Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, June 9, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 89

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Lynn Valley Lions Club

S. Chant

Reconciliation with First Nations and response to historic wrongs and legacies

E. Ross

S. Chandra Herbert

Fort St. John Multicultural Society

D. Davies

Helen Sidney

H. Sandhu

Graduates of 2021 in Kelowna-Mission area

R. Merrifield

Oral Questions

Child care plan

S. Bond

Hon. K. Chen

K. Kirkpatrick

Deferral of old-growth logging and role of First Nations

S. Furstenau

Hon. K. Conroy

Ambulance response times

R. Merrifield

Hon. A. Dix

T. Stone

M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

D. Davies

S. Cadieux

R. Merrifield

A. Wilkinson

P. Milobar

D. Clovechok

Hon. D. Eby

Committee of Supply

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

R. Merrifield

Hon. R. Kahlon

T. Stone

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

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

Hon. K. Conroy

J. Rustad

D. Clovechok

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

Hon. A. Dix

S. Bond

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

S. Furstenau

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2021

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: R. Russell.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ma: I have the pleasure of making three introductions today. Ms. Penny

Sauve and her grade 12 anatomy and physiology class at Carson Graham

Secondary join us virtually today from my home constituency of North

Vancouver–Lonsdale.

Ms. Sauve describes her class as a very positive, colla­borative

and hard-working group of students who are an absolute pleasure to teach.

They are currently learning about the organ systems of the human body and

have heart, brain and kidney dissections coming up. Would the House please

join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

One of the students in Ms. Sauve’s class is Ashton Ying. Ashton is an

academic, a musician and a visual artist who has contributed to the Carson

community in many ways. He’s a leader in the gay-straight alliance club, was

on the district’s student leadership council, has been a leader within

Carson Graham’s choir program and is a member of Youth LAB, a youth group

that advocates for social justice through creative arts.

Ashton is graduating this year and looks forward to a career in either

law or as a youth social worker. I’m proud to be doing my small

part in

helping him in this endeavour as he will be this year’s Carson Graham

recipient of the North Vancouver–Lonsdale MLA’s Social Justice Scholarship.

Would the House join me in wishing Ashton well on his future

endeavours.

Finally, also joining us from Carson Graham today is graduating

student Camille Mantilla Correa. The COVID-​19 pandemic has changed a

lot about our lives, but Camille didn’t let that stop her from finding

creative solutions to provide safe opportunities for her school community to

connect. While balancing the demands of the IB diploma program, she was also

involved with Model UN, Sustainabiliteens, Interact Club, the Carson Graham

best buddies club, the Carson Graham WINGS Club and even established a film

club for students.

Camille is a leader and a role model for other students, showing those

around her the importance of staying engaged and giving back. For these

reasons and more, I’m very pleased to share that Camille has been selected

by her school to receive our special edition scholarship this year, the

North Vancouver–Lonsdale MLA’s COVID-19 Pandemic Leadership

Award.

Thank you so much, hon. Speaker, for these opportunities to introduce

these wonderful students to our B.C. Legislature. Would the House please

join me in thanking Camille for her service to her school

community.

R. Leonard: Today is my husband’s birthday. I had an elaborate plan for a birthday

surprise in my absence, but I only remembered, about 100 kilometres from

home, that I hadn’t actually executed the plan before leaving for the

Legislature.

[1:40 p.m.]

I’m lucky, because after 43 years, he’s very forgiving of my

forgetfulness. In fact, he sees it as a gift. I forgot our first

anniversary, so he says he has a get-out-of-jail-free card for the rest of

his life.

He laughs at my punny lines. We share one of the most precious gifts

that life can offer: our two children. When I look at him, I still see the

29-year-old birthday boy I first fell in love with so many moons

ago.

Please, would the House join me in wishing my husband, Ron Eby, a very

happy 72nd birthday.

S. Chandra Herbert: I want to celebrate somebody who’s taught me so much and who’s helped

raise me to be the person I am today. He taught me to measure twice and cut

once. He taught me to be kind and to give more to people who need help, to

have a good time and to be a good hiker and camper that takes care of the

wilderness. I want to celebrate my dad, Ted Roberts. It’s his birthday

today.

Happy birthday, Dad. Love you so much, and you make me proud every

day.

M. Morris: On the grounds of the Legislature today we have Alli Flanders, Kyle

Stelter, Marcus Stelter and Mike Kirk, members and representatives of the

B.C. Wild Sheep Society.

The Wild Sheep Society has hundreds of members ac­ross our great

province dedicated to enhancing wildlife habitat and wild sheep populations.

They delivered over 50,000 letters addressed to the Minister of Forests,

Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development expressing support

for science-based wildlife management across British Columbia.

Will the House please make them welcome.

A. Olsen: I’m grateful to be here today. Today I want to introduce Correne

Antrobus. Correne will be joining us virtually today in question period.

She’s another person that I met while visiting with the Holding Hope group.

Correne’s daughter Sarah is 32 years old. She has struggled with drug

addiction for the past 12 years. She was an honour roll student in high

school.

The 12-year journey that the family has faced together has included

overdoses and detox. It’s been a very, very costly journey for the family,

going into private treatment centres, $35,000 at a time, each time that

they’ve gone through the process. Correne’s heartbreaking stories of their

challenges with the legal system in British Columbia as well as with the

treatment that is needed for her daughter and for so many

others….

I’m so grateful for Correne to be so courageous to share the story of

her family so that we can fully understand the challenges that we face as a

society in supporting families that are facing similar

situations.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

LYNN VALLEY LIONS CLUB

S. Chant: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to rise in the House

today and speak from the territories of the Songhees, Esquimalt and

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people.

In the time of COVID, with its layers of constrictions,

restrictions, fears and frustrations, how many things can one

organization achieve? Well, let me tell you about the Lynn Valley Lions,

a key service group in our community and an organization that my

constituents in North Vancouver–Seymour will recognize from their

involvement at parades and community events. Over this past year,

they’ve held a number of public events and completed several projects,

always working with the public health officer to ensure COVID-safe

practice.

They have done drive-throughs, such as the Canada Day pancake

breakfast; a Christmas tree sale; the Lynn Valley vigil. They’ve done

projects. They’ve built two community gardens and done an edible garden

with our neighbourhood house. They’ve had a car rally.

Funds raised by all these efforts have been donated to the local

legion, the local high school, and $1,000 was contributed to every

school PAC on the North Shore, in North and West Vancouver.

[1:45 p.m.]

Eric, Tania and Cas work throughout this organization, making the

events look effortless. However, I want to recognize their work and the

work of all the folks who have been part of sustaining and supporting

our community. In fact, Eric has been working with other Lions clubs,

through B.C. and Canada, sharing his expertise on COVID-appropriate

events in order to help other service clubs to make things happen that

are safe for the communities they support and for the providers that

give the service.

It’s the folks that look at the problem, determine a solution and

get on with it that are so important in our communities. Lynn Valley

Lions do exactly that and have risen to this challenge in an outstanding

fashion. I invite the House to join in my thanks and appreciation to

this hard-working, creative and thoughtful group who are always

there.

RECONCILIATION WITH FIRST NATIONS

AND RESPONSE TO

HISTORIC

WRONGS AND LEGACIES

E. Ross: Before I get started, I just want to say that I’ve never been able

to talk about this topic. I have failed every time I’ve tried over the

last 17 years, but I’m going to give it a shot today, given what

happened on the lawn at the Legislature yesterday.

The discovery of the remains of 215 children buried in unmarked

graves near the site of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School

has shocked the world and left us all struggling with how best to

respond. When local First Nations in Vancouver Island gathered on the

front lawn of the Legislature yesterday, the Elders, many of them being

survivors themselves, all agreed that the time for talk has ended. The

real healing, reconciliation, can only take place if we finally face the

past directly.

It’s a

chapter in Canadian history that hasn’t been clos­ed,

nor should it be, like the internment of the ethnic groups by Canada

during the world wars — the Japanese, the Ukrainians, the Italians — and

the mistreatment of Chinese immigrant workers in the 19th century or the

Komagata Maru incident. It all serves as a reminder that

Canada does have certain aspects of our collective history that must be

remembered. However, it also serves as a demonstration of how far we

have come as a country.

Canada is not perfect, nor is our history, and I haven’t come

across a perfect country yet. But we must be honest with ourselves and

face up to our collective past. We can’t change what’s taken place, but

we must acknowledge the damage in the present. This will create the

right conditions to build a better future, a fully inclusive

future.

The 215 children are just one reflection of terrible

pol­icies introduced by provincial and federal governments that

negatively affected Aboriginal people in British Columbia and Canada for

decades. We can only rectify this if we all work in cooperation

together. That’s the only way to fight the same type of incident that

killed a Muslim family in Toronto last Sunday.

Together, First Nations and non–First Nations can breathe life

into law through

section 35 of the constitution and, perhaps even more

importantly, with that well-used but misunderstood word:

reconciliation.

In closing, I would like to thank my B.C. Liberal colleagues for

representing me yesterday on the lawns of the Legislature. I really,

truly appreciate it, as I am still in Skeena.

S. Chandra Herbert: To get to reconciliation, you have to face the truth — the truth

of a silent horror, a visible horror, a shadow, the truth of where we

live, the truth of a horror so deep it disfigures our politics, has

created an us and them, has divided us as people and divides us from the

earth we rely on. It divides us against ourselves.

The truth of racism, white supremacy, religious hatred, othering,

colonialism, stealing. The truth of residential schools — places of

torture, rape, genocide, death, places set up so that those with the

money could take the land, take the resources and destroy the people who

have lived here since time immemorial, the Indigenous People, and erase

their existence.

[1:50 p.m.]

Our province, B.C., and its name — British Columbia — celebrates,

acknowledges the British taking of this place, the stealing of this

place, celebrates Columbus’s discovery, so-called, in North America. In

our province’s name, the truth is both hidden but also highlighted, the

whitewashing of what is and what was.

My community of Vancouver’s West End, also names from afar, is the

home of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh people since time

immemorial. Same policies, different place. Stanley Park — the same.

Robson Street — a deer-hunting trail. Stanley Park — the home site of

people for millennia.

These stories were made nearly invisible. But we have a choice,

and West Enders have been calling for us to make that choice, to face

that truth, so we can reconcile with that horrible past — to write a new

story, a new story together with Indigenous people. A new story, a

better day for our province, for our community, for us all. A day that

should have come so long ago.

FORT ST. JOHN MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY

D. Davies: One night in March 2017, Fort St. John resi­dents with their

roots in the Philippines, Hungary, Ukraine, Ireland and the pan–African

Caribbean nations met at Northern Lights College to set out a plan to

foster multicultural relations in the city to build a blueprint for

cultural harmony in the region.

Alan Yu, who immigrated to Canada from the Philippines, was the

organizer of the group and has been actively engaged ever since. Alan

stated: “When we don’t know something about someone, we tend to avoid or

be afraid. If we understand that person, if we understand their

practices, if we understand their religion and their culture, then it

will be easier for us to build community.”

It is estimated that there are more than 30 different cultural

groups in Fort St. John and the surrounding area. The mission of the

multicultural society is to foster multiculturalism, diversity,

understanding, integration and mutual respect among these many cultures.

Since its inception, this society has successfully brought the many

cultural groups together to proudly show the region who they

are.

Some of the ways of bringing the community together are through

cultural performances and an international food festival dubbed the

Taste of Fort St. John, which has become a regional highlight for all of

us. And if you can tell, this guy kind of likes food, and it’s been a

highlight for myself as well.

