as needed.

Once that second round is done, they provide a report to

government, which is tabled in this place, and again, that report is

recommendations only. So then it’s up to government to incorporate the

recommendations into law. Obviously, that process does allow the

possibility of the legislators in this place departing from those

recommendations and putting in place different boundaries.

[3:10 p.m.]

I will caveat that with the fact that the reason why we’re setting

up this independent commission and asking them to do this work

independently is so that people have confidence that the maps are being

drawn by a disinterested group rather than by an interested group. By

that I don’t mean “that’s interesting” but that you have a stake in the

outcome of the recommendations.

Yes, technically, there is an opportunity for the Legislature to

amend, ignore or change the recommendations of the

commission.

T. Shypitka: I’m going to cut to the chase here. We understand the diversity we

have in the province. We heard from Peace River South just a few seconds

ago. I won’t get into that. My question is going to be around school

districts. The first question to the minister is: can the minister tell

me how school districts are decided?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t do this often, but I do wonder about the relevance of the

question to the electoral boundaries bill.

T. Shypitka: Well, this bill seeks to remove statutory protections to three

regions — Cariboo-Thompson, Columbia-Kootenay and the North. I represent

the Kootenay region. The relevance of the question…. I’ll jump ahead

here. There are 12 school districts on Vancouver Island, representing a

population of about 800,000. There are six school districts in the

Kootenays representing about 180,000. So should we be worrying that

perhaps we’ll be reducing our school districts to represent our

population?

Hon. D. Eby: This bill does not affect school districts.

T. Shypitka: Absolutely not, but it does threaten the view of protected regions

and the view that the Attorney General may have that representation

should be by population. We argue the opposite. We say there are

geographical barriers. We recognize regional boundaries and difficulties

of geography when it comes to regional districts and school districts,

but this government wants to remove any recognition of geography from

the province in our electoral system. That’s the relevance. Maybe the

Attorney General can comment on that.

Hon. D. Eby: It’s instructive to know that the member is arguing against

representation by population. This is not my opinion, as the member

suggested. This is the constitution of the country of Canada and the

guarantee that is offered to Canadian citizens under their voting

rights.

T. Shypitka: In the electoral boundaries setup, the plan is an average of

60,000 per electoral region. There are conditions by the Electoral

Boundaries Commission to protect certain areas that don’t meet the

threshold of 60,000, in special situations. There are 17 electoral areas

that are protected for geographical boundary reasons. This is the same

rationale that we draw up our regional districts on. This is the same

rationale that we draw up our school districts on, as I’ve

highlighted.

Why the removal of these protected regions, when the commission

has already said that it meets special geographical conditions? The

question is: why would we want to remove that, when it has already been

constituted and it has already been through the process

already?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, this is just it. It hasn’t been through the commission,

because the commission’s hands were tied. They were instructed by the

previous set of strictures put in place by the previous government that

interfered with their independence in drawing the boundaries and

balancing the important values of representation by population with

effective representation. We don’t argue against one of these values

because we don’t like them.

[3:15 p.m.]

These are values that need to be incorporated and considered by an

independent commission. So I agree with the member. I think the

commission should be given the ability to consider this — how to balance

those values that we all have — and come to an effective determination.

But he is not correct in saying that the commission has already done

this, because they’ve not been able to do this. In fact, that was

pointed out by the 2015 commission in some detail.

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the Attorney General for that. The uniqueness of our

regions has to be enshrined somehow. We do it with regional districts;

we do it with school districts. I sat in these same chambers, although

not virtually, with the Attorney General not too long ago on the

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019, on time change. These are the unique

challenges that we face in these small rural ridings that we need to

identify and protect. Just a quick question to the Attorney General: how

many time zones are there in the Kootenays?

Hon. D. Eby: You know, I take the member’s point that he’s got a big

constituency. I get it; it brings challenges. So does representing a lot

of people; so does representing 55,000 people. It brings different

challenges. I don’t take anything away from the hard work that he does.

In fact, the bill recognizes that the hard work that he does and that he

has to do is part of their considerations, and that effective

representation is part of this.

Now, the member is interested in the boundaries of a lot of

different things — regional districts, school districts, and so on.

Certainly, regional districts, for example, are influential on Electoral

Boundaries Commissions. Likely, school districts and the boundaries

drawn for school districts could be influential. There’s some discussion

about community of interest in the case law and making sure that people

have shared understandings, where possible. This is all part of what the

member should be raising with the commission. But it doesn’t take away

from what, I would say, are the two animating principles here that we

might disagree on.

