British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, May 6, 2014

20140506pm-Hansard-v12n2

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Tuesday, May 6, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 12, Number 2

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Second Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation......................................................................................................Hon. Don McRae Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ....................................................................................................................................... Marc Dalton Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) .............................................

Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Scott (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr. Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon.

Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Hon. Don (BC Liberal) .................................................. Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon.

Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Darryl (BC Liberal) ....................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon.

Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................ Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon.

John (BC Liberal) ................................................ Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal) ........................................ Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ............................................................................Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley...........................................................................Hon.

Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................

Bill Routley Delta North ..................................................................................Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola....................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon.

Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan .........................................................

Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon. John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................

Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie .............................................................

Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon. Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 49; New Democratic 34; Independent 2

CONTENTS Tuesday, May 6, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 3531 Bill 2 — Electoral Boundar ies Commission Amendment Act, 2014 (continued) K. Corrigan S. Fraser N. Simons J. Horgan Hon. S. Anton Bill 24 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014 Hon. N. Letnick N. Simons Hon. B. Bennett L. Popham L. Th roness N.

Macdonald Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 3572 Estimates: Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services (continued) G. Heyman Hon. A. Wilkinson V . Huntington D. Eby A. Weaver Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training Hon. S. Bond H. Bains

TUESDAY , MAY 6, 2014 Th e House met at 1:33 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Orders of the Day Hon. T. Stone: Here in the main chamber of the as- sembly I call continued second reading on Bill 2, inti- tuled Electoral Boundar ies Commission Amendment Act, 2014. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call the continued estimates of the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services. Second Reading of Bills BILL 2 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 (continued) K. Corrigan: I had made some remarks prior to the lunch break on Bill 2, and I'm pleased to stand and con- tinue on with remarks on that bill. [1335] [M. Dalton in the chair.] Bill 2 is the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014.

What this bill essentially does is directs or statutorily requires the Electoral Boundaries Commission to make recommendations that do not in- crease the number of MLAs from the current 85. Th at's the fi rst, main content of the bill. But also — and this is the part that I have real concerns about — the bill directs that the Boundaries Commission not decrease represen- tation in some of the more sparsely populated areas of the province. Th ey are defi ned as in Cariboo-Th ompson, in Columbia-Kootenay and in the north region.

Th e impact of that is that if the bill passes, the com- mission will be required to make recommendations that protect some 17 seats, including two in Kamloops and in Prince George, even if they have populations that are too small to justify the level of representation. Of course, at the same time, what that will mean is that meanwhile constituencies in the Lower Mainland in cit- ies — particularly like Surrey, which is growing quickly, but also in my community of Burnaby — that already have a relatively large number of voters per MLA would be allowed to grow further without representation.

When I was speaking about this before lunch, I talked about the fact that voting is a fundamental right and part of our democracy and that we really have to treat it as a sacred trust. If we are going to make any changes to how we vote and to representation for voting in this province, then I submitted that those changes must be seen to be impeccably non-partisan, impeccably transparent and impeccably defensible. It is not just whether this legisla- tion is impeccable in terms of being non-partisan but also whether or not it is seen to be non-partisan.

When you consider that of the 17 seats that are being protected, 11 of those seats are Liberal seats, in some ways it is not…. I was going to say it doesn't matter. It does matter whether it is intentional or not, but we also have to remember what I said a few moments ago: some- thing must be seen not to be political just as much as whether or not it's political. When you fi nd that 11 of the 17 seats are Liberal seats, then it raises some questions.

Th ere is also lack of information, lack of criteria, about why it was that the particular areas are protected, par- ticularly in areas around Prince George and Kamloops, which do not appear to me to be particularly rural areas — why some of those areas are being protected when others are not. I have real concerns. It's a fundamental tenet of fairness and of the fact that we want to be seen to be transparent and defendable and non-partisan in this House.

Th e other reason that I'm concerned is not just that 11 of the 17 seats are Liberal seats but also that this could appear — and to many does appear — to be an attempt to fi x what was a political problem that the Liberals had when they had a fi asco and pushback the last time we had an Electoral Boundaries Commission. Th ere's a sugges- tion by many that this is an attempt to avoid that political problem that they had the last time. On two fronts we have the appearance of a political motivation for the legislation.

Th at concerns me, because above all else I think, as I said, we want this to be trans- parent, particularly when we're talking about the funda- mental right to vote. In addition, one of the other things that we have to protect is the integrity of the body that is making the recommendations. Really, when you prescribe what the outcome is going to be, what the result is going to be, by saying that 17 seats have to be protected and there will only be 85…. [1340] Th at sets off all sorts of other relationships in terms of how many seats and where those seats are going to be.

When that happens, then the integrity of the Electoral Boundaries Commission is challenged. I think, fundamentally, that is probably my greatest concern with this piece of legislation — that this is being taken away from what is supposed to be an independent Electoral Boundaries Commission, which makes its de- cisions on the basis of the Charter, of the Constitution of Canada, and makes its decisions on the basis of principles that have long been established in our courts across this country, for over 100 years.