They also celebrate Canada’s multicultural days with their many

festivities. In 2019, they held the community’s first public Diwali

celebration, which was widely attended. They also spearheaded culturally

important dates such as the Filipino Heritage Month. I’ll take this

opportunity to wish our Filipino community a happy heritage

month.

As a relatively new organization fuelled by dedicated volunteers,

they strive to meet the objectives with a small but generous financial

support offered in the community. They have great ambitions over the

next while, hoping to have a full-time social worker to assist newcomers

and permanent residents. So would the House please join me in thanking

the chair; Shona Nelson; and board members Alan Yu, Aneudy Grullon and

Marie Fe Tan for everything that they do in delivering amazing services

of this multicultural society in our community.

HELEN SIDNEY

H. Sandhu: On May 6, my heart was filled with joy as I read in our local

paper about the incredible generosity of one of Vernon-Monashee’s

beloved constituents. A former school teacher, 98 years young, Helen

Sidney of Vernon donated $100,000 to a local elementary

school.

The money will be used to help transform the school’s library into

a modern learning commons. This comes as the school itself is about to

celebrate its 100th anniversary. This story touched me because of the

generosity but also for what Helen was quoted in a local paper as saying

about the children: “It means so much to me to be able to give back a

little bit for what they have given me.”

Let me tell you more about Helen. This wonderful hu­man

being is a fixture in our community. Every morning for the past 30 years

— rain, shine, snow or hail — Helen walks along a road in our community

called Bella Vista picking up the trash. In her high-vis vest and

bonnet, Helen waves to all the motorists who drive by on their way to

work, school or daily routines.

Helen is what is at the heart of my riding of Vernon-Monashee —

kindness, compassion, generosity and pride. I wanted to take the time to

acknowledge Helen and her contributions to our community, as we find

ourselves tran­sitioning out of a difficult year to new and

hopeful days ahead.

[1:55 p.m.]

Helen serves as a constant, daily reminder for many people in

Vernon-Monashee. Every day we have a choice. We can choose to give

freely. We can choose to be kind and considerate. We can choose to bring

smiles to those around us. Like Helen, we can choose to make the world a

little bit brighter and better.

GRADUATES OF 2021 IN

KELOWNA-MISSION

AREA

R. Merrifield: Well, this month, graduates from high school and university should

be taking the stage. Dinners, parties and graduations would normally be

a part of celebrating this truly remarkable accomplishment.

Sadly, this celebratory marker has changed with COVID, and it has

brought with it sacrifice and loss. But graduates, you are a generation

that will rise as a phoenix from the ashes of this pandemic to be

leaders of resilience in our future, which is why I’m so excited to

celebrate the graduates of 2021 today.

To all of the graduates but especially those within my riding of

Kelowna-Mission — Okanagan Mission Secondary, Kelowna Secondary School,

Rutland Senior Secondary, Immaculata Secondary School, Kelowna Christian

School, Okanagan College and the University of British Columbia Okanagan

— this is your day. The excitement, the anticipation, the awe. Each of

you have overcome obstacles, circumstances and your own doubts and

insecurities to believe that voice inside of you that says: “You can do

it.” I am so proud of your accomplishments.

I rise in the House today as just a symbol of this pro­vince

that is so proud of you today. You are history-makers with stories

written about the pandemic in future history books. But you have lived

through it. Let that resilience be a guide for your future. Become

change-makers.

Truly, you can achieve so much in the face of incredible

adversity. Let this experience give you the confidence that you can do

anything that you put your mind to. Now you begin writing the next

chapter of your own histories. You have such incredible stories ahead.

We are cheering for each of you as you step into your destiny.

Congratulations, class of 2021.

Oral Questions

CHILD CARE PLAN

S. Bond: Well, four years ago the Premier made a promise. It was a promise

to parents, and they believed him. This is the promise he made in 2017:

“The NDP’s universal $10-a-day daycare plan will provide families with

immediate relief.” Except, as we all know, that has not happened. In

fact, B.C. has some of the highest child care fees in the country, and

they increased last year.

In Richmond and Surrey, for example, fees went up almost 10

percent in 2020. Through two elections and many announcements, parents

have not received what they were promised.

Why did the Premier break his promise to deliver $10-​a-day

daycare?

Hon. K. Chen: For many years, parents in this province have been struggling with

the high cost of child care, in­cluding myself, as a mother with a

young son. Trying to find affordable, high-quality care is very

challenging in most communities across B.C.

We have been doing that work, since 2017, to put to­gether a

comprehensive plan — over three dozen strategies — to figure out how to

bring down the cost of child care to accelerate the creation of spaces

and, at the same time, supporting early childhood educators in the

workforce.

Unaffordability. We have three measures that have significantly

brought down the cost of child care for B.C. families, including many

families who are paying $10 a day or less. That is the first time in

B.C.’s history that parents have seen a fee reduction.

We definitely have more work to do. But currently, we are seeing

fees going down as government continues to work with local partners and

providers and early childhood educators to bring a quality, affordable

system for B.C. families, when the other side of the House, the B.C.

Liberals, have been voting against our plan every step of the

way.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, the minister may want to go back and dig up her records and

maybe get out of the message box for a moment or two. It was a clear,

unequivocal promise. It wasn’t many families in British Columbia. It was

universal $10-a-day daycare.

[2:00 p.m.]

This is a two-term government that’s had four years, and they

haven’t delivered on a promise this Premier has made multiple times. In

fact, the Premier, who is a serial promiser, had all the answers. Here

are the Premier’s very own words: “We’re going to get going right away

implementing $10-a-day daycare for infant and toddler programs in the

first year.” Maybe the minister would like to look up the date of that

promise, specifically made in the first year.

Here we are four years later. Places like Vancouver, Richmond,

Burnaby and Surrey have amongst the high­est fees in the country.

With toddler fees, the very group of families that this Premier promised

that it would be $10 a day in the first year — well, their fees can

reach almost $2,000 a month. That’s under this Premier and that

minister.

Again to the Premier, will he get up today and apologize to the

families that have been waiting for more than four years for him to

deliver on his election promise?

Hon. K. Chen: The fact is, since 2017, thousands and thousands of families have

been benefiting from $10-a-day for the first time in B.C.’s history. Of

course, we always have more work to do, because this is a social

program.

I understand that the B.C. Liberals have never created a social

program like this, because they ignored the child care crisis for 16

long years. They allowed fees to go up, and one year they even deleted

some of the child care subsidies. Some families overnight had seen fee

increases of $100 to $200. They actually allowed child care costs to go

up and ignored the child care crisis.

This is a long-term plan to build a new social program. We’ve

committed to the $10-a-day plan. That’s a ten-year plan. We are well

underway to build a new social program, and we have been bringing relief

to families every single week.

This year I’m proud that we are going to more than double the

prototype sites. That will bring another 2,700 families $10-a-day child

care. Many families are actually paying no cost for child care at

all.

Under the B.C Liberal government, they did not have this. We’re

proud of the record, we’re proud of the work that we’re doing, and we’re

not going to take any lessons from the B.C. Liberals, who ignored this

crisis and caused families to struggle for many years.

K. Kirkpatrick: The Premier made a very straightforward promise to implement

$10-a-day child care for toddlers in his first year. Instead, this is

what the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said: “Richmond, B.C.,

was among the five cities with the highest toddler fees, with a median

toddler space costing $1,300.”

Four years of bungling has left parents desperate. Wait-lists are

growing, some centres are shutting down, and parents are paying the

price. Yesterday instead of delivering on his promises or even a road

map to get there, the Premier offered up the ability to create more

regulation and issue an annual report.

To the Premier, why isn’t he delivering on his straightforward

promise for $10-a-day daycare?

Hon. K. Chen: I need to correct the member’s statement. We are delivering

$10-a-day child care and affordable child care to tens and thousands of

families who are benefiting from our fee reduction program that’s not

in­come tested — up to $350 reduction in their fees — for the

first time in B.C. history, with 90 percent of providers joining this

program. We are delivering the affordable child care benefit to

eliminate fees, to bring fees down to $10-a-day, $15-a-day for thousands

and thousands of B.C. families.

We also have the universal child care prototype sites. That’s

already bringing tons of $10-a-day to infant and toddler spaces,

three-to-five spaces and all the variety of partners that we’ve been

partnering with.

If the opposition member doesn’t want to hear from families, let

me tell you. This is a quote from an immigrant, Nada, who shared: “Dear

Premier, I am writing to commend your government for taking bold actions

to address the child care payoff across B.C. Lowering parent fees,

raising educator wages, creating more licensed spaces to meet the

diverse needs of families are essential to your commitment to make B.C.

more affordable.”

These actions are already making a difference for thousands of

B.C. families, when the B.C. Liberals ignored the crisis for 16

years.

[2:05 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The Member for West Vancouver–Capi­lano on a

supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m not sure that the minister understands the word “universal.”

It is not for the prototype sites. There are about 2,500 prototype pilot

sites that have been operating. That is not universal child care —

universal $10-a-day daycare.

The Premier promised to “create 22,000 new spaces by the third

year of the program.” That is create. It is not fund. It is create. But

he has barely opened just 6,000 after four years. He promised $10-a-day

daycare for toddlers in the first year, but parents are paying thousands

of dollars in fees. There is no plan for the Premier to keep his word,

no money in the budget to actually deliver and no timelines for making

it happen.

When will the Premier deliver on his $10-a-day daycare

promise?

Hon. K. Chen: I understand, again, the B.C. Liberals have no experience to

create a new social program. They have no idea how much work it takes to

build a new universal, inclusive early learning and care program for

B.C. families.

We’re proud that we started the work in 2017. We pulled together

the Childcare B.C. plan to lower parent fees, ac­celerate the

creation of spaces and also to support the workforce. You cannot build a

new social program without supporting the workforce. That struggled for

many years under the former B.C. Liberal government. Some educators even

had their wage top-up taken away from the B.C. Liberals, and that caused

some centres to be forced to be closed, losing their staff overnight.

That’s the B.C. Liberals’ record. Our record is to continue to bring

affordable child care to B.C. families.

We are proud of our space creation program. We have already

supported the creation of over 26,000 spaces, and in the next year — in

the coming year — 70 percent of the spaces that we have funded will be

coming into operation. If the B.C. Liberals don’t know how to create

spaces and how long it takes to create spaces, I’m more than happy to

sit down with the opposition critic again and to let her know how hard

it is to create a social program. But we are well on track.

DEFERRAL OF OLD-GROWTH LOGGING

AND ROLE OF FIRST

NATIONS

S. Furstenau: I’m glad to hear the Premier will today be finally responding to

the deferrals announced by the Pacheedaht, Ditidaht and Huu-ay-aht First

Nations in Fairy Creek. In the absence of leadership from this

government, these three nations have stepped forward with deferrals on

old-growth logging in their territories.

Interjections.

S. Furstenau: Very amusing to the members of government, but let’s be clear. It

is this government’s lack of leadership on forestry that has put First

Nations in the middle of rising tensions in our forests and led to

increased conflict and division in communities.

I would suggest that the members check their email in-box to

determine how serious this is to the people of British Columbia. Many

questions remain about the deferrals in Fairy Creek, and I sincerely

hope the Premier will be clearing up the uncertainty today.

My question is to the Premier. Can we expect to hear confirmation

from him that the province is approving, at the least, the deferral

areas proposed by the nations, and that they will be providing full,

no-strings-attached funding for Indigenous-led integrated stewardship

plans developed by these nations?

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to thank the member for the question. I just need to

clarify some of the misinformation that she has shared.