One is that the constitution, in terms of guarantees of

representation by population, is something that we need to take really

seriously. We are a long way from there under our current map. The

second is that it is important that the boundaries be drawn by a group

of people who are not personally invested in the outcome, that they are

independent of the opposition, the Third Party and the government, and

that they draw the boundaries according to a set of values that we put

out for them.

It might be that we disagree on that. We don’t disagree about the

size of the member’s constituency, that he works hard, that people in

his community work hard and that they’re an important part of our

province. We don’t disagree about those things. That might focus some of

our discussion.

T. Shypitka: Nobody is debating who works harder. We all do. Nobody is debating

that we need to redraw maps with growth, with what our province is going

through — absolutely, 100 percent. We agree on that, for

sure.

[3:20 p.m.]

The Attorney General didn’t answer my question on how many time

zones there are in B.C., even though we went through a long debate, on a

very short bill, on just this. He didn’t get it then; I don’t think he

gets it now.

When we went through the Bill 40,

Interpretation Amendment Act,

2019, it was a big rollout, a big survey across the province. As a

matter of fact, the Premier said after: “British Columbians have said

loud and clear….” I’ll say that again: “British Columbians have said

loud and clear that they want to do away with the practice of changing

our clocks twice year, and our government is taking action. This bill

creates a clear path forward for the transition while ensuring we take

into account every detail during the implementation.”

The only problem was that the people in my region weren’t part of

it. He talks about British Columbians yet doesn’t recognize the unique

challenges in our province and that we actually have three time zones. I

thought maybe the Attorney General had said two, but technically

speaking, we have three time zones.

My riding, if expanded, could technically stretch through those

three time zones: Pacific Daylight savings time, which we’ve got right

now; Mountain Standard Time, the Creston region, which never changes

their clocks, ever, throughout the year; and then my region, my area, is

Mountain Daylight savings time. So we’ve technically got three time

zones but only two different times throughout the year.

So if the Premier can’t understand that and the Attorney General

can’t understand that, then what chance do we have of government

recognizing the fact that we have unique challenges in this province

that should be identified? Protecting these 17 regions does exactly

that.

I think with that, my time is up. But I think this needs to be

considered. We’re lucky where we live. We have a great place, but we

need to ensure there is proper representation, just like school

districts do, just like school boards do. They take geographical

considerations into all of that. We should be doing that and protecting

that here in British Columbia.

The Chair: Attorney, do you plan to respond, or shall I go to the next

speaker?

Cariboo North.

C. Oakes: It is truly an honour to rise and ask some questions on this

section of the bill. What I’d like to focus on for a moment is some of

the opening comments that the minister made as he introduced the bill

into this House.

I think what is critically important for me to put on record in

the debate…. There’s been lots of discussion around MLAs and

representation, but I think it’s critically important that we talk about

our constituents — constituents all over British Columbia. I do want to

be on record that I do think it’s critically important that urban

constituents have access to effective representation. I certainly do not

have any concern with the segment of this bill that ensures that urban

populations have access to effective representation. I think that’s

critically important.

What I would like to turn the minister’s attention to and ask a

few questions on, on his response in the opening comments, is this

notion of: what is effective representation, and what does it look like?

In his opening comments, he commented that MLAs face unique challenges

in ensuring their constituents are well represented and connected to the

work MLAs do on behalf of their constituents in this House.

For the purpose of the next few questions, perhaps, could the

minister expand on these comments and just talk about what, in his mind,

that constituency work and that connection to the MLA really, truly

is?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member has asked me about effective representation. She’s

right to note that it is not defined in the act. The concept of

effective representation comes from the Canadian case law on electoral

boundaries.

The courts have said that effective representation requires

relative parity of voting power. The plain language way of saying that

is that everyone’s vote should be reasonably equal in strength in terms

of influencing who makes up this place. Effective representation, the

courts have also said, requires recognition of factors like geography —

I think I’ve heard the member speak about that in her speech — community

history, community interests and demographic circumstances.

Some colour may also be offered by other provinces that use terms

that are similar but different. For example, “communities of interest”

is a term that is used in other provinces, similarly not defined. But

effective representation is considered to be related to ensuring that

communities of interest have a voice in the Legislature.