We're talking about courts as high as the Supreme Court of Canada, which made it clear that individual seats should be based on the funda- mental principle that we all know: one person, one vote. 3531

British Columbia Debates3532 Tuesday, May 6, 2014 On that basis, that should be the fundamental prin- ciple. We should all be, as far as possible, equally repre- sented across this country — in our municipalities; in this case, in our province; and federally as well. Th ere is a deviation in this piece of legislation. Th e government has brought in legislation that makes it in- evitable that there's going to be signifi cant deviation. Now, the Supreme Court of Canada and other judicial decisions have said that there can be some deviation.

It's understandable that there can be a deviation up to about 25 percent, recognizing that there are real chal- lenges, particularly in some rural areas. In this province it's absolutely recognized and acknowledged that there are some challenges in terms of serving constituencies. Th ere are reasons that we do have a higher percentage deviation in some municipalities in some areas, but it is getting worse. Of course, we're going to have an under- representation in fast-growing urban areas like Surrey.

Th at's diffi cult to explain, particularly when one con- siders that another principle that has been part of the jurisprudence and the practice in this country for over 100 years is the recognition that we need to protect not only geographically and make sure that there's geo- graphically eff ective representation…. Th at's really the test — whether we have eff ective representation but also whether or not, as part of that eff ective representation, for example, minorities are represented. In my community….

Surrey is another area that is fast growing and will have a higher number of voters per constituency under this legislation, or could well have. Minority representation is, therefore, diluted. That is another challenge, just like geography is a challenge and a fully acknowledged challenge in some parts of this province. Eff ective representation is a chal- lenge for those of us, including me, that have a very high minority representation in our community. Th at is also recognized in the Supreme Court of Canada and other judicial decisions in this country. I do have a concern in that regard as well.

My concern, as well, is that what we could have is a legal challenge. We could have a challenge as to whether or not this is consistent with our constitution. What we have is that essentially 17 of the province's 85 seats are going to be deemed to be extraordinary — extraordin- ary in terms of being allowed to have more than the 25 percent deviation. Th at is only supposed to happen in extraordinary cir- cumstances, and I would suggest that there is something skewed with the legislation and with the scheme if we are, in fact, going to end up with 17 of our 85 seats being deemed to be extraordinary.

Th at just seems like a dis- proportionate number of seats. [1345] As a result of that and the fact that, as I've said, there are going to be real concerns about representation in some urban areas and underrepresentation in urban areas, I think it's very likely that there will be a legal chal- lenge to this legislation. To me, that is a problem as well. We know that we have a government on the other side that has been repeatedly challenged and has lost — lost in many cases. To me, that brings government and the respect for government in disrepute.

People don't have confi dence that when laws are passed by this govern- ment, they are, in fact, the law of the province, the law of the land. Th at concerns me as well. We could have the disrup- tion, the lack of certainty that is associated with yet another piece of Liberal legislation that ends up, poten- tially, in court — not just the Supreme Court here but the Court of Appeal and, again, the Supreme Court of Canada. I don't believe that it's a legacy that a govern- ment should be proud of when their laws have been taken to the Supreme Court of Canada and have been success- fully challenged repeatedly.

I fear that that's what is go- ing to happen. When the subject of that challenge is something as fundamental as our right to vote, that is a real concern — that legislation that this government is bringing in is something that could be challenged, and successfully challenged. And when it is the right to vote, that is very, very concerning to me. When asked about whether the government has a legal opinion on whether this bill is likely to support a court challenge, the Justice Minister said that the process has been good.

"I'm not going to talk about legal opinions,"' the minister said. 'Th e legislation, I think, stands on its own." I fi nd that a very troubling response. Surely, when we are talking about something as fundamental as this, the government must be able to stand up and say clearly that they have legal opinions, strong legal opinions, and those legal opinions should be shared. Why would they not be shared? Why should the minister instead say: "I'm not going to talk about legal opinions"?

We're talking about the law, and we are talking about our system of demo- cracy, so I fi nd it very troubling that that was the response. If there have been further comments on that and if the minister has changed her mind and is, in fact, providing legal opinions now, I would welcome that. But I really don't understand. It's perfectly reasonable to request in- formation about whether or not the work has been done to demonstrate that this is, in fact, a law that will stand up in court.

Of course, think about the millions of dollars that have been wasted in legal challenges over the years, and once again, we could have exactly the same thing. I see that I'm near the end of my time. Again, this kind of legislation, which goes to the root of democracy, must be impeccable, it must be defensible, and it must be fair. I don't believe that this legislation is fair. I'm concerned about the motivation of it. I think it's a fundamental problem when we have a dangerous precedent being set of interfering with the

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 6, 2014 3533 work of the Boundaries Commission. Th at's probably the most important part of this. It constrains the commission by prescribing a number of outcomes in advance and asking them to do their work based on those prescribed outcomes, as opposed to principles. For that reason, I certainly cannot support this bill, and I would go back to the fundamental principle of our democracy — which is one person, one vote — and the principle that all citizens, regardless of where they reside in a state, are entitled to equal legislative representation.