The old growth strategic review was very clear that the government

needed to engage in those really critically im­portant

government-to-government discussions with In­digenous nations, and

that’s what we have been doing. That’s what we have been doing with

nations across the province. That’s what we have been doing with the

Pach­eedaht, with the Huu-ay-aht, with the Ditidaht, to

ensure….

As we have been saying, this is not about the government making

deferrals. This is about working in collabor­ation with Indigenous

nations. This is about making sure that when we know that there are

old-growth areas that potentially should be deferred, we have those

really im­portant conversations to ensure that that is the wishes

of the people that have the rights and title to that land — the nations

whose traditional territory it sits on. We have been doing that work. I

can assure the member that we will be making announcements

soon.

[2:10 p.m.]

I am very happy — not happy, I’m thrilled — that we were able to

have those really difficult conversations over months with many

different people, because we have ar­rived at a place where we

know that the nations…. As the member has said, these nations have said

they would like these areas deferred, because that’s what the process is

about. That’s how this should work.

So I’m really glad that the member has raised this so that I could

clarify that for the member and for the House.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I’m curious to know whether those conversations happened before or

after the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation signed the

benefit agreement that secures the interest of the Crowns on

re­source extraction in these territories. We know it is not just

Fairy Creek. Fairy Creek is a flashpoint, but logging in ancient forests

is happening across the province, often without the consent of the

nations on whose territory that logging is taking place.

Earlier this session we shared statements from just a few of the

Indigenous leaders calling for an end to old-growth logging in their

territories directly with this minister and the Premier, yet nothing has

changed. Logging continues without their consent, despite this

government’s stated promises on reconciliation.

David Knox, the Hereditary Chief of the Kwakiutl, was on CBC just

this week talking about how his nation has called on the Premier for

years to stop old-growth logging in their territory, and they continue

to be ignored. You can’t pick and choose, invoking reconciliation when

it suits you and ignoring it otherwise.

I sure do hope that we will see the commitment that the Chiefs of

the Pacheedaht, Ditidaht and Huu-ay-aht are asking for from this

government, which is fully funding Indigenous-led stewardship plans on

their territories, with no strings attached.

My next question is also to the Premier. Will all the other

nations that have been requesting deferrals but have so far been ignored

be hearing from the government this week?

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to clarify, the government has re­ceived several

requests from First Nations to implement deferrals, and we have

responded to all incoming requests, and we are committed to working with

them. Some of them, we have already started that work. I just want to

make sure the member knows that.

The member is also right. We can’t pick and choose, when it comes

to reconciliation, how we feel about a na­tion’s wishes, about a

nation’s wants. We all have to respect that, and we all have to work

with those nations.

I, too, would like to quote some of the Chiefs. One thing I want

to say is that Chief Councillor Robert Dennis said: “It is our

responsibility to take care of our land for future generations. We are

the decision-makers.” He goes on to say: “We follow the guidance of our

elders and citizens to make the decisions we think are right. We are

asking others to respect that process and follow our direction on our

territory. Our citizens have a constitutionally protected right to

manage and benefit from our lands, water and resources.”

I hope that people will respect the wishes of Indigenous nations.

I hope that people will respect the words of the Chiefs who have said,

“Please work with us; please respect our wishes,” because we are moving

forward on what is happening with old growth in this province. We are

moving forward because we know that we need to implement all 14

recommendations from the old-growth report. We know that we are

committed to the number one recommendation of ensuring that we have

those important government-to-government discussions with Indigenous

na­tions, and we are doing this right.

We are not rushing this. We are not doing this without due

diligence and respect, because we know this has to be done properly

because this will affect people today and for generations to

come.

AMBULANCE RESPONSE TIMES

R. Merrifield: To the Premier and the Minister of Hea­lth, it might just be

a blip, but to the people who are suffering, the families who wait

beside them and the front-line workers who are frustrated, it’s so much

more than that. This is a crisis of care.

[2:15 p.m.]

Last week at the Langley Events Centre, a 91-year-old woman

arrived by cab for her vaccination. She fell and broke her hip. Staff

offered comfort, but they couldn’t offer the care she needed. An

ambulance was called, and it took nearly two hours for it to

arrive.

The Premier and his minister may think it’s just a blip, but it’s

not. It’s unacceptable and a far too common occurrence right now. Will

the Premier acknowledge that the failure of ambulances arriving on time

is a real crisis and take steps to fix it immediately?

Hon. A. Dix: The government has been taking steps to address this problem since

2017. The increase in resources to the B.C. emergency health services —

the rate of in­crease is 2½ times what had been put in place by

the previous government in the previous four-year period — is an

indication of that commitment. The 283 positions have been added since

then.

The collective agreement negotiated with CUPE Local 873 has

increased the number of permanent positions and continues to do so. It's

an enormous challenge, at the time of two public health emergencies, to

be an ambulance paramedic. There are significant challenges in our

system right now, including, as the member I think is referring to, the

most significant day in ambulance calls, really, that the province had

seen other than on New Year’s Day.

We have to continue to support our ambulance paramedics, continue

to support them as they address the extraordinary challenges ahead of

them and continue to deliver a high level of service. That will need to

be challenging, and that’s why we’re doing what we’re doing: adding

ambulance paramedics, adding cars, adding resources to rural communities

and continuing to do so, consistent with the collective agreement that

we negotiated with our ambulance paramedics to improve service in every

part of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission on a supplemental.

R. Merrifield: Well, while we’re hearing about these amazing things from the

minister, someone is actually calling 911 and believing that help is

going to arrive and arrive in a timely fashion. And it’s not arriving.

You see, when you’re lying on the ground with a broken hip, nobody cares

who is in government. They care about the service that they

receive.

Here’s the thing. The people on the ground, the people who are

doing their best to help British Columbians in need, have a very

different perspective than the minister’s. Here’s the perspective of a

dispatcher on Vancouver Island: “The way this is being run, it’s

dangerous for the public. It’s dangerous for those of us who are

working. On any given day, we have calls holding for hours — hours — and

we just can’t get there.”

Here’s a paramedic who knows the delays aren’t a blip and have

life and death consequences: “People are dying. That’s the long and

short of it — that people are dying, and we’re just not sure who has to

die for it to change.”

So, again, to the Premier, will he take responsibility and fix

this crisis with the ambulance system?

Hon. A. Dix: That is precisely what we’re doing, and it’s precisely because

it’s so important to people that we added resources during COVID-19 for

rural and remote communities in particular: air ambulance resources,

helicopter resources, resources on the ground to improve wait times.

It’s why, since 2017 for the most serious of calls, wait times have come

down in a very challenging time.

I appreciate every day the work of our ambulance paramedics. I

celebrate it, I recognize it, I admire it, and I support it by providing

the resources necessary. The member will know that in one fiscal year,

the previous government provided a 0.6 percent actual lift to the

ambulance service. Naturally, that left challenges.

I am not saying that everything the previous government did was

bad. Minister George Abbott, for example, established the community

paramedicine program, a program that I have dramatically increased since

I became Minister of Health. Congratulations.

But I am saying that providing 2½ times the rate of

in­crease in resources to the ambulance service demonstrates the

Premier’s commitment to our ambulance paramedics and is consistent with

the commitments we made.

Are there extraordinary challenges? Yes. Do we have an

extraordinary team of ambulance paramedics? Yes. Do we need to continue

to support them? Absolutely, yes.

[2:20 p.m.]

T. Stone: With all due respect to the Minster of Health, when someone is in

pain, when they’re desperate for medical attention, they really don’t

care, in that moment, which government did what, when and where. They

don’t care about partisan politics. What they do care about is that when

they call 911, medical attention is going to arrive in a reasonable

period of time to look after them. That is not happening today for every

British Columbian, and that’s on this government’s watch.

A couple weeks ago, a welfare check was done on a senior in

Vancouver. Police and firefighters discovered that she’d been on her

couch in her own waste for several days. Now, obviously, an ambulance

was called. After five hours of waiting, a saferide shuttle, which is

meant to transport people with drug and alcohol issues, had to be called

so the senior could get the assistance that she so desperately

needed.

Let’s stop and think about this for a moment. This is a senior who

sat in her own waste for several days. Help arrives, but then she’s

required to wait another five hours. It’s unacceptable, and it’s

unconscionable.

The question to the Premier is this: will the Premier step up?

Will he fix this crisis so people like this senior aren’t waiting hours

upon hours for the care that they need?

Hon. A. Dix: The member will know that we review every case where there are

deficiencies in health services. He will know that this is what inspired

us to give ambulance paramedics their full bargaining rights back,

inspired us to work with them to increase the number of ambulance

paramedics positions. Since fall, 283 full-time positions established.

It’s for this very reason — to give our ambulance paramedics support on

the ground to do the work that we all need them to do.

The member is absolutely right. It’s something that we’ve said

consistently. It’s something that the Premier has said and I’ve said. At

the moment when you need an ambulance, that service is the most

important service a government can provide, and it’s important that it’s

there. We recognize, when there are extraordinary challenges and events

happen, that we have to address those.

I also would say this. The way you address them is year after year

providing the resources required, increasing the number of positions,

increasing the training, ensuring particularly that the interests of

people who live in communities such as the hon. member, and around B.C.,

get the level of service that they need.

That is what we’re working to do — year after year increase in

positions, year after year increase in ambulances — and still there are

challenges. All that tells me is that we have to continue to make this

effort. I’m committed to do that every single day.

T. Stone: Well, indeed, first responders are saying the resources that they

have are not enough today. Dispatchers are saying they see it every

single day. There aren’t enough resources in the system. Of course,

British Columbians who have to suffer a horrific experience like this or

see their loved one go through this are saying that there are not enough

resources in the system. So much more needs to be done.

From the West End of Vancouver to Surrey, to Vancouver Island, to

Langley and, indeed, across the province, the delays in being able to

get an ambulance in a timely fashion are becoming the norm. The system

isn’t working.

Troy Clifford, president of the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C., says

that long wait times for people in emergency situations are becoming

more common: “We’re seeing that more and more, where people are waiting

for ambulances for extended periods of time, and especially in public

places like that, that can be a real challenge. It really is becoming,

sadly, a norm.”

When you’re crying out in pain, when your life is at risk, you

don’t want to hear anyone say that this is a blip in the system and that

it doesn’t happen that often. It is happening, increasingly, to far too

many British Columbians.

[2:25 p.m.]

Again, to the Premier, will he immediately step up and fix this

crisis before the next story is about someone waiting far too long for

an ambulance who sadly died?

Hon. A. Dix: I hesitate to even use the term “blip,” be­cause I don’t

believe it’s ever come from me. It has only been used by the opposition.

I think, given the seriousness of the issues, that kind of tactic isn’t

up to the level of what we should expect in this debate, in this

discussion.

What we’ve tried to do and what we have done is we increased the

support, the resources for the Ambulance Service. Since I’ve been

Minister of Health, an average of 7.96 percent [audio interrupted] — in

fact, two and a half times what it had been in the previous year — is an

indication of that seriousness.

But there are also extraordinary challenges. We are in the midst

of two public health emergencies, and this has qualitatively, not just

quantitatively, in terms of the number of calls received by ambulance

paramedics, presented extraordinary challenges to ambulance paramedics

on the ground.

Our task is (1) to provide them with the support they need to

continue to do their work and to recover when they deal with challenges

and (2) to provide more cars and more resources. We’re doing that, and

we’re continuing to do that. I think that’s the way that as legislators,

we can respond, by providing the resources necessary.