C. Oakes: I think it’s also important that…. I think the context to…. Not to

put words in the minister’s mouth, but I think the phrase that I was

actually directing his opening comments to was this idea that as MLAs,

it’s critically important that we connect to our constituents in our

constituency offices. That’s critically important to how we connect with

one another. All members of this House value our constituents and want

to make sure that our constituents have access to us, whether they have

questions navigating government services, programs or being represented

bringing issues forward in this House.

The next line in the minister’s opening comments, to the idea that

in order to be effective representation…. That whole idea of connecting

the work that MLAs do back to their constituents is based on this notion

that the minister put forward in his very own opening comments — that

technology has mitigated the geographic barriers to MLAs connecting with

their constituents. He talked about the fact that he certainly

recognized that not all of the province enjoys high-speed Internet

access yet.

Perhaps I can ask, because the minister did introduce that in his

opening comments about…. Obviously, they looked at high-speed Internet

as an important piece of connecting with constituents in British

Columbia. What is the geographic coverage — not the population coverage

— of high-speed Internet in the province of British Columbia?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Well, like the member, I’m certainly interested in that issue, and

I know that the Minister of Jobs and the Minister of Citizens’ Services

are working really hard on expanding the availability of Internet and

high-speed Internet across the province.

It is actually a question that we propose under this bill to

direct the commission to consider. In subsection 9(2)(a)(iii), the

commission should consider “the availability and means of communication

and transportation between various parts of British Columbia.” And then

sub 9(3)(a), not squarely on point but definitely related: “any special

geographic considerations, including a manageable geographic size for

electoral districts.”

Now, just with respect to the member’s lead-up to her question

about high-speed Internet, I think that the member may be conflating

effective representative with effective representation. An effective

representative engages in the kinds of activities that the member

described — being available, being there for the community,

communicating with people about what government is up to, getting their

feedback, bringing it back to Victoria. That’s an effective

representative. Simply because you’ve elected someone doesn’t mean that

person is going to be an effective representative for you.

For the purposes of this bill, we’re talking about the right to

effective representation, the right to have the potential for an

effective representative. To that end, the factors aren’t what the MLAs’

activities are. The factors are: what is your relative voting power

compared to other people in the province? The other is: what is the

community you live in? What are the special features of that community

that might need departure from that first principle in order to ensure

the possibility for effective representation, both because of the

strength of your vote and because of the nature of your community? It’s

an issue that the member spent a lot of time on in her remarks on this

bill.

I hope that that’s some clarity, both on the high-speed Internet

question — absolutely something that the commission is directed to look

at — but also on the effective representative question versus effective

representation question. I heard a lot of speeches about effective

representatives. I didn’t hear quite as many about effective

representation.

C. Oakes: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

This bill has laid out, as the minister has commented about, what

the direction is to the Electoral Boundaries Commission. Again, that

information must be, at some point, available. So how will the Electoral

Boundaries Commission get the information — to understand exactly the

level of high-speed Internet, what the cell coverage service is in this

province? When you’re going into communities, what does that look

like?

As I understand it — and I’ve certainly been in this House for a

while, as we’ve gone through estimates in the past years — the notion

has significantly changed in the province of British Columbia from

identifying the fact that final…. Connectivity moved at one point from

ensuring that 80 percent of the province had access to connectivity —

whether it was high-speed Internet, whether it was cell service — to now

80 percent of the population.

It goes to the heart of this bill of understanding exactly, if the

information…. How is the Electoral Boundaries Commission, when they come

into Cariboo North, going to…? What is that checklist going to look like

on determining whether special interest exists because of connectivity

challenges? If we don’t have, specifically, a map that outlines exactly

the population to have effective representation, what does high-speed

Internet look like in the area? What does connectivity look like? All of

those pieces.

I’m raising this because these truly are the concerns that my

constituents raise. I know that the minister has said: “I want to

emphasize that the core tenets of the act would not be changed by this

bill.” But I can say for our constituents in Cariboo North, who have

been significantly impacted, and it already…. There’s been a lot of

debate in this House about….

[3:35 p.m.]

Of course, MLAs go out, and we want to represent and go into our

communities. That’s critically important. But I think what gets lost

often in this debate are our constituents, our constituents who need our

assistance. It’s not just about the power of a vote. I think if you were

to ask the majority of constituents what it means to have an effective

representative…. I recognize the minister has separated the two. I would

challenge him on the notion. In order to do one, you need to have both,

to ensure effective representation. I can tell you, when communities

have been in situations of emergencies or just in general

situations….