Unfortunately, this bill does not respect that prin- ciple. It does not respect the integrity of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. It prescribes a scheme that is going to ensure — not possibly cause, but ensure — that we are going to have people in this province who are underrepresented and who will, therefore, have some concern and perhaps less faith in the government that represents them. Th ey are going to perhaps feel that their vote doesn't matter as much. For that reason, I will be voting against this bill. [1350] S.

Fraser: I'm taking my place in the debate on Bill 2, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014. As my colleague has just spoken so eloquently, I am going to be opposing this bill. Th ese proposed amend- ments would change the guidelines of the Electoral Boundaries Commission that they must operate under when recommending new riding boundaries to the Legislative Assembly. I have a great respect for the independence and the integrity of the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

Th eir job is a daunting one, but they have done a very good job of ensuring that there are no politics involved in the makeup of our boundaries. Th e issues of gerryman- dering and such that we've heard in various parts of the world, including this part of the world in the past…. It just takes away the honour of democracy when politics gets involved in the very creation of the boundaries to arguably benefi t one party over another.

I think that government — whoever is sitting as gov- ernment, whichever party is sitting as government — has a responsibility to the people of this province to make sure that the integrity and the independence of the Electoral Boundaries Commission and their mandate is independent and aboveboard and also has every ap- pearance, perception-wise, to the public that there is no advantage being given to one party over another in the electoral process.

We're talking about a Boundaries Commission pro- posal in legislation that would essentially constrain that commission in such a way that 20 percent, one-fi ft h, of the ridings in this province…. Th at's 17 out of 85 seats. Th e area they represent would somehow be protected as a special area, if you will. It certainly makes one ques- tion whether or not to start using the word "gerrymander" again, because 11 of those seats are Liberal seats.

One could argue that the government is bringing in Bill 2 to give themselves a distinct advantage in upcoming elections, the next election being 2017, under the fi xed elections dates that we have so far on the books. Th e bill itself before the House is actually quite brief. It's a small piece of legislation. Some of these, as we know, are hundreds of pages long. Th is one is not. For the bene- fi t of those watching at home, we're talking about 2½ pages. What the proposal puts…. It amends

section 9 by adding the following subsec- tions setting up three districts: the Cariboo-Th ompson region, which includes Cariboo North, Cariboo- Chilcotin, Fraser-Nicola, Kamloops–North Th ompson, Kamloops–South Th ompson; the Columbia-Kootenay region, including Columbia River–Revelstoke, Kootenay East, Kootenay West, Nelson-Creston; and the north re- gion, including Nechako Lakes, North Coast, Peace River North, Peace River South, Prince George–Mackenzie, Prince George–Valemount, Skeena and Stikine. Now, I have the honour of representing a largely rural constituency here on Vancouver Island.

Alberni–Pacifi c Rim is a beautiful riding, and I am very lucky to have the city of Port Alberni, in the centre of the riding; Bowser, Deep Bay, Coombs and Errington on the east side of my riding; and on the west side all of the Clayoquot Sound, Barkley Sound, all the Nuu-chah-nulth territories of the Clayoquot Sound and Barkley Sound areas, the com- munities of Hesquiaht and Ahousaht and Tla-o-qui-aht and Toquaht and Ucluelet; as well as Huu-ay-aht to the south, and further. [1355] I have a very challenging riding in my own right — geographically challenging — and I welcome that challenge.

It has a population of 43,430, in the last cen- sus. Th at's well below the average province of British Columbia. Th e average population per MLA is 52,319. I would note that my constituency, Alberni–Pacifi c Rim, was not part of the list. Alberni–Pacifi c Rim helped build the economy of this province, this great province of British Columbia. It seems like we're creating two tiers of constituencies through this bill. It seems to be total- ly arbitrary, because I represent a constituency which is largely rural, certainly has geographical challenges and has a population base well under the provincial average.

Th e question is: why are some ridings picked by this government, not by recommendations from the in- dependent commission but by this government, setting out a mandate for the commission to essentially protect some urban or rural ridings and not protect other rural ridings? Two tiers of constituencies is akin to two tiers of agricultural land in the agricultural land reserve. Th is government seems to be making an art form out of cre- ating two tiers, whether it's for boundaries under the Boundaries Commission or whether it's under Bill 24 and

British Columbia Debates3534 Tuesday, May 6, 2014 the Agricultural Land Commission. Th at's of concern. Th ere's a consistency here. Th ere's a consistent message which certainly raises concerns to me. Now, what should be happening is that this govern- ment should be allowing the commission to exercise discretion in supporting eff ective representation in rural and remote ridings. Arguably, I have such a riding also. So this is important to all of us, even when that means varying the proportional representation.

We don't believe that discretion should be overridden before the fact by the government, and that's essentially what Bill 2 is doing. We urge this government instead to give the commission the tools to make the recommen- dations independently, recommendations that are both fair and as fl exible as they need to be to ensure eff ective representation for all British Columbians, not just some British Columbians. Th is bill would severely constrain the work of the next Electoral Boundaries Commission by freezing 17 seats while capping the total number of MLAs.