The member may say that the resources are insufficient. But they

are…. The rate of increase is two and a half times what it was under the

level of the previous government. We have to continue to provide this

investment because the challenges facing our ambulance system, our first

responders, out there are real.

Of course, we think every day, and I know they think at B.C.

emergency health services every day, of the peo­ple waiting for an

ambulance, in critical need, to get to them as soon as possible. That’s

what drives us, and that’s what’s going to continue to motivate our

efforts to respond to this situation.

M. de Jong: Well, here’s the problem that the government, the Premier, the

minister need to acknowledge and then address. The situation is getting

worse, not better. These horror stories are occurring with greater

regularity, not less regularity. These are real people. They are in real

distress, and they need some real action to make the situation

better.

We have heard today about a 91-year-old with a broken hip waiting

hours and hours; an elderly person at a Sky­Train station, again

with a broken hip, waiting hours for an ambulance to attend; a senior

lying in their own excrement, waiting over five hours for an ambulance

to attend; and one woman elsewhere with a pancreatic attack, I’m told,

who has waited over nine hours — nine hours — for an ambulance to

attend.

Being in denial about the magnitude of the problem and the fact

that it’s getting worse is not going to fix it. It’s happening. It’s

happening with greater regularity. It is impacting real people at the

most vulnerable moment in their lives. The Premier, the minister and the

government need to provide British Columbians with the assurance today

that they are taking steps today to address the problem and stop it from

continuing to get worse.

Hon. A. Dix: The evidence that we’ve been taking steps is reflected in the 273

ambulance paramedic positions created since the fall of 2020. The

evidence is in the resources provided to the Ambulance Service. This is

a time of extraordinary challenges in health, in public health care —

two public health emergencies, one of which, the overdose crisis, has

profoundly and disproportionately affected the Ambulance Service in its

response.

That is why, in part, these resources have been provided. But

they’ve also been provided because we are living in a time when the

immediacy of response is needed, and we needed to improve on the

circumstances that we inherited as a government. We have done that

consistently by providing, by applying the resources required, by adding

new positions, by adding new ambulances, by approving services in rural

and remote communities.

[2:30 p.m.]

Do we need to do more? Of course we do. We’re working to do that

every day, continuing to hire people through this fall, consistent with

the collective agreement that we jointly put together with our ambulance

paramedics, de­signed to improve the quality of work and the

quality of service we give to people across B.C.

This is a problem that we have been working on with dedication and

with commitment, and we’re going to continue to do so, because we

believe in the importance of the Ambulance Service. It’s a service

deeply, I think, embedded in the communities across B.C. and in support

of people who need an ambulance, who’ve called an ambulance and deserve

to get an ambulance in a way that meets their needs. Let’s continue the

work together.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 7,

Electoral Boundaries Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call continued estimates debate for

the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural

Development.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call continued estimates for the Ministry

of Health. When they are finished, then we will be proceeding to the estimates

for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

D. Davies: I rise here today to speak on Bill 7, the Electoral Boundaries

Commission Amendment Act — well, actually, I guess, to speak against it

in its present form.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

First, I’d like to begin by thanking my constituents for giving me

the honour to represent them in this chamber. I do take that duty very

seriously. My area that I represent is from the district of Taylor to

the Yukon border, from the Rocky Mountains all the way over to the

Alberta border. As their representative, I continue and will continue to

fight to make this province stronger and provide a brighter future for

the communities of every member that I represent in the North Peace, as

well as up in the Northern Rockies.

What we’re talking about is that following every second election

cycle, the Electoral Boundaries Commission is appointed to examine the

boundaries. Again, this is not something new. We do recognize that

demographics change, and they have been changing in the province of

British Columbia.

The appointment of this commission is routine. The changes,

though, that are before us, to remove protections for rural British

Columbia, are what concerns many of us on this side of the House, as

well as members of my community, members of my neighbouring communities,

members of some of my local Indigenous communities.

I want to read into the record, actually…. I’m sure there are many

more of these to come. This is a statement that was sent to me just a

couple of days ago. It is from the Northern Rockies regional

municipality, from their mayor and council.

“The Northern Rockies regional municipality shares the concerns with

proposed Bill 7. Having the electoral boundaries largely based on

population is a disservice to the diverse and broad geographic regions

of the province such as the Northern Rockies regional municipality,

which provide the bulk of the natural resources which drive the economy

of the province of British Columbia.

“The proposed language in Bill 7, which states that the commission

may take into account special considerations respecting demographic and

geographic factors, does not adequately ensure that geographic and

demographic considerations of regions such as the Northern Rockies

regional municipality are represented effectively in matters that impact

all British Columbia.”

Again, that is a letter that was sent to me from the mayor and

council of the Northern Rockies regional municipality.

[2:35 p.m.]

I have had conversations, since this bill was introduced, with

many people. They share that very similar concern that I just read to

you there.

Specifically, this bill, in regards to the rural protection, will

impact regions of Cariboo-Thompson, the Columbia-Kootenays and the

North. You know, when I say the North, it’s a very quick sound bite —

the North. But when you put that into perspective, the North, as a land

mass, that is more than half of the province of British Columbia. This

is an area that is going to be impacted dramatically by the proposed

Bill 7.

You know, these regions have been protected for a number of years,

because while they had a lower population — much lower, obviously,

densely, than the Lower Mainland and our larger urban centres — they are

vast demographic regions, full of diverse people that deserve to be

fairly represented in Victoria. We’ve heard this urban-rural divide.

I’ve been hearing it for as long as I can remember. It’s a discussion

that we’ve had around the supper table for years now.

All I see in this bill and the potential outcome of this bill is

that it would create much more of a divide. We need to be mending that

divide, improving it, bringing us all together, making sure that

everyone has a voice in this place.

The purpose of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, though, is to

make sure that the political boundaries in this province are drawn in a

certain way, to provide people with just that: the representation that

they deserve. For the most part, my constituents are quite happy with

the representation that they receive in Peace River North, as I’m sure

my other colleagues in the North are as well.

This is something that we are in favour of looking at, the

population, and reviewing it from time to time. We are not opposed to

that. We have always advocated to make sure that people are represented

in this place. B.C. is a vast province with a varied geography and

terrain — diverse people, groups, communities, all with very, very

different needs.

I’ll take you on a little trip here. I drove down to Victoria for

my time that I’ve been down here for the last couple of weeks. I jumped

in my pickup, because 95 percent of the people in Fort St. John have a

pickup. Some have cars, but for the most part, if anybody has ever been

to Fort St. John or Dawson Creek or other communities, you’ll notice

that the mall parking lot is full of pickups. We do rely a lot…. Our

folks work out in industry, forestry. They work in mining. They work in

the natural gas sector. They work in these different sectors that do

require a pickup.

So I jumped in my pickup. I think it was the previous Saturday

morning, seven o’clock, a cup of coffee. I started down the road. In my

riding, of course, I recognize…. We do have some farming. The Peace

region in itself actually provides 90 percent of all the grains grown in

this province. We also have a lot of forestry and a lot of oil and

gas.

You drive through Dawson Creek. Dawson Creek is much more

agriculture-related. In fact, if you were in Dawson Creek, you might

think that you were in Alberta or Saskatchewan. In fact, if you had a

good pair of binoculars, you might be able to see Winnipeg, possibly.

It’s not quite that flat, but it’s close.

[2:40 p.m.]

You know, you drive through, and you head into Prince

George–Mackenzie and through Prince George–Vale­mount. Of course,

you’re going through the northern Rocky Mountains. You’re at the start

of the Fraser River, which is an incredible river that you get to follow

most of the way when you drive down to Vancouver.

Cariboo North, the Cariboo-Chilcotin. You start to see the ranches

and, again, more forestry. Forestry plays such an integral role in the

province of British Columbia, as well as these other pieces. You get to

see…. When I was driving down, in fact — multiple road closures,

single-lane traffic as you go through the Cariboo, due to flooding, the

flooding issues. Highway 97, of course, is a major highway, B.C.’s

longest highway — closed, in many cases, due to the flooding.

Then you start heading into the Fraser Canyon, the Fraser-Nicola

area. Really, if you’ve never done that drive…. It is a drive. I

encourage every British Columbian to make sure they do a staycation.

Travel British Columbia. It’s an absolutely stunning part of this world.

As you travel through the Fraser Canyon, it’s jaw-dropping the scenery

that you get to see. Then you move into, of course, Chilliwack,

Chilliwack-Kent, into the Fraser Valley and into our urban

centre.

I have done that drive — I don’t even care to count — many, many

times, and I love it every time. You get the chance to talk. I’m a bit

social, probably like most of us in this House are. I have the

opportunity to talk to people and listen to some of the concerns, some

of the issues, some of the great things. Obviously, people love talking

about their communities and the great things that their communities

have.

You get an understanding of how incredibly diverse this province

is. Every single community is different. Every single riding is

different. Every single region is different. I chuckle when I hear “the

North,” because the diversity of the North is immense, from people that

live in the Peace country who are cowboy hat–, cowboy boot–wearing —

okay, I wouldn’t want to stereotype everybody into that, because I don’t

wear either of those things — to farming, oil and gas, forestry workers.

Tourism plays an important role.

But when you travel, if you travel to Prince Rupert, it is quite

different. The industry is different. Cultural makeup is different. The

Indigenous communities are different. That, again, is what makes this

province great — our re­cognizing those differences.

This is why the Electoral Boundaries Commission itself has said

that representation is not simply anchored to equality of population. A

2015 report says that factors like geography, community history,

community interests and minority representation should be taken into

account when deciding on how to draw electoral boundaries.

It acknowledges and leaves this understanding that the needs of

places like Terrace or Williams Lake are vastly different than those of

Surrey or Atlin, and the district of Hudson’s Hope’s are different than

Prince George’s. Our current electoral boundaries in rural B.C.

recognize these unique circumstances of these places and the reality

that they may not presently have a large population, but it does not

lessen the need for strong representation in this place.

We have got to consider, also — I touched on it very briefly —

that a large percentage of our Indigenous communities are located in

these regions that I talked about earlier that are being looked at to

change. Thirty percent of First Nations in British Columbia live in the

North and Cariboo-Thompson regions. Many of them, in my own riding as

well, are incredibly remote locations. We need to ensure that they have

easy access and have a voice in this place.

[2:45 p.m.]

We also need to ensure, though, and I think this is

im­portant…. The government side has said this in a few of their

remarks — that we are opposed to looking at this commission or having

changes. We are not at all opposed to this. We need to be looking at and

ensuring that areas that are growing, such as the Lower Mainland, parts

of the Interior even, parts of the lower part of the Island…. They’ve

seen significant growth over the past number of years. We need to adjust

to make sure that they, too, have proper representation in this

place.

At the end of the day, the ability for us in this room to be able

to connect with our constituents is vitally critical to our democracy.

The number of constituents nor the size of the electoral district that

each of us live in should be a barrier to having that representation

here.

As I’ve mentioned previously and I’ve mentioned many times in this

House, my riding is unique in not only our province but, I think, our

nation, and I’m proud to represent the communities. Interestingly

enough, my riding, along with Peace River South, were both created in

1955, 70 years ago.

Seventy years ago our two areas were recognized as di­verse,

different places that needed to have representation: Peace River North

and Peace River South. It has been recognized for 70 years by multiple

governments that have seen that it is important that the people who live

in those two ridings have access to their MLA, easy access to their MLA.

It has worked well. Now there is a move to limit that.