I am certain that the minister — he has been in this Legislature

for a significant amount of time as well — through his constituency

office, has had constituents that have come forward to him that

desperately need his assistance to navigate files through, and support

of constituents, to ensure whether it’s health care, whether it’s access

to services that government has.

I think it’s critically important that constituents can actually

go and talk to an MLA. So the notion of what we’re talking to in this

bill that all of a sudden now a constituent of mine that may live out in

Lhoosk’uz Dené, or out in Batnuni, Wells, Likely, Nazko, now may…. As it

stands, it’s a three-hour drive each way to come in and talk to an MLA

or for me to go out and talk to them. I always appreciate the

opportunity to do that.

It really is to the heart of this bill, that if you’re going to,

all of a sudden, now find that these areas no longer have the

protection, under this new amendment of this bill, it’s going to have

profound impact on people’s lives. So it’s right that we as rural MLAs

stand and fight for our constituents.

Look, my riding has been represented by the NDP. It’s been

represented by an independent. It’s been represented by the B.C.

Liberals. So I’m not standing in this House in any type of attempt to,

say, fight for a particular party for this seat. I’m fighting for my

constituents. I’m fighting to make sure that that three-hour turnaround

time…. So it’s six hours to get to talk to an MLA, because, quite

frankly, the areas I’ve mentioned, the majority of them don’t have

high-speed Internet. They don’t have cell service. Half the time it’s

satellite phone.

It’s not like they can email the MLA and say: “Look, I’m having

issues with this road” or “I’m having issues because we’re flooding.”

“I’m having issues because I’m really struggling with this, getting a

permit through” or “I’m really struggling because you’re bringing this

bill forward, and it’s going to have a negative impact, or it’s going to

have a positive impact, on my life.”

This bill, at the heart of it, is going to say: “Look, we’re going

to amalgamate your riding.” Or the potential that we’re going to say

that we’re going to make your riding — we’re going to eliminate it or

amalgamate it, and now instead of travelling six hours to go and meet

with your MLA, it could be 12 hours. Is that honestly effective? Is that

what we in this House mean to represent our constituents? Is that

really…?

We all have a passion. We all got into this job because we want to

serve British Columbians. We want to serve each of our communities. Yes,

we’re scared. We’re scared by this bill because of the significant

impacts it’s going to make on our communities. And particularly, this

section of the bill is what is so incredibly troubling.

Our fear is that, time and time again, we feel that Victoria

doesn’t understand us. Victoria doesn’t understand that we may not have

the services that other ridings have. Again, I point to the fact that

the province enjoys high-speed Internet access. Boy, I can tell you

how…. I mean, we’re grateful for the investments that are being made in

the communities, but we have a long way to go before the geographic

areas of our areas are truly connected.

[3:40 p.m.]

I think, in order to have effective representation, of things like

the technology that needs to be considered. Our fear is: how is the

Electoral Boundaries Commission, which is going to be independent, going

to take these items into consideration?

Hon. D. Eby: To the member, I hear her fear about the bill. I think that there

may be a bit of a misunderstanding about the heart of the bill. If the

member thinks that high-speed Internet is the heart of the bill, it’s

not. The heart of the bill is two parts. Well, three maybe.

One is the restoration of the independence of the commission. So

the member would be concerned, I guess, if I was drawing the boundaries,

because she knows her constituency, and I am an elected person on the

other side of the House. The heart of this bill is to say I shouldn’t be

drawing the boundaries. The member shouldn’t be drawing the boundaries.

An independent commission should be drawing the boundaries. An

independent commission should be drawing the boundaries, and they should

not be restricted in that work by people who are interested in the

outcome.

The second piece. I guess this is a three-hearted bill. One is

restoration of the independence of the commission.

The second piece is this idea of representation by population as a

constitutional principle that we have to follow. This is the supreme law

of Canada. People have the right to vote. The courts have interpreted

that right as including relative parity of power of votes — that our

votes should have roughly the same degree of influence.

The third is that we live in a country and in a province…. It

shares a lot of features with other provinces across Canada in terms of

a very significant number of people living in the southernmost parts of

the province, and then much smaller communities in other parts of the

province further away from the American border, with really intense

geography — mountains, lakes, rivers — and the challenges that that

brings to means of communication, transportation, and so on.