Th at is a sig- nifi cant constraint on the commission's role. Th e com- mission has done…. As I have mentioned before, their job has been to man- age the boundaries of individual constituencies. We had changes before the 2009 election, if I recall. Certainly, their role…. It recommended an increase of seats at the time, and we went, in this House, from 79 seats to 85 seats. Th at's the wiggly confi guration of the front row, and actually, it has worked quite well. I was surprised by that, but it has actually worked quite well. Th e point is that the commission made the recommen- dations.

Th ey made them independent of government constraints. Adding those constraints to the commission would be counterproductive, and it would be contrary to the very premises of the independence of the commission — to make sure that no party, no one single political entity was trying to gain an advantage in future elections. Th at's about as important as you get when it comes to demo- cracy in this province.

Th is also has the eff ect, in essence, of watering down urban votes. [1400] If enacted, these proposals will mean that the average population of the proposed protected ridings — that is, the 17 ridings that I referred to, the majority of which are Liberal — will be 35,609,

whereas the average population for unprotected ridings will be 55,804. Consequently, a vote in the proposed protected regions within Bill 2 will be one and a half times more powerful than one in the unprotected regions. Now, this has been said before, but it merits being said again. Th is is questionable legally, constitutionally questionable, because the basic premise of democracy in this country, in the world is one person, one vote. Th is weights a vote. It changes that very essential premise of democracy. I just can't see why this would be happening. It's like déjà vu all over again.

In 2007, before the last work of the Boundaries Commission when they reconfi gured a number of constituencies and raised us from 79 to 85, this government under then Premier Gordon Campbell tried to do something similar. Th ey tried to infl uence this through their role as government, their authority of gov- ernment, and they did get in trouble for that. I remember standing in this House, and at the time I thought I would definitely be sanctioned by the Speaker of the day because I referred to that move as Gordymandering, as opposed to gerrymandering.

I was waiting to be, probably rightly, chastised by the Speaker. However, there was some giggling on both sides of the House, and it was let go. But I will refrain from using the fi rst name of the Premier currently. It actually would roll together pretty good too. It's not just my perception; it's the perception of many groups. B.C. Civil Liberties opposed the retention of lower-population seats during the last redistribution process, and the vast, vast majority of the 63 public sub- missions received by this government were opposed to the contents of this bill for the reasons of which I speak.

Th ere are many more, of course. We have such an important role to play as MLAs. Th ere is a lot of apathy amongst the electorate. About half of the population that are eligible to vote do not. And when people see another attempt by a government in power trying to use that power to aff ect the results of the elec- toral process in future elections, it will breed more cyni- cism. It will disenfranchise even more voters believing that the fi x is in.

We've had too much of this in the press lately around the country, around the world, where it appears that gov- ernments hungry to retain power will do anything — any means justifi es the end. Th at certainly is not helpful to the democratic process. I'm fearful that if Bill 2 passes, we're going to see less than 50 percent of people turn out for elections in the future in British Columbia. Th ose people that are disen- franchised…. I think that would be the fault of this gov- ernment should Bill 2 pass. Mine is not the only constituency that was just omit- ted from this process.

My colleague from Powell River– Sunshine Coast — similar situation. Interjection. S. Fraser: I notice the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation seems to want to take

part in this de- bate. I think it would be wise — I'm sure he would say the same thing — that democracy is something not to be gerrymandered with. But I do see that he does want to get up and speak. [1405] I know we don't have a lot of time, and hopefully, it's not just the heckle he's looking for. Th e heckle is a valu-

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 6, 2014 3535 able tool, and I do appreciate a good heckle as much as anyone, but to heckle instead of debate is ducking the issue. And you know what? I think that's shameful for a min- ister of the Crown to engage in the heckle as opposed to the debate. I will enjoy the heckle if it has any substance to it or has any sign of humour to it, but this heckle is just an echo, an extra, busy noise in my part of the debate, and I fi nd it somewhat disrespectful. Th e premise that other rural or remote or geograph- ically challenging ridings with a lower population than the average….

Th e premise that some of them are worthy of protection and others are not is, I think, a slap in the face to those constituencies that were not part of the chosen 17. My colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast is utterly ferry- or fl oatplane-dependent. Th ere's no nice road all the way through his constituency. And certain- ly, there are others — North Island; my colleague from North Island, a very similar situation — somehow ex- cluded from the chosen 17 protected ridings.

I don't believe there's been any explanation, again, from the minister or from the government side as to how or why there were 17 ridings picked that do not re- fl ect the realities of the province where other constitu- encies are just as vital and important and rural, with smaller populations, as the chosen 17. Without an ex- planation, without a justifi cation for that, Bill 2 looks even worse. When it comes to the inevitable court challenge, the challenge of the constitutionality of Bill 2, there hasn't been much from the government's explanation to say that this will pass muster in the courts.