You know, it’s funny. When we have a couple of days break between

speeches here…. A couple of days ago the member for Stikine had

mentioned that some of us are complaining because we represent these

ridings. Not at all. I love that I represent my riding. I love that I

get to travel around a beautiful part of our province and work with

constituents and help them solve issues. I love that they can come and

see me.

But adding another 60,000 or 70,000 square kilometres is the

issue. It’s the issue for people that enjoy coming into their MLA’s

office and seeking help. My riding is in excess of 160,000 square

kilometres. It’s larger than the countries of Ireland, Switzerland,

Croatia, Rwanda, Belgium, Greece or England and Wales combined, just to

give you an idea.

I would love to read…. I printed off a list here. There are pages

of countries that not only my riding is bigger than, if I combine many

of these…. Some countries, my riding is ten times or 15 times the size.

In fact, my riding is 32 times the size of the Lower Mainland. To extend

and create a larger riding is simply unfathomable.

I’ve been hearing regularly, since this bill was

introdu­ced, from constituents that are just gobsmacked by this

proposal. Again, our province is diverse. My riding is diverse, from

culture to industry, size of population, our Indigenous

communities.

As a northerner, I’ve spent my entire life in Fort St. John and

northern B.C., and I have an understanding of my riding. I have an

understanding of the issues. I have an understanding of the challenges.

I have relationships. Actually, I said that wrong. People have

relationships with me. My constituents have relationships with

me.

[2:50 p.m.]

I’ve driven to every corner of my riding, up to the Yukon border,

into the mountains, to the Alberta border, to the Peace River in the

south. Many people come and see me, and they see me often. I’m sure

other constituency offices are busy as well. They like to have that

ability to walk in and see their MLA. I mean, this last year, of course,

has been a little different. But normally, they want to come and talk to

their MLA and get help and seek guidance on many issues.

I regularly meet with guide-outfitters at the drive up the Toad

River, just a mere near nine hours north of Fort St. John. You heard

that right, nine hours, and I’m still not at the other end of my

riding.

The Chair that’s represented us today gave me a picture recently,

and I thank him for that, of buffalo. That is where the buffalo are:

Toad River, Liard — up in that part of the country. They’re wild buffalo

— sorry, bison, I should say. They’re everywhere. I’m up there often,

meeting with these small communities that don’t have Internet. There’s

no cellular service. There’s no telephones. They use satellite

telephones. Their communities are powered by diesel generators. I mean,

it’s different. People enjoy living up there. They enjoy that. Of

course, it comes with some challenges.

I’ve had the opportunity to fly into one of our isolated

Indigenous communities, the Kwadacha First Nation. I chose to actually

take a small, little, tiny plane out of Fort St. John to fly into this

little muddy dirt runway, which was a little hair-raising. I can say

that. The other option was to drive to the community. I’ve got to drive

all the way through to Mackenzie, which is about six hours.

Interjection.

D. Davies: Yeah, the member for Abbotsford West has done this.

Then you jump on to this old logging trail, which is about another

three hours. But we do that.

Travel up to Prophet River First Nation. Talk about for­est

fire protection in their community. Meet with industry leaders, forestry

sector, people from the oil and gas or mining. Travel right up to the

far northeast corner, a little tiny place called Helmut. Far northeast

corner, almost at the Northwest Territories.

I talk about how much I know my riding, but my residents also know

my riding. My constituents know my riding as well. They know that they

can come and talk to me. They can lean on me whenever they need to get

the representation or to help work through a problem. So many unique

things in my community.

I see my time is ticking quickly already.

I have got a number of larger communities. I use larger in

parentheses, because they’re somewhat larger. Fort St. John is the main

centre in my riding, which is where I live. It’s kind of the hub of the

community and deals with many challenges. Whether we’re talking the

infrastructure challenges in our communities…. Of course, Site C is just

a mere seven kilometres from our downtown.

Fort Nelson, of course, is the second-largest community in my

riding, four hours north of Fort St. John. The challenges that I have

worked on over the past number of years…. In fact, probably one of the

number one reasons why residents of Fort Nelson get hold of me is around

health care challenges, access to health care. We understand that we’re

not going to get high-end surgeries and stuff in Fort Nelson. But we

also expect to have the same access to health care as someone who lives

in Vancouver. That’s been a challenge since I’ve been

elected.

Some may know; some may not. A woman is pregnant and wants to have

her baby in Fort Nelson. She cannot. She is unable to have her child in

Fort Nelson. She has to travel to one of the larger centres — Prince

George, Fort St. John or elsewhere — and stay with family. They

recommend you go a whole month early.

[2:55 p.m.]

It’s horrible that this is what’s expected in a community of

almost 5,000 people.

Again, some of the health care issues. Medevac — waiting hours to

be medevacked to Vancouver.

Taylor is another smaller community, just south of Fort St. John.

Of course, I’ve been advocating for the Taylor Bridge now since I got to

this place. The challenges with industry in that community….

Another little community is Hudson’s Hope, a beautiful little

place. Of course, it’s home of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam as well as the

Peace Canyon dam. There are two dams that are in that community and

even, partially, the upstream of Site C. I’d be remiss if I did not

mention the health care challenges in that small community.

The regional district. I represent two regional districts

somewhat. First of all is the Peace River regional district, which

surrounds the communities that I just mentioned for the most part, which

has our industry. It has our farmers, our rural roads. I also have the

second one, called Northern Rockies regional municipality, which I

believe was the first one ever created in the province of British

Columbia. It has its own challenges — 550 kilometres of the Alaska

Highway that go through it, and no cellular service on most of that.

Road closures often. Bus service, none. Incredible challenges that

people face.

But it is beautiful, the region. Many rivers, multiple waterways,

lakes. The northern half of the Rocky Mountains. The many mountain

passes. The unbelievable ac­cess to the back country. That is why

people live up there. You can drive five minutes from any of our

communities and not see anybody ever, which is great. Incredible vast

fields, I mentioned earlier, whether it be grain or our cattle

ranchers.

It’s also important to recognize the connection of the Peace

region, both Peace River South and Peace River North, to Alberta. I

think that’s important to recognize here in this place. The city of

Grande Prairie is really the getaway for anybody who lives in the

northeast, because it’s just a two-hour drive from Fort St. John, or an

hour drive. It’s the quick getaway.

Edmonton is actually where people really go if they want to go to

the city. It’s easier to get to than Prince George. You don’t have to go

through a mountain pass. In the wintertime, it’s not a great mountain

pass to be travelling through.

Many of my constituents have family on both sides of the border.

They share businesses on both sides of the border. Services travel back

and forth. In fact, I’ve had many local businesses that are struggling

because of this relationship. In fact, just recently I brought up an

issue with Boston Pizza in Fort St. John and Fort Nelson, because they

don’t qualify for the grant because they have part ownership in Alberta,

which is very unfortunate.

These are just a little snippet of some of the issues that people

are coming to me for as their representative. But this place…. We have a

duty to the residents of the Peace country or the Kootenays to make sure

that those people have a better feel for a relationship to this place

than they do with Edmonton for us in the North or people in the

Kootenays with Calgary. People should have a closer connection to us

here. This bill does not help that.

You know, I have talked a little bit about travel and sizes. I

know some MLAs — and I think we’ll be hearing from some of our urban

MLAs — that can walk across their ridings. I chuckle at that, that they

can walk across their ridings. I think the Chair probably can almost

walk across his riding in a decent afternoon, or less. I can’t even get

to Taylor in an afternoon, and that’s just south of Fort St. John. I

could if I jogged, but I don’t jog well.

[3:00 p.m.]

Everything is driving, at great lengths — not for me, but for

constituents that want to come and see me, constituents that want help.

They want to come and see their MLA, because they have an issue. They

can’t come down.

The great thing about our democracy is we have a great front lawn

in this Legislature where people can come down and state their ideas and

thoughts. People in Fort St. John can’t do that. But they will come and

see me to make sure that their thoughts are heard and their concerns are

brought here.

That is what worries me about this bill. It’s about relationships.

It’s about relationships — not me to the constituents but the

constituents to me. That’s every one of us in this place — every single

one of us. Believe it or not, our constituents have a relationship with

us. We may not even know it yet, until they come through that door, and

they are looking at you as a member of this Legislature, and they want

your help. We’ve all had that before, where someone does come in and you

help them and you see that look on their face. They look to you with

gratitude and say: “Thank you. Thank you for helping me deal with my

issue.”

On behalf of my riding, my two school districts, my seven First

Nation communities, my municipalities and towns and districts that I’ve

just talked about, we need to be improving our democracy. We need to be

improving how people relate to this place. This bill, the proposal of

taking away the rural representation, does everything but

that.

S. Cadieux: Well, despite being an urban MLA, I can’t walk across my riding.

But indeed, I can drive corner-to-corner in less than 30 minutes,

traffic dependent. But I’ll take my colleague’s point, as I have lived

in rural B.C. I certainly have done my fair share of travelling to many

corners of this province.

As I take my place in this debate on Bill 7, a piece of

legislation that could have profound implications for the future of how

British Columbians are represented in our province, I’m pretty certain

very few British Columbians are aware or are following this at this

time. Nonetheless, it is incumbent upon us as elected representatives to

talk about what this is, why it’s important and to share our concerns

about the bill as presented.

Following every second election, the Electoral Boundaries

Commission is appointed to examine the current electoral boundaries and

make alterations as needed to keep up with the changing demographics of

our province. The purpose of the Electoral Boundaries Commission is to

make sure that the political boundaries of the province are drawn in

such a way as to provide every British Columbian with effective

representation.

Representation requires being present. It requires an

understanding, an ear to the ground on local issues and concerns. It

requires liaising and working with other levels of government. For me,

that’s one city council, two members of Parliament, one school district

and two First Na­tions. It requires ongoing relationships with one

board of trade, two BIAs and two chambers of commerce. It requires

relationships with countless local charities, service providers and

community advocates.

All of those things are a lot easier to do when you can drive

across your riding in half an hour, like I can. Heck, I can even attend

multiple meetings and events in one day. Not so for those whose ridings

are geographically larger. Not so for those MLAs with municipalities and

differing issues from community to community. I marvel, actually, at my

rural colleagues’ ability to stay connected to their dispersed

communities. I’m awfully thankful for my relatively compact

riding.

[3:05 p.m.]

Of course, we need to ensure that regions with growing populations

are properly represented. I’m certainly profoundly aware of the growth

in my city of Surrey, for ex­ample. The growth of this urban area

is real, and it is sub­stantial, with 800 to 1,000 residents a

month. The construction is a visible reminder — the traffic increases,

an increasingly frustrating daily reminder — of significant growth in

recent years. Electoral boundaries might need to be adjusted to

accommodate the growth. This will mean adding new ridings in some of

these rapidly growing regions.

At the end of the day, the ability for MLAs to connect with

constituents is vital to an effective democracy. As such, neither the

number of constituents nor the size of an electoral district should

serve as a barrier to having access to the representation that they’re

entitled to. We certainly need to protect and, ideally, improve the

trust between elected officials and electors, not dilute it. This

legislation could do that.

Through this last year, I participated in a lot of town halls with

the chambers in my community to provide in­formation and an

opportunity for people to connect and share challenges. I had two

chambers to do this work with. I can’t imagine how a rural MLA would be

able to be available to all of their communities and still do their

legislative responsibilities and their constituent casework.

The pandemic forced us all to accept new ways of connecting, like

this Zoom format for debate. It has proven effective and will likely

have a lasting effect on how we make ourselves available to our

constituents or even to do our work in the House, but it has

limitations. Those limitations are amplified in rural and remote

communities due to connectivity issues. They’re also amplified for our

most vulnerable constituents across our province — the elderly, those

living in poverty. The ability to connect in person with elected

officials through their offices will remain a necessity of fair and

equitable representation.