Keeping in mind that geography and the distribution of people in

the province, you can depart from — this is the third heart of the bill

— that representation by population guidelines set by the courts of plus

or minus 25 percent from the average, taking into consideration these

factors that relate to effective representation.

So I guess it’s kind of about high-speed Internet, that one. But

that’s just an example of the kinds of considerations. The bill does not

prescribe how the commission collects the information that it needs,

where it collects it, except to require the commission to hold hearings

so that members of the public can participate.

[3:45 p.m.]

So we don’t say, “Oh, you’ve got to go to Telus,” and “You’ve got

to go to Shaw,” and “You’ve got to go to satellite Internet providers

and find out what the availability of Internet is around the province”

or “You need to go to B.C. Stats or to Statistics Canada to get the

population numbers.” It’s not that prescriptive. It empowers the

commission to go out and collect the information.

If the member feels that she has important information to share

about the availability of a certain means of communication — in this

case Internet, let alone high-speed Internet — or a certain means of

transportation…. “It takes X amount of time to drive across the

constituency. This community is only accessible by airplane.” This is

all key information that the commission will need to do its job. I think

all of us in this place have an obligation to make sure that they have

that information about our constituencies, because as the member noted

in her speech, she has a lot of knowledge about the community that she

serves — hard-won knowledge by being the representative.

I hope that clarifies to the member the high-speed Internet

reference. I, maybe regrettably, mentioned it in the opening remarks

because it’s just one example of a means of communication that the

commission needs to consider. It is not the core of this

work.

Hon. Chair, I wonder if I might take five minutes.

The Chair: We’ll be in recess until 3:52.

The committee recessed from 3:46 p.m. to 3:52 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

C. Oakes: Thank you to the minister for opening the next line of questions,

which I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about. That is about

the hearing schedule. I think what the minister outlined, prior to the

recess, was critically how important it is for the hearings to have the

opportunity to hear from constituents and to collect that critical data,

which the minister clearly articulated prior to the recess.

To the minister, what is the timeline for the hearings? Do we have

a commitment from the minister and the government to ensure that

hearings will be held in not just large urban communities but First

Nations communities across this province that deserve to have their

voices heard so that the Electoral Boundaries Commission understands

their communities. We have a lot of First Nations communities in the

province. Will there be hearings in their communities?

As well, can we hope that the direction will be that there will

also be hearings in communities such as Horsefly, Likely, McLeese Lake,

Wells, Nazko. I think it’s critically important to understand our

ridings. As the minister so eloquently outlined prior to the recess,

hearings will be a critical component to that.

The Chair: While the minister is consulting with his staff, just a note

for our members on Zoom. If you wish to consume ice cream bars, you

might want to turn off your camera.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The timeline works like this. The commission needs to be struck by

October 24, one year from the last general election. They have one year

to do their preliminary set of maps and to go out and engage and do that

work, to do their research and study, and so on. One year to prepare

those. After they present that first set of proposals, then they have a

further six months to do another set of engagements before their final

report of recommendations is due to the Legislature.

To give the member a sense of what the volume of hearings looks

like, the 2014-15 commission did 29 hearings in the first round of

engagements. Then after presenting their maps, after that one-year

process, they did a further 15 community visits for their

work.

What I can tell the member is…. Within the act, there is no

interference by government in terms of dictating to the commission where

they must go or must not go. That’s left up to the commission. There’s a

long history of the commissions — 89, I guess — getting out into the

regions extensively across the province. I can assure the member the

government will provide adequate resourcing for the commission to be

able to do the work that it feels is necessary in terms of community

engagement.

G. Kyllo: It certainly is with a great deal of pride that I take my place in

committee stage on Bill 7.

I think that the Shuswap riding, which I represent…. I believe

that the riding of Shuswap is fairly consistent with the average for

British Columbia. The Shuswap riding is about 8,400 square kilometres.

It’s about a six-hour drive from one end to the other, whether you’re

going east to west or north to south. We have approximately 56,000

constituents in the riding.

When I had an opportunity to share some comments in second

reading, I thought that it would be important to highlight some of the

differences between some of the ridings in the province. The minister

has indicated and, certainly, is well aware of the diverse nature of the

geography of our province. I thought, in my second reading comments, it

was also important to highlight the variety of issues and the complexity

of issues that differ between metro and rural ridings. In making those

comments, it was certainly not my intention in any way to be dismissive

with respect to metro ridings but more just to highlight some of the

differentiality.