I believe it is an aff ront to not just democracy but to the constitution of this country. I do not believe…. We've seen gerrymandering before. I remember look- ing it up in Wikipedia in our last debate in 2007. It was very, very specifi c. It was from a riding in the United States where the boundaries were arguably changed, al- tered, to benefi t a particular political party, a political en- tity, and it became famous for that. Th e term is still used today. I wish I could recall…. I believe "Gerry" was part of a name at the time too.

But we should have grown in the world and learned from history that this is simply unacceptable to the people of not just British Columbia but the people of the world — that we shouldn't be allowed to do that. It has happened in British Columbia. Th e term "Gracie's fi nger," another term that is still remembered today, came from…. It was a Social Credit move at the time. It was recognized as an attempt to seek an advantage politically by changing the boundaries to benefi t a particular person in regaining their seat and a particular party in gaining government.

I believe I've covered the general issues that I wished to. I would urge all members of the House…. We do swear an oath of offi ce, and I'm sure we all on both sides of the House — the government members and the opposition members and the independents — take that oath very seriously. [1410] So to vote yes for Bill 2, to vote yes to take away the basic premise of one person, one vote, to take away and constrain the independence of the Boundaries Commission would be, arguably, contrary to the spirit and intent and the words of that oath.

With that in mind, I would urge all members of this House, both sides, to vote this bill down in the interest of democracy and fairness in the electoral process. N. Simons: Th ank you to my colleagues who have spoken on this bill before me — Bill 2, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act. Many have stood in this House to valiantly defend ridings that have not been included in the 17 sacrosanct, protected ridings.

One of those happens to be Powell River–Sunshine Coast, and I would like to say on behalf of the residents there that we have a moat around us, so the protection you're aff ording us is in writing only. We're well protect- ed. We have a naval fl eet operated by B.C. Ferries, which manages to keep our enemies away and our friends close. It does that on a regular basis.

In terms of this act, unfortunately, the Legislature or the government of the day, our current government, has decided on a formula that redistributes our ridings in a way that, obviously, leaves us to question the motivations, shall we say, for protecting certain areas from possible redistribution, quite contrary, I think, to our principles of democracy. I wonder why we're even wading into this, because really, this is something that we should allow our in- dependent commissions and tribunals and such to deal with.

When we weigh in, we tend to muddy the waters and we tend to make it more diffi cult to ascertain what exactly is taking place. In this particular case, what we have before us is a bill that fundamentally overpoliticiz- es a decision that should really be one that's made by an independent commission — in th is case, the Boundaries Commission. So 17 ridings in this province will be allowed to be pro- tected from any sort of impingement on their boundaries, and their population, their representation, will stay the same.

Unfortunately, it does have an impact on other rid- ings, whose representation will subsequently and because of that be somewhat reduced. My concern has to do with the process by which this is taking place. I know that some ridings that were in- cluded in this particular protected area were included for reasons unknown to the members of this Legislature. I think, fundamentally, that we should know the criter- ia that government used to identify these so-called pro- tected ridings. Th e fact that the majority of them are in Liberal-held

British Columbia Debates3536 Tuesday, May 6, 2014 seats and the minority in New Democratic Party seats — I don't know whether I would belabour that point. My colleagues have all expressed their concerns and ex- pressed them very eloquently on this matter. Some have referred to it as gerrymandering or poten- tial gerrymandering. I think in this particular case that sometimes the perception is as important as the facts.

Even if no ulterior motive was present, I think the fact that that possibility is there could lead to some question- ing of the validity or the neutrality of our electoral system, and fundamentally, that's a problem. Other ridings that are not protected include the North Island. I think perhaps it was oversight. Perhaps the cri- teria were such that ridings such as North Island were not included. Interjection. N. Simons: I really do appreciate comments, as a de- bate should be more than a soliloquy.

And as much as mine may remind the members opposite of soliloquies they've heard in theatre, the member's comments are not helpful at this moment because I'm unable to focus my full attention on his probably very reasoned heckles. [1415] Because it's my turn to speak, I can't speak and listen at the same time, unfortunately. It would be a skill well used in this House if that were the case. So I will judge by his facial expressions, Mr. Speaker, and know that he's encouraging me to continue in the manner in which I have already begun.

Th e problem with this bill is that it constrains the work of the commission by freezing 17 seats, as I have said, and 11 of these, as I mentioned, are held by B.C. Liberals. I'm making that point, although I'm not going to put too big of an exclamation point on it. Others may deduce from that what I may be implying. I think that this is probably going to result in some concern from the public, if they understand the issue that we are debating here in the House.

And judging by the number of people who have responded to the commis- sion's white paper, perhaps it's not something that most people talk about on a regular basis. But as I like to say, that's why they elect people to represent their interests in this House. And I think the interests in this House are such that they're necessary. It's our responsibility, in fact, to ensure that the government knows that there are many sides to various arguments. In this particular case, I think that maybe the govern- ment has gone a little bit too far.