The last time through this process I represented a riding that had

a population of over five times that of the riding of Stikine. My riding

was split into two in the redistribution. Now really, nothing really

changed operationally. I still see and work with all the same

councillors, MPs, chambers, charities and community advocates. Setting

political party representation aside, I doubt very many people have

noticed a difference in their representation. I’ve never heard anyone

complain that I had too many people to represent.

I certainly understand the idea that we’re attempting to keep the

value of the vote somewhat consistent or equitable. More MLAs in

growing, populated areas may be required to keep the balance, but I’m

not sure that more MLAs is the only way to do that. Never once have I

heard from constituents that they wish there were more politicians, that

if only there were more politicians we could get more done.

While appointing this commission is routine, the chan­ges

proposed in the legislation before us are not. It seeks to remove

protections that have been put in place to ensure that rural British

Columbia is represented effectively in our Legislature. Specifically,

this bill seeks to remove statutory protections to three regions: the

Cariboo-Thompson, the Columbia-Kootenay and the North. These regions

have been protected because, while they have a lower population than the

densely populated Lower Mainland where I reside, they are vast

geographic regions full of diverse people who deserve fair

representation.

I remember the last time we were here at this stage of the cycle,

where adjustments needed to take place in the distribution of seats. I

remember the discussions that revolved around partisanship and attempts

that might be made to configure a map in a way that favours one side or

the other. I really don’t see that as a concern. I think the voters are

smarter than that, and I think, as history shows us, voters will decide,

regardless of where boundaries are drawn, which party they wish for them

to be represented by.

We see the changes each election cycle. My colleague from

Abbotsford West has been through this process more times than me. He,

too, remarked — similarly, in his remarks with this bill — that when he

arrived here, the party we represent was regularly accused of being the

urban party and accused of predominantly being concerned with urban

issues to the exclusion of others.

Today, as an urban MLA, I hear from people who think our party

focuses too much on rural issues and has lost touch with the urban

priorities and population’s needs. I don’t necessarily agree, certainly,

as a member of that population, but it’s the commentary regardless. The

voters did speak. No redrawn boundaries were required for

that.

This is why the Electoral Boundaries Commission itself has in the

past said that effective representation is not sim­ply anchored to

equality of population but that “factors like geography, community

history, community interests and minority representation” should be

taken into account when deciding how to draw electoral

boundaries.

[3:10 p.m.]

It acknowledges and leaves some wiggle room for the commission to

recognize and allow for the fact that the needs of Terrace or 100 Mile

House residents are very different from those of Surrey or Abbotsford.

Even outside the Lower Mainland or the Island, the needs of a small

community like Lillooet, where I grew up, are different from those of

Kamloops, just a few hours away.

For MLAs representing these large ridings, they need to travel

hours and hours, hundreds or even thousands of kilometres to be present,

to be there to meet with and support constituents, to see the issues

like fires and floods that devastate these small communities on an

almost annual basis. Their economies and their people are so immensely

affected by these issues. These geographically different realities are

very real. They’re very different from the issues that I hear about from

my urban constituents.

For my urban constituents, health care, government services,

courts, grocery stores and the MLA offices are really only minutes away.

For rural citizens, they often must drive hours upon hours to access

these services. As such, their experience with these services is

different, and their representation needs to reflect that. They need an

advocate that can represent their needs and one that they can

access.

Our current electoral boundaries in rural B.C. recognize the

unique circumstances of these places and the reality that while they may

not be presently as large in population as other ridings, there’s no way

local residents could be properly represented if the boundaries were

expanded to reach the proposed electoral quotient. Our routine process,

every eight years, that we’re here debating today, allows us to rely

upon an impartial commission to make representations to this assembly on

a non-partisan basis.

For the legislation in front of us, I think this question is the

one that the House needs to consider. The existing provisions of the

Electoral Boundaries Commission Act — in the existing act,

section 9 —

are designed specifically to protect people in those remote parts of

British Columbia, by ensuring and directing that their constituency,

within which they live, can’t get any bigger. It’s a limiting feature on

the Boundaries Commission. Removal of that protection, removal of that

direction, will guarantee that at least some of those people will reside

in constituencies that become even larger. I’m not supportive of the

proposal, contained within Bill 7, to remove it.

I took the time to search the words “equity” and “equality” in the

dictionary. We use them almost interchangeably in our language, but of

course, their meanings are very different. Equality has to do with

giving everyone the exact same resources. Equity involves distributing

resources based on the needs of the recipients.

In an

article on mentalfloss.com, Ellen Gutoskey

writes:

“As George Washington University’s Milken School of Public Health

explains, recognizing the difference between equality and equity is

important in just about every sphere of life — public health, politics,

education, racial justice and more.

“If each public school in a certain county receives 150 new laptops,

that’s technically equal. But it doesn’t factor in that some of those

schools might be located in high-income districts where most of the

students…have their own laptops. Instead, officials should allocate the

devices according to which schools have the greatest need for them. That

way they can minimize the chance that dozens of laptops will end up

gathering dust at one school, while another doesn’t have enough to go

around.”

I think that this has been articulated by some of my rural

colleagues very well — the countless ways we could see political

representation, and the equity versus equality thereof, in the same way.

I sincerely hope the commission will heed this in their work.

Of course, this process and the deliberations will be a balancing

act. Highly capable, non-partisan people will make the decisions.

However, if this bill is passed in its present form and the commission

is not directed to abide by a provision to protect our largest rural

constituencies, I believe it’ll translate into frustration, anxiety,

disappointment, disillusionment and, most importantly, inequity of

representation for the very many rural citizens in our province. For

that reason, I am not supportive of Bill 7. Thank you for my time

today.

[3:15 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: I rise to continue the debate on this profound legislation, which

could have implications on how our province moves forward and, most

certainly, will create a future for how British Columbians are

represented. Truly, there may not be a more important bill than Bill 7

in how we move forward. I was trying to figure out what the title of

this debate speech would be. I came up with equity for democracy

because, truly, I believe in both, and I don’t think you can have one

without the other.

Just recently I was reminded that a bridge has no allegiance to

either side. Well, this House certainly has allegiances, but right now I

urge us all to focus on being a bridge that needs to be created to span

the many facets of our communities and of our province. I’m not sure if

my riding is actually rural or urban. Hopefully, that allows me a unique

perspective as a bridge, as one who can describe both the intricacies of

an urban riding as well as the difficulties facing rural.

British Columbians require a voice. A voice enables

de­mocracy. They need to be heard, seen and known by those that

represent their interests, but also their hopes and dreams. It is the

role of this bill and this House to ensure that we build the bridges

between the interests of all in a way that does not have

allegiances.

I understand that this review is necessary and that it follows

every second election. I appreciate the Electoral Boundaries Commission

and their difficult task to examine the current electoral boundaries and

make alterations as needed to keep up with the changing demographics of

the province. While the appointing of this commission is routine, I

question the changes proposed in the legislation before us, as it seeks

to remove protections that have been put in place to ensure rural

British Columbians have equity in democracy.

I hope that as this commission is appointed, we pay particular

attention to the change in demographics in B.C., but also the total

demographics present. I ask that we ensure that there’s an openness to

seek fair and equitable representation.

Specifically, this bill seeks to remove statutory protections for

three regions: Cariboo-Thompson, Columbia-Kootenay and the North. These

regions have been protected because while they have a lower population

than the densely populated Lower Mainland, they are vast geographic

regions full of diverse people who deserve to be fairly represented in

Victoria.

We’ve just heard from the member for Peace River North that his

riding is 32 times the size of the Lower Mainland. I have a little bit

of a personal perspective. My uncle was an MP with one of the largest

ridings not only in Alberta but in all of Canada. I remember him, as a

child, never being home because when he wasn’t in Ottawa, he was all

over his riding seeing parades, going to events, attending meetings,

meeting with constituents, going to funerals. He had a very difficult

task and a very difficult riding — that, coupled with winter roads,

being stuck in blizzards, not being able to get home.

The purpose of this Electoral Boundaries Commission is to make

sure that the political boundaries in the pro­vince are drawn in

such a way that everyone, including those in our northern ridings, has

effective representation. What is effective? What’s an effective MLA? Is

it someone who spends all of their time on roads? Is it someone that

spends all of their time travelling rather than meeting?

[3:20 p.m.]

This is the reason that the Electoral Boundaries Commission itself

had said that effective representation is not simply anchored to the

equality of population. A 2015 re­port says that factors like

geography, community history, community interests and minority

representation” should be considered when deciding how to draw electoral

boun­daries. It acknowledges and leaves space for the fact that

the needs of Nimpo Lake are very different from those of Burnaby and

those of Elkford are very different than those of my local riding in

Kelowna-Mission.

Our current electoral boundaries in rural B.C. recognize the

unique circumstances of these places and the reality that while they may

not presently have as large a population as other ridings, there is no

way local residents could be properly represented if the boundaries were

expanded to reach the proposed electoral quotient.

Considering these aspects and taking them into account is a form

of equity. As when we speak of rights, freedoms and representation, we

can’t just focus on the equal, but the equitable. I’m so pleased that my

colleague from Surrey South just previously discussed this. I love the

example that she used about computers.

I’m going to show a couple more examples to show the difference

between equality and equity. Let’s assume I wanted to distribute

vaccines to a province. If wanted equality, I would simply give every

single person the same amount of vaccine. If I wanted equity, however,

things become much more complicated. How do I distribute the vaccine

fairly or justly?

It would be equal to give the same vaccine doses to someone, let’s

say, with a compromised immune system like cancer, but it would not be

equitable. In order to be equitable, that cancer victim should take both

of their doses at the prescribed time to ensure that their immune system

is brought to the same level as mine, with a chance of fighting

COVID-19. It would be equal to give us both one dose. It’s equitable to

give two doses to that other person before I would have my

first.

We chose, as a society, to be equitable in how we gave out our

vaccinations. We gave those first to highest transmission, to those who

are most at risk or vulnerable and then those who were in essential

work. We were equitable. It’s far easier and takes way less time to just

be equal, but then we’ve missed the point of democracy.

Here’s another example. I have five kids. They are all different

heights. But if I wanted to make them all the same height, I couldn’t be

equal. Equal would just give them all the same stepstool. That would

make them taller but still different heights. To make them the same

height, I would have to give them different heights of

stepstools.

To my son Mik, who is 6 foot 6 — he would require none. To Dom and

Connor, my other son and stepson, who are 6 foot 1 — they would require

a five-inch stepstool to reach the height of Mik. To my stepson Austin,

who is 5 foot 11 — he would require a seven-inch stepstool. And to my

daughter Zovya, as she is only 5 foot 7 — she would require an 11-inch

step stool.

If I took these stepstool measurements and simply made them into a

way that we could equitize our regions and our electoral districts, we

could see how we need to be equitable. Different heights. Different

sizes of ridings. Different stepstools. Different measurements.

Different numbers within each of the ridings. Equitable

outcome.

Why is this important? Well, the Supreme Court has determined that

we must make it so. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was challenged by

a court case in 1991. The reference case is the province of Saskatchewan

electoral boundaries. The court determined that “the purpose of the

right to vote enshrined in

section 3 of the Charter is not equality of

voting power per se, but the right to ‘effective representation.’” The

right to vote “comprises many factors,” of which equality is but

one.

[3:25 p.m.]