Now, if we go back in time to the British parliamentary system,

the term “riding,” even in its infancy, didn’t just take into

consideration the population of representation. It also took into

consideration the ability of a representative to actually be of service

to their constituents. It took into consideration how far they could

ride in a given day. So it did take into consideration the

representation.

Now, my colleague from Cariboo shared some pretty significant

concerns, I think, with respect to the lack of access. I think, for

folks who might be living in Metro Vancouver…. We did a comparison to

the riding of Vancouver–False Creek. Very different when it comes to

ridings.

[4:00 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

My friend and former colleague Sam Sullivan shared with me that

the riding of Vancouver–False Creek, which had about 55,000 constituents

when he was the representative…. He shared with me that he was able to

actually get around the perimeter of his entire riding in his electric

wheelchair in about 2½ hours.

Obviously, concerns around Internet access, cellular coverage,

access to transit, your ability to actually have access to your local

representative…. It’s very different than it might be for somebody

that’s, say, living up in Atlin, British Columbia, who might be posed or

faced with a six- or seven-hour drive to get to the nearest constituency

office in the town of Fort St. John — limited, if any, cellular coverage

and likely very limited, if any at all, Wi-Fi coverage.

I think it’s really important, as we look to have further

consideration of this piece of legislation, that the access that members

may have is front and centre. As we know, ridings that have low

populations, maybe even only at 50 percent of the average threshold….

The only way that those ridings will be able to increase their

populations is for those ridings to physically get larger. [Audio

interrupted.]

The Chair: We just had a Zoom outage, it looks like. Maybe if I could ask

that we put this committee into recess for…. I’ll say five minutes,

but it might be longer as we figure out what went on

there.

Apologies to the members and thanks to the Hansard folks for

trying to get us back online as soon as we’re able.

The committee recessed from 4:01 p.m. to 4:08 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, we will resume. I believe we were hearing from the

member for Shuswap.

G. Kyllo: Just before we were cut out, I was actually talking about some of

the challenges that some of the rural parts of our province have when it

comes to access.

I’m talking specifically about, or giving reference to, the

community of Atlin, up in northern British Columbia and the significant

driving time it would be to the local constituency office — I believe

the closest office is either in Fort Nelson or in Fort St. John, with

some driving time of probably five or six hours — and then also the

limited cell service and Internet access. As we’ve had challenges here

today with being kicked out of Zoom, apparently it’s not only rural B.C.

that suffers and has challenges with the reliability of some of our

Wi-Fi service across the province.

[4:10 p.m.]

The comment and the concern that I certainly have — and, I think,

needs to be raised — is that the only way that we can increase the

population of some of these rural ridings is by increasing their

physical geographic size. Peace River North, I believe, is about nine

hours driving time from one end of the riding to the other. The area of

Peace River North, I think, includes the area equivalent to two or three

small European countries.

To look at increasing the size of those ridings in order to

achieve the plus or minus 25 percent requirement…. The only way of

achieving that would be to further burden and put additional barriers

towards individuals or residents in B.C. of their access to their

constituency offices and the service that the MLAs provide.

So just from the pure geographic issue, that’s a significant

concern. But also the complexity of issues. I did highlight during

second reading debate, or tried to kind of identify for members that

were listening, some of the differences that we see between rural and

metro ridings. It’s not in any way, shape or form meant to diminish the

needs or the work that metro MLAs may undertake, but I think it is

important to draw the contrast.

Many metro MLAs…. Vancouver–False Creek is an example. There is

only one mayor and one set of councils that actually represent the city

of Vancouver, and they’ve got a direct line to the ministries’ offices

and to government. So there is likely, as the previous member for

Vancouver–False Creek had shared with me, limited interaction or

necessity for the mayor and council of the city of Vancouver to reach

out for assistance through the local MLA’s office.

That’s very different when we get to rural B.C. The small riding

of Shuswap, as I mentioned earlier, only 8,400 square kilometres but

five different municipalities, all with their different and unique

needs. That’s 30 different councillors. Also, four First Nations bands

that provide governance and representation here in the

Shuswap.

Things like concerns around snow removal. Road resurfacing.

Subdivision access in rural parts of the province. Those issues largely

don’t exist…. Largely the metro MLAs do not have to deal with those same

complexity of issues. Fires or floods. It was only about 4½ years ago

that I had the unfortunate experience of dealing with a constituent that

lost his life during a debris flow. The interplay that happens between

the local MLA’s office and various levels of provincial government is

very significant.