We haven't had great success in nudging them towards common sense; how- ever, we will not stop trying. My comments are brief. I simply wanted to say that no sleight is intended, I'm sure, on the part of govern- ment, but rational explanation based in common sense could perhaps assuage any fears that we have in Powell River–Sunshine Coast that we've been neglected from consideration when it comes to ensuring that we have proper representation. I'd like to also point out that the eff ectiveness of rep- resentation in this House is not always by the number of members.

I believe that the work ethic of the MLAs and the commitment to their constituencies and to fairly and accurately refl ect their concerns is probably of much greater importance. I think that draws me close enough to the end of my comments, so I will leave an opportunity for other mem- bers of the House to weigh in on this subject. Th ank you for the opportunity. J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to rise in my place and speak against Bill 2 at second reading. Th e Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act was tabled — gee, it was the start of the session — back in February, and we've just brought it back today.

I understand that the Attorney General tabled the bill. She had a few moments of discussion about its content. I would think that if one is diverting from past precedent and tradition, the minister responsible would have had more to say in response to why the bill was before us — what legal opinions had been proff ered to the Attorney General to give her the confi dence that what is clearly go- ing to be a bill that will be challenged in the courts had some meat behind it, some strength behind it and some legal opinions that were put forward by the Ministry of Attorney General.

I want to talk broadly, if I could, about the notion of independence and commissions when it comes to the B.C. Liberal government, because it's been my observa- tion, from now nine years in this place, that independ- ence is something that the B.C. Liberal cabinet doesn't have a lot of confi dence in. I don't know. I can't speak for the new members of the Legislature from the back bench, but I can certainly speak from experience observing the cabinet and the executive council. When it comes to in- dependent assessment of their activities, they bristle. What comes to mind? Well, the Auditor General.

Whenever an Auditor General's report comes forward, there's always a vociferous push-back from the cabinet. Despite the fact that the Auditor General is independent and appointed by this place, as this commission will be, there's still a push-back. Th e Utilities Commission — classic in my area as for- mer Energy critic. Whenever there was an issue that was going to be put before the B.C. Utilities Commission for independent assessment to protect the public interest, the B.C. Liberals shut it down.

Th ey went so far as to go to exempting $12 billion worth of projects from oversight by the commission back in 2010. [1420] What we have in this case, with respect to Bill 2…. I just want to read to you the Electoral Boundaries

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 6, 2014 3537 Commission Act, the act that we're going to amend today. Right up front, Electoral Boundaries Commission Act,

part 2, says: "Th e Lieutenant Governor in Council must, as required by this Act, appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission" consisting of a judge or a retired judge; a person who is not a Member of the Legislative Assembly or an employee of the government and who is nominat- ed by the Speaker, the leader of the government and the Leader of the Offi cial Opposition; and the Chief Electoral Offi cer — again, an appointment by this place, independ- ent of us but appointed by this place. So three prominent persons, three independent individuals that are to protect the very essence of our democracy.

Why would the B.C. Liberals break with tradition and try and constrain those three individuals — a judge or a retired judge, a prominent person agreed to by both sides of the House and the Speaker, and the Chief Electoral Offi cer? It strikes me, hon. Attorney, that those three individ- uals should have the scope and the ability to review the map as it currently exists, the population growth as it has happened, whether it be densely populated in the Lower Mainland or — sadly, I would argue, because of Liberal policies over the past 12 years — the depopulation of some of our rural areas that are identifi ed here.

I know my friend from Nechako Lakes may have something to say about the depopulation of his commun- ity, but again, those are issues that you can't address in an electoral boundaries commission. What you need to ad- dress with respect to boundaries is to protect at all times the principle of representation by population. What this bill does is it dilutes the votes of people who live in Richmond.

It dilutes the votes of people who live in Vancouver, the people who live in any other part of the province not identifi ed as a distinct and separate area of the 17 seats and the three districts identifi ed in the amendment to this bill. It strikes me that if we're going to appoint three prom- inent people, ask them to give their time to our demo- cracy and to the people of British Columbia, we should not fetter them with constraints that are arbitrary, not backed up by any debate in this place by the members on the other side, certainly not in the introduction of the bill by the Attorney General.

A fi ve-minute speech say- ing that this is why we're doing it is not suffi cient, in my opinion, to change my view over many, many years of observing these processes unfold. I heard my colleague from Alberni–Pacifi c Rim men- tion Gracie's fi nger. It takes us a good distance back. I know there are older people in this place than I, and they will probably remember that gerrymander when it happened. But we need to guard against that. Th at's our obligation as legislators.

Th at's the requirement I believe we have when we're scrutinizing pieces of legislation that are brought forward, in my opinion, without any foun- dation in law and that will most assuredly be challenged by the courts. Th ere is a principle, and it has been undertaken in other jurisdictions when boundaries are changed. I stud- ied in Australia. It has a diff erent electoral system than we do have here, of course. Th ey have a preferential vot- ing system. If you live in outer Wagga Wagga or you live in Sydney, your vote should account for the same.