The court further stated that “deviations from absolute voter

parity…may be justified on the grounds of practical impossibility or the

provision of more effective representation. Factors like geography,

community history, community interests and minority representation need

to be considered to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively

represent the diversity of our social mosaic.”

To be equal, give every riding the same number of people, but that

is not equitable, and our society, as evidenced even by our vaccine

rollout, is no longer wanting equal, but equitable.

As I listened to my colleague from Cowichan Valley, I agree with

her on much of what she said. This is a difficult bill to debate, as it

seems self-serving. But I think that looks at the wrong aspect. I’m not

looking at what it does to the electoral boundary lines. I’m looking at

what it does to the representation of the people. To be effective in

representation, it needs to be equitable. To be effective, we should not

have changed the guidelines in this bill that protects that which we

need for equity.

There’s another aspect that the Leader of the Third Party and I

agree on, and that is a love of democracy. For democracy to be real,

it’s not equal; it’s equitable. I will continue to stand up for

democracy. In fact, that is my duty as a member of this House and as the

elected representative for Kelowna-Mission.

So what does it mean to create equity for British Columbians?

Well, it means we need to look at where they live, their needs, their

dreams and how they are served. Additionally, we must consider that a

large percentage of First Nations communities in B.C. are located in the

regions that are set to have statutory protections removed.

My riding is a bridge — a bridge between urban and rural. I have

farmers and tech companies. I have mining companies and aerospace

industries. I have small businesses and government agencies. I have

consulting firms, construction companies, suppliers, manufacturers and

so much more. But that’s not the situation of all ridings. Some ridings

take a full day, two days, to drive across and have much more

complexity, mobile offices, long days in cars and oftentimes much less

frequent visits, ridings that are literally tens of thousands of acres

large.

What does equity look like for these ridings? It’s been suggested

by the Attorney General that the stepstool for these ridings would be

connectivity. Well, how do we connect? Internet, phone, roads? Well, I

can assure you that there are times in some of these rural ridings that

they are completely disconnected. Many don’t have Internet to these

ridings, never mind high speed. And phones? Well, they can be down for

weeks just with land lines. If not, much of these areas don’t actually

have cell coverage.

So what is equitable? Well, around 30 percent of First Nations in

British Columbia live in the North and the Cariboo-Thompson regions —

some in incredibly remote locations. We need to ensure that they also

have equitable access to the representation that they are entitled to

under the law. In light of this, we need to maintain a system that makes

sure that communities of such varying needs can be effectively

represented in our legislature.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Of course, we also need to ensure that regions with growing

populations are properly represented. This equity doesn’t take the

stepstool of another riding. But perhaps a riding that has 11 MLAs

working for one hospital or with one council and mayor doesn’t require

the same height of a stepstool as another.

We know the cities of Surrey, Vancouver and those in Fraser

Valley, for example, have seen significant growth in recent years. The

electoral boundaries will need to be adjusted to accommodate this

growth, and that will mean adding new ridings in some of these rapidly

growing regions.

[3:30 p.m.]

What is equitable in these areas? At the end of the day, the

ability for MLAs to connect with constituents is vital to an effective

democracy, to effective representation. As such, neither the number of

constituents nor the size of an electoral district should serve as a

barrier for a British Columbian having access to the representation they

need and are entitled to. We need to protect the trust between elected

officials and electors and not dilute it like this legislation seeks to

do.

For this to be equitable, we need to look at all of the

complexities and consider geography as well as the number of

stakeholders in that geography. Members of this House need to be active

participants in their communities and need to be able to get to various

places and spaces within their ridings.

I only have one school district, one city council, one health

authority, one First Nation and one regional district. It takes me 30

minutes to cross my riding. How is that going to be made equal to a

riding that has exponentially more complexities than that?

We need to look at these ridings holistically. The pandemic

showed, more than ever, there were cracks in access to health care for

rural and remote ridings, with different issues emerging in the urban.

How do we create ridings that take that all into consideration? Who

knows this better than the MLAs and constituents for these

ridings?

You can see by this debate speech that I don’t have all of the

answers. I have the question: does this legislation have the necessary

guidance to create an equitably represented B.C.? I would argue that the

NDP government has taken out the very clause that has attempted to do

this.

A. Wilkinson: I rise, of course, to engage in the debate on Bill 7, the

Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act. This sounds like the

usual kind of procedural thing that happens in this House, things that

aren’t of particular interest to the general public. But this one is,

because this is about the nature of our democracy here in British

Columbia and about how we represent the people of British Columbia, the

people of British Columbia who inhabit one million square kilometres of

land.

Whenever I think of that huge area of land, I’m re­minded of

my introduction to northern British Columbia. It happened when I had

finished my medical training. One of the first things we did…. A friend

and I drove up to Quesnel, my first time ever north of Cache Creek. We

went around Bowron Lake. I thought we’d been to northern British

Columbia. How much more could there be? It was big, wide-open spaces,

beautiful forests, lovely waterways, a very enjoyable journey, a lovely

trip.

Then I got a job in Dease Lake. Then I found out about the real

northern British Columbia. I was told in Dease Lake that the only real

business was a gas station. They sell frozen food out of a freezer as a

courtesy to people driving by who didn’t know they had to have all their

groceries with them. They also had occasional shipments of fresh fruit

and vegetables, but that’s it. There is no pharmacy. There is no ICBC

agent. There is no source of entertainment, other than what you could

get off satellite TV at the time. You’re on your own. Take care of

yourself.

How did you get there? Well, at that time, Canadian Airlines was

flying. A two-hour trip on a Boeing 737 to Fort St. John. Turn around

there. A one-hour flight to Fort Nelson. Turn around there. A one-hour

flight to Watson Lake, Yukon. Pick up the vehicle that actually belonged

to the Ministry of Health. Get in the vehicle and drive for three hours

back into British Columbia, south to Dease Lake. Notice the gas station.

Notice the health clinic with the little bit of housing attached to it

for the doctor who came in and out once a month. Some houses. That’s it.

That’s the real northern British Columbia.

[3:35 p.m.]

I quickly learned that Highway 16, which goes across British

Columbia from Jasper, through Valemount, up acr­oss through Prince

George, through McBride, through Dunster and then across through all the

communities to Prince Rupert…. We think of that, most of us, as the far

northern limit of British Columbia. That highway is half­way up

the province. The bulk of British Columbia’s territory is north of

Highway 16, more than half a million square kilometres of land up

there.

We, in this chamber, seek to represent that area when we can see

Washington state out of our back window. We’ve heard that someone could

see Russia from their house. We can see America from this House, but we

cannot see anything off Vancouver Island for the 1,000 miles north to

the Yukon border.

So how do we represent those people in this chamber? I take myself

back to Dease Lake. We had a few episodes of major injuries while I was

there; a woman who went into early labour as well. We flew them to

Terrace, 400 miles south — 600 kilometres — chartered aircraft. For a

major head injury, we flew them at night, in a single-engine plane with

no navigation system, back north to Watson Lake, and then a jet picked

them up to take them down to St. Paul’s. That’s life in northern British

Columbia, and we have the obligation in this House to find ways to

represent that way of life.

How do they do it in the USA? They have two senators for every

state. Wyoming has half a million people — two senators. California has

40 million people — two senators. Alaska has about 600,000 — two

senators. They accomplish it, in the most powerful elected body in the

world, by having disproportionate representation for rural

America.

Our own federal House of Commons has representation for Nunavut.

So 30,000 people get an MP. And 40,000 people in the Northwest

Territories get their own MP. Yukon, 30,000 people — they get their own

MP. Why? Because it’s critically important that those northern parts of

Canada have appropriate representation in Ottawa, where all the

decisions that affect them are so consequential.

Return to British Columbia. Think about the services that are

provided: health, education, social services, transportation. They are

all, essentially, driven out of decisions in this room, at the farthest

southwest corner of British Columbia. There’s a little spot west of here

that’s actually farther south than here, but there’s almost nowhere

farther south and west in British Columbia than this House. It’s a

colonial remnant. The capital probably should have been in Quesnel, for

that matter, but here we are. It was once in New Westminster, but that

didn’t work out, so here we are back in Victoria.

So how do we represent that population? Well, we could try to do

it without crossing municipal boundaries. Ridings don’t cross municipal

boundaries in the city of Vancouver or the city of Burnaby or the city

of Delta, but they do on the North Shore. They do cross the municipal

boundaries in Richmond-Queensborough, which includes a chunk of New

Westminster. So we’ve decided to violate that rule right out of the

gate. It’s always been that way.

What are the outer bounds of this situation of trying to represent

people in British Columbia? The Supreme Court of Canada decided in 1991.

You should take the average population of the province…. It’s now

something over 5.1 million. We won’t really know until the census

results are in. It stalled because of COVID, so the normal growth curve

has flattened.

So take 5.1 million, divide into 93 seats, and get a number in the

mid 50,000s. That won’t cut it for northern British Columbia. The

Supreme Court of Canada recognized that and said: “Well, you can go 25

percent above or 25 percent below.” So let’s call it 56,000. That makes

it about 42,000 to about 70,000 that could be the represented

population. That won’t cut it in northern British Columbia. So the

Supreme Court of Canada said: “Well, in special circumstances, you can

go below that.”

[3:40 p.m.]

How was that dealt with in the past? We, as a government,

recognized the special circumstances in the Kootenays and in northern

British Columbia and said: “Those areas need to be specifically excepted

as having special circumstances. It’s not optional. The people in Dease

Lake de­serve to have representation. The people in Fort Nelson

deserve to have adequate representation. You can’t treat them the way

you treat people in my riding.

Many of us have never been north of Cache Creek, north of Williams

Lake, north of Quesnel or north of Prince George. It’s a different

world. I’ve had the good fortune to visit all 87 ridings in this

province. I doubt that many people in this House have ever done that.

It’s a learning experience that is unforgettable. You see a lot of the

interior of airplanes. You do a lot of driving, and you do a lot of it

in bad weather.

We who are here in Victoria or who live in Vancouver, as I do,

tend to forget that weather is a serious thing north of Cache Creek.

People die because of bad weather. People are killed in motor vehicle

accidents because of bad weather. They drive in whiteouts out of

necessity. Air ambulances can’t fly in Prince Rupert because of dense

fog. We tend to forget that.

The North and our rural areas are special. Their demographics are

special. We know that. Their age profile is very different because they

tend to be younger populations who are able to deal with the

circumstances they’re faced with. Older people tend to retire farther

south.

They’re also a much higher percentage of Indigenous people in

ridings north of Prince George. These are the true traditional

territories of the First Nations, like the Tahltan, the Kaska Dena, the

Blueberry River First Na­tions. These are communities that require

representation, and we’ve heard in this debate that there has been no

consultation with the First Nations of British Columbia about this

change in representation in this House. That’s apparently going to be

left to the Electoral Boundaries Commission, and that is a huge task

which cannot be taken lightly. It reinforces the argument for special

representation for northern British Columbia.

I have talked about access to health care and how it’s a huge

issue in northern British Columbia. When I was there in Dease Lake,

there was one orthopedic surgeon in northern British Columbia. There was

one neurosurgeon. There have been no neurosurgeons, zero, since I left

Dease Lake, for 35 years. We have to think: how do we provide these

provincial services, and how do our MLAs representing those areas

advocate on behalf of their community, if their numbers are going to be

depleted?

Transportation, of course, is a massive issue, with the ridings in

northern British Columbia often having thousands upon thousands of

kilometres of provincial roads that need maintenance, that need to be

properly cared for and that are dangerous in certain places and at

certain times of the year. Those MLAs advocate on behalf of their

communities to make sure those services are properly tak­en care

of.