Just earlier today in estimates, I was raising a concern of a

resident in Seymour. That’s a northern community at the north end of

Shuswap Lake. They’ve been waiting for over a year to get a water

permit. FrontCounter B.C. just recently submitted a letter to them, so

it’s been 15 months since their original application of March 2020. The

letter they received said that it will be another one to two years

further before their file is assigned to an analyst to actually provide

assistance.

So the level of concern, I think, in rural B.C. is very different.

I would be very surprised if a metro MLA would have to assist a

constituent in dealing with an extended delay of that

magnitude.

I don’t raise the differences in any way, shape or form to

diminish the work of metro MLAs, but just to highlight the complexity of

issues, the breadth of different issues that are dealt with and the

challenge that many constituents have with getting access to their local

representative.

I think it’s imperative that as the commission undertake their

work and as they give consideration to the potential redrawing of

boundaries for the province of British Columbia, they give serious

consideration to both the increased geographic area, the limited access

they have. Again, it’s certainly…. I don’t think it’s new news to any of

the MLAs that are on screen or participating in the debate today — the

significant challenge there is with respect to transportation

access.

You know, we are no longer serviced by Greyhound services in

British Columbia. Many small communities, even in Shuswap, have no —

zero, absolutely no — public transit whatsoever. So your ability to

actually get around and be mobile within some of these rural ridings is

extremely limited.

[4:15 p.m.]

As I’ve indicated previously, the challenge with lack of access to

cell phone access and/or Internet…. These issues are of significant

concern. I certainly would appreciate that as the commission go about

their work, they give consideration to some of these additional

factors.

I think just in closing…. The minister had referenced the access

to data and information. I believe in one of his previous answers…. My

apologies if this is repetitive, but I wasn’t able to participate and

watch the entire committee stage debate on this particular bill. But

when it comes to the work that’s been undertaken currently through

Census Canada, my understanding is that the statistics will not be

available until February of next year. I think as the commission goes to

undertake their work, it’s extremely important that they have access to

the most current and fulsome information.

The last census was done a significant number of years ago. The

accuracy of information by which the commission will undertake to assess

and make their determinations…. I believe we would be well served, as

all British Columbians, if the commission makes full use of the current

census data. Again, as I mentioned, it will be available in February of

next year.

So with that, I know that there is a bit of a delay on account of

the interruption with Internet service. I don’t want to put us further

behind, so I’ll end my comments there.

The Chair: Shall clause 2 pass? Division.

On clause 2, a division has been requested. That, of course,

will take place half an hour before the end of today, which is five

o’clock.

Clause 3 approved.

The Chair: We will deal with the title after we have the discussion about

clause 2, when we do the division. Thank you, Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:18 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Eby: I call continued estimates for the Ministry of Jobs, Economic

Recovery and Innovation.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

JOBS, ECONOMIC

INNOVATION

AND RECOVERY

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 4:20 p.m.

The Chair: Members, while we await the arrival of the minister and

getting all set up, I’ll ask for a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:20 p.m. to 4:28 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: We’re back now. Thank you. We were doing some procedural

discussions to make sure everything works. To do this, I want

to….

We are currently in committee, but we haven’t called the

ministry yet, so I’d like to acknowledge the Minister of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation. I believe he’s seeking leave to make

an introduction or a statement.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you for the accommodation.

I seek leave to make an introduction at this time.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Now we will move out of committee. We will wait. The mace will

have to be moved, and then we will get a chance to return to the

minister for his statement.

The committee rose at 4:29 p.m.

The House resumed; S. Chandra Herbert in the

chair.

[4:30 p.m.]

Tributes

SARAH ROBINSON

Hon. M. Rankin: I rise in the House today to honour Sarah Robinson, a member of

the Fort Nelson First Nation and the Saulteau First Nation located in

treaty 8 territory in northeast British Columbia. Sarah battled with

cancer over the past two years and recently passed away, sadly, at the

very young age of 35.

Sarah was an incredible advocate for Indigenous People in British

Columbia and especially women. She served on the Minister’s Advisory

Council on Indigenous Women, beginning as a youth representative and

eventually as a regular member, after serving as the secretariat for

that council.

With a kindness and a charisma that was truly unique, Sarah was

able to bring awareness to Indigenous issues. She even directly shaped

the way we train B.C. public servants. She also advised on the

re-establishment of the B.C. Human Rights Commission. Sarah’s dedication

to and