It's my view that if we don't focus exclusively on protecting that fundamental principle, then we're abdicating not just re- sponsibility here but in other jurisdictions as well. If we have other jurisdictions looking at the debate that's taking place today, if they look at the outcome of this piece of legislation, the inevitable challenges, that will provoke other districts and other communities to change their way of approaching these things.

Again, I believe that if you've got three prominent people that are agreed to by the government, agreed to by the opposition, it seems to me that's the most appropriate way to proceed. Th e principles, though, that the government was try- ing to catch onto here I also support. Th at's a challenge for them. I know the legislative draft ers would have been grappling with these issues. We are a vast province, a di- verse province with disparate populations. I know my friend from Skeena — I visited his com- munity. I travelled. He can't go around his community in a day, and he has a small, small population.

Y ou have to make accommodations for that in a place as large and expansive as British Columbia. But to make that case for 20 percent of the communities seems to me to be too constraining on the three individuals that we're going to appoint to review this matter. I also have to question….

I know it's simple populism to say: "Well, more politicians isn't the answer." But if we're protecting that principle of everyone having access to their elected representative, I believe it's something that we should consider. [1425] When I look at other jurisdictions, Alberta, for ex- ample, has 87 members of the Legislative Assembly there with a population of 3.6 million people. Quebec has a population of 7.9 million, 125 representatives. Ontario has a signifi cantly larger population and 107 members in their Legislative Assembly. British Columbia has a larger population than Alberta.

We have fewer representatives in our Legislature. It seems to me that rather than pandering to the populism, as the government wants to do, saying, "Politicians aren't the solution," what they're doing is taking away the power of the people in their communities, the power of their votes, and that's just plain wrong. Th at's why we're going to vote against this bill.

Rather than focus on independent advice, which is what we should be doing when it comes to a whole host of issues, particularly when it comes to setting the bound- aries for which we will operate in our next election, the government has decided in their wisdom to determine

British Columbia Debates3538 Tuesday, May 6, 2014 what areas of the province should be protected and what areas should be left to unbridled growth and situations where we may fi nd some members of this Legislature representing far less than that 25 percent deviation that's prescribed by Supreme Court rulings and other com- munities that are having many, many, many more times that — the mean population. Certainly, my colleagues south of the Fraser on both sides of this Legislature recognize the tremendous popu- lation growth that's happening there.

Th is bill will ensure that the member for Fleetwood, for example, is repre- senting many, many, many times more citizens than the member for Nechako Lakes. It's not a partisan question. It's a question of fairness, and it's a question of adhering to that principle that every person in this province has equal access to have their say on election day and equal access aft er the fact to the member that they elect to send to this place. So constitutionality — clearly an issue. Fairness — clearly an issue. Again, the notion that we appoint these three people, and we say: "Th is is what we want you to do.

Go away and do your best." As the bill is currently constructed and as previous Electoral Boundaries Commissions have proceeded, if there is an egregious error in the report when it comes back to this Legislature, there is another opportunity for us as legislators to weigh in. It strikes me that to be pre- emptive in that regard is too constraining on the people that we're going to select to do this work. I've talked about my friend from Alberni–Pacifi c Rim. I also heard just today from my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, which has been described as a ferry-dependent community.

Th ere are fl oatplanes, and they have, I think, four fl ights a day from the airport in Powell River. Now, Prince George and Kamloops I would charac- terize as urban centres — vibrant populations, diverse communities, airports that have planes going to various parts of not just British Columbia but the whole west coast of North America. Th ey are protected. Powell River– Sunshine Coast, not so much. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] North Island.

My colleague from North Island has made, I believe, a passionate overture in this House that her constituency is as diverse and vast as any others that are identifi ed as protected under this piece of legislation. It's our obligation, I believe…. And I'm appealing pri- marily to backbenchers on the other side. Th is is your first opportunity, Members who are not in executive council, to fl ex your muscles a little bit. Let the boss know you've got something going on. Th at is, you respect the notion of independence. Y ou respect the principle of rep- resentation by population. I think there's nothing quite like….

Hon. Speaker, you would agree with me on this, I'm certain — now that I look to see who is sitting there. I'm certain you'll agree with me. Y ou've got power as backbenchers. Y ou were elected. Y ou were sent here to represent the people in your com- munity. If your community is fi ve times the size of the person's sitting beside you, that's an imbalance that you should be talking about, if not in your caucus, certainly here in the Legislature.

I would argue the members from Surrey on the other side of the House certainly have an obligation to say to- day why they believe that the people they represent are worth less than the people that are represented by people in these three defi ned areas and the 17 constituencies that will be protected for all time once this amendment is passed. Because what happens, once this amendment is passed, we put it in these binders. We throw it up on the wall. It probably goes up on the Internet, but I'm still a bit iff y on the Legislative Assembly website. I hope that LAMC is working on that right now.