It’s similar in the Northwest Territories. That’s why they have

their own MP for 30,000 people, because they have to deal with those

issues in Ottawa. Nunavut, as you probably know, basically has no roads.

It’s not feasible. They depend on air transportation, and their MP

carries that message to Ottawa every day.

Let’s compare that northern experience with my own riding. It

crossed my mind the other day to time how long it would take to drive

from the west side of my riding to the east side of my riding in

Vancouver-Quilchena. To cover those four kilometres, I actually got

stopped at three traffic lights, and with that extra delay because of

the traffic lights, it took me a grand total of six minutes. My riding,

north to south, is five kilometres. The total area is 21 square

kilometres.

I have 55,000 people in the riding, about the provincial average.

There are no hospitals. There are no provincial roads. There are no

bridges at all. There are schools, but there are no universities, no

colleges. There are never forest fires, it goes without saying, and

there are never any floods. Those are routine things in northern British

Columbia.

Think about my access to health care. I can walk from my house to

B.C. Children’s Hospital, the Cancer Agency, the Red Cross, Vancouver

General Hospital and all of the arthritis services in British Columbia.

All of that tertiary care, at extreme expense to the taxpayers of

British Columbia, is within walking distance of my house — less than two

kilometres.

[3:45 p.m.]

Compare that to Peace River North, where it’s an

842-​kilometre drive from the Yukon border, taking 9½ hours, to

the Taylor Bridge on the Peace River. That’s just one of their roads.

That riding is 160,000 square kilometres. That makes it 8,000 times the

size of my riding, with almost half the population. If that’s not

special circumstances requiring specific treatment in this act, I don’t

know what is.

It is absurd to think that we are not going to designate those

ridings in the North and in the Kootenays for special treatment.

Instead, this government has decided to strip them of that status and

leave it up to the Electoral Boundaries Commission. It’s just plain

wrong. Census populations won’t be known until next year, so this’ll be

a special challenge. Where are these extra seats going to go? Where the

population has grown. Where has it grown? We don’t know. Until the

census result results are in, in early 2022, it’s a guess.

My riding is shrinking because the population is aging. Young

people can’t afford to move into it, so they’re moving away. As children

become adults, like my own kids, they’re all moving away. The same thing

is true on the North Shore: some ridings are actually shrinking in

population. There’ll be some minor adjustment. I might get a couple of

more streets’ worth of population added to my riding, but those are

minor adjustments which make little difference to the population being

represented.

Northern British Columbia is 330,000 people total, in an area

that’s the size of France. France has more than 60 million people. We

think of those 330,000 people. It’s the same as adding Richmond and

Delta. It’s the same as the capital regional district here, which would

not even be visible on a map of the Peace River country.

Peace River North is 160,000 square kilometres. It has 33,000

people. It’s larger than all of England, where 65 million people live.

If you actually put England into Peace River North, there’d still be

room for Belgium, with another 11½ million people. In that area in

Europe, there aren’t 33,000 people; there are 78 million.

We have extremely low-density ridings in the north of British

Columbia with extremely high needs for provincial services — health,

transportation, emergency services, education — that are simply not

applicable to where I live. I say to my colleagues in the North and the

Kootenays: you deserve special treatment. It is not feasible to

represent an area that big with even fewer MLAs by telling them they

don’t need representation. That’s tough. Those ridings are effectively

going to be transferred to Metro Vancouver. That’s not good enough, and

that’s why this legislation should not pass.

When we think of what we need to do, we need to recognize that

this is a big and complicated province with special circumstances in

many corners. Prince Rupert is a small town, on the west coast at the

end of a railway. It had no road access until the 1960s; it was by train

or by ship. That is totally different from the lifestyle that has been

lived in my area since about 1920. We’re on very different paths in how

these communities are growing and developing, and that needs to be

recognized in this chamber by giving them the special treatment they

deserve.

We cannot treat northern British Columbia and the Koo­tenays

as if they’re a suburb of Victoria or a kind of forgotten corner of the

Lower Mainland. It does not work that way. The provincial investments

into those ridings need to be much, much higher on a per-capita basis

simply to deal with the roads, let alone the cost of moving patients in

and out for appropriate medical care. As I said, you could walk to

Vancouver General Hospital from my house in about 15 minutes. Try that

from Dease Lake, especially when you’re critically ill. Special

circumstances most definitely apply to northern British

Columbia.

[3:50 p.m.]

This is part of what defines us as a country. We are not Belgium.

We are not Ireland. We are not Tennessee. We are not California. We have

this vast area across the north of this country, which contains

Indigenous People who are unique in the world. It needs to be recognized

that it’s part of the fabric of Canada. It’s part of what makes us who

we are.

British Columbia, as we all know, is the most challenging terrain

in the entire country. We have 203 First Na­tions in this

province,

whereas some prairie provinces have two or three. We have an

intriguing, gorgeous, million square kilometres of landscape that we are

responsible for in this House, and we have to take that seriously. We

cannot create these enormous swaths of 200,000 or 300,000 square

kilometres and say: “You’ve got an MLA. What are you worrying about?”

That’s not who we are.

It’s part of being Canadian, part of being British Columbian to

say that our identity revolves around that wilderness, that landscape,

that grand scale of geography. We need to make sure it’s recognized in

this House. The people who live there are not living the same lifestyle

as the people in my riding or the people in the riding in which this

House sits. The issues are not the same.

Representation matters in northern British Columbia and in the

Kootenays, where so much commerce and traffic and exchange goes across

the Alberta border. They need special representation. What this act does

is take away that recognition of who we are. It degrades the

representation by saying: “You’re not special at all. We’re all

basically the same.”

We are not all basically the same in this province, be­cause the living

circumstances…. I see a colleague from across the way who lives on

Kootenay Lake. It’s a very different way of life than it is in

Kitsilano. We have to accept and recognize that and validate it by the

way we elect people in this House.

We have to accept our ethnic diversity and the increasing

recognition of our obligations to work closely with First Nations across

British Columbia, especially those nations in northern British Columbia,

which have traditionally been almost forgotten in this House. They need

the representation they deserve.

We cannot accept the idea that these special circumstances that

the courts have left open should be stripped out of this statute. That’s

not who we are as a society. That’s not who we are as a province. It

should not proceed, and this legislation should be defeated.

We have to recognize that British Columbia is an exciting place.

We have to recognize that British Columbia is a very diverse place. We

have to recognize that British Columbia is an enormous landscape that

requires special treatment for those areas that are so thinly populated

and so fantastically diverse that they really define who we are. Even

when we sit in this British imperialistic marble-lined chamber, we’re

still British Columbians, we’re still defined by that landscape. and we

still need to be proud of who we are and proud to represent everybody in

British Columbia.

P. Milobar: It’s my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 7, this electoral

boundary act. We’ve heard at great length around the size of the

ridings. I don’t think that comes as any surprise to people in British

Columbia that have been tuning into this.

I want to touch on a few aspects of why it is so critical and why

this bill is flawed in respect to taking away the special provisions

around those 17 ridings, because if it was as simple as rep by pop, we

wouldn’t have special dispensation provided by the Supreme Court

already. As we’ve heard, we wouldn’t see that in federal politics.

Certainly, we wouldn’t need almost 2 to 3 to 1 municipalities set up to

every MLA in this place, because otherwise, you could run the Metro

area, you could run the capital regional district or you could run other

areas as one city.

Why not? It’s not that big of a geographic area. Surely that must

work. Surely the needs of one area of the Lower Mainland, of Surrey, are

the exact same as Port Coquitlam. Why not just have one government? It

doesn’t work. That’s why, and that’s why the provisions in the bill as

they stand, protecting those 17 ridings, are so critical.

[3:55 p.m.]

I want to make it very, very clear, because elections come and go.

Members will come and go from this chamber. It wasn’t that long ago that

the colours on the electoral map were almost the exact opposite of what

they are right now. The NDP were predominantly an Interior party. The

B.C. Liberals were predominantly Lower Mainland and several seats on the

Island. Things change over time, so we should not be looking to create

legislation that’s trying to game the system.

By protecting 17 ridings, we’re not telling people how they have

to vote. We’re telling people that it’s reasonable in a land mass the

size of where those 17 ridings are, which probably accounts for around

90 percent of the land mass, maybe 95 percent of the land mass of

British Columbia. It’s not unreasonable that they would have about 18

percent of the seats in this chamber.

We have not heard one person from our side of this House speak

against the idea of enabling the commission to add six more seats to

this chamber. We recognize, with population growth, that those six seats

make sense. We don’t know exactly where they may be. There may be one in

the Kelowna area, if you are to believe the projected census. There will

likely be five to six in the Lower Mainland.

But we shouldn’t strip away those 17 seats to add even more into

those populated areas. Seventeen seats out of 93. That’s 76 votes to 17.

I don’t think that’s overrepresenting rural British Columbia.

Why is this important? It’s because we all are taxpayers in

British Columbia. Yet we don’t all have the same access to services. So

let’s look at health care, as we heard from the member from Vancouver

just recently, just before me. Let’s look at health care.

In the city I’m from, Kamloops, I was chair of the hospital

district at the time that we managed to secure a half-a-billion-dollar

hospital expansion in Kamloops. That came with a price tag to the local

taxpayer, however, of $200 million. Residents in Kamloops and the

surrounding areas had to guarantee $200 million on their property taxes

to secure the other $300 million from the province. The provision of

that is so that we would also receive some provincial funding towards

providing B.C. Transit.

Yet in the Lower Mainland, where that same provision was in place

but in reverse, they were given the deal that 100 percent of health care

costs would be paid for by the province, but they were on the hook for

TransLink. This is why the numbers of representatives do start to

matter. That has changed. That has changed under this

government.

We saw this government take over the Pattullo Bridge project,

which was a TransLink–owned asset. The cost to replace that was supposed

to be borne by TransLink, by the residents of the Lower Mainland.

Instead, this government, with the majority of seats in that area,

decided to play politics with it and turned around and said: “We’ll take

it over. We’ll take on that $1.4 billion and spread it out across this

whole province and have every taxpayer in this province pay for that

piece of infrastructure.”

That is a very local piece of infrastructure that was supposed to

be paid for in good faith by the residents in that particular area. The

trade-off was that the $1.1 billion St. Paul’s Hospital — which is

climbing in costs, which is fine; it’s health care, and it’s expensive —

was going to be 100 percent paid for by the province. So when you come

from the Interior, and you see side deals like that, let alone SkyTrain

and others, you don’t begrudge that urban areas need very expensive

infrastructure to be able to meet the demand of the whole

province.

But when you start to see costing formulas change on the strength

of where the seats are, it worries you for the future. It worries you.

What happens when those 17 seats get shrunk even further? They are large

geographic areas.

We heard the member for Stikine make it sound like we were

complaining and whining on this side of the House about having to drive

long distances. No, we are not. We accept that as part of our way of

life. We accept that as part of our job. We were actually trying to

represent that it makes it very problematic for the people we represent

if they choose to try to come to our offices and meet with us. It puts

their lives in peril in the middle of winter.

[4:00 p.m.]

The member for Stikine knows full well what it’s like to have

people drive in bad conditions — sometimes with not the most

mechanically sound vehicles and sometimes with not the greatest tires on

them, despite what a law in a book might say — for them to try to get

access to government services, let alone their MLA. That’s the point of

this.

We already do not have an equal province. We try to make it

equitable. We try to make access to education as reasonable as possible,

already recognizing that geography and population make it tough to offer

the same services in every centre. We have alr