One of my big bugaboos aft er nine years here in this place: we should put the Windows 95 away and bring some- thing into the 21st century. I'm certain I'll get support from the member from Kamloops on that. But the issue is once they're entrenched and enshrined, they are going to constrain future parliaments as well. [1430] Th e challenge for us today as we prepare to vote at second reading is: do we want to represent people fairly in this province? Or do we want to do it arbitrarily based on the whims of the executive council because they think it's best for us?

"Eat your porridge." Th at's what we're saying today: "It's good for you." Well, I can guarantee you, hon. Speaker, that if this bill passes, the Supreme Court will be hearing about it from a range of groups, and we'll be right back to square one. We have three years till the next election. We have an issue of urgency to appoint the commission, but I would argue today — and I'm encouraging the Attorney General to hear my words: do not let this bill pass. Allow the independent committee to do its work. If they come back with an egregious report, we will all assemble here again.

I think we have a fi xed calendar — although, it's just arbitrary as well — but I'm hopeful that it won't be another 200 days before we come back to this place and we can fi x the problem. Th at's why we have elections. Th at's why we have a Legislature. For goodness' sake, hon. Speaker and everyone in this place, let's defeat this bill and do it right for a change. Hon. S. Anton: I'd like to thank the members on both sides of the House for their remarks during second read- ing, and I'd like to take this opportunity to respond to a few of the things that were said.

Let me fi rst deal with the most unfortunate issue that

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 6, 2014 3539 was raised. On a few occasions the members opposite made a variety of accusations against government, but what they didn't do was off er anything in support of those accusations. I will point out, since I think I need to, that in the last provincial election, the proportion of seats won by gov- ernment in the three regions addressed in this bill is al- most exactly the proportion of seats that government won in the province generally. In fact, in the 2009 elec- tion the two main political parties split those regions.

So I think there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to sup- port some of the suggestions that have been made by the members opposite. Let me turn to the overarching rationale of the bill. Opposition members, in criticizing the bill and the added instructions it gives the Boundaries Commission, have extolled the virtues of the arm's-length experts who serve on those commissions. Indeed. It is precisely those people on the last Boundaries Commission, the Cohen commission, who urged this Legislature to take action to amend the act to address the issue of rural representation.

Th at is exactly what we are doing, Mr. Speaker. I want to turn to the Cohen commission and what they said in the fi nal report to the Speaker on the 14th of February, 2008. Aft er setting out their formal conclu- sions, the Cohen commission stated: "With respect to protecting rural representation in the Legislative Assembly…." It was something that concerned the Cohen commis- sion. It does not concern the members opposite, but it concerned the Cohen commission, and it concerns gov- ernment.

"With respect to protecting rural representation in the Legislative Assembly, it is our view, formulated aft er a careful consideration of this challenging issue for more than two years, that limited" — limited — "options exist to address it.

"To put our comments into context, we go back to our predeces- sor commission's June 3, 1999, report, which sounded a caution." Th is is what they said in 1999: "However, we feel constrained to note that in the absence of some statutory solution similar to that in place in Saskatchewan, by which the electoral representation of rural British Columbia can be guaranteed at its present level, the next commission may well fi nd it impossible, under the current legislative framework, to avoid recommending a reduction in the number of electoral districts in the rural areas of the province." Later the commission continued: "Unfortunately, we concluded, as set out in our preliminary re- port, that increasing the number of electoral districts from 79 to the maximum of 85 would only marginally ameliorate the negative deviations in the north.

Based on the current 79 electoral districts, all eight districts in the north have deviations in excess of minus 25 percent. Adding six electoral districts in other regions would bring only one of those eight within the minus 25 percent statutory limit." Th e commission then set out some options with a variety of numbers of MLAs in this House. Th ey then concluded: "Th ese suggestions are outside our mandate. Having said that, British Columbia's relentless move toward even greater urbaniza- tion has convinced us that the issue of rural representation will not go away.

It will only become more pronounced. [1435] "Although our understanding of our statutory and constitutional mandate precluded us from adopting the suggestions urged upon us, we support the need to have the Legislative Assembly examine this issue before the appointment of the next commission." Well, well, well. Th at is exactly what we are doing, Mr. Speaker. We are doing as the commission recommended. We are preserving the districts in the north, and I'll go on and talk more about that in a moment. Members oppos- ite obviously have no interest in that.

Members on this side of the House do, as did previous electoral bound- aries commissions. Th e words I quoted were the words of the independ- ent Cohen commission. I believe that what we are doing is precisely what that commission urged us to do. We are taking an informed and pragmatic approach to address- ing a critical issue of representation in this Legislative Assembly, and we are doing it by acting specifi cally in regard to the three regions that the Cohen commission identifi ed as most at risk of losing representation.

Reference was made during second reading debate to other rural areas of the province that are not with- in the three regions identifi ed in the bill, and questions were raised as to why those parts of the province are not included. Th e answer is simply that it's clear from the work of the most recent electoral boundary commission that electoral districts in those other rural areas are not in danger of being eliminated. If that were not the case, then indeed…. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Carry on. Continue, Minister. Hon. S. Anton: I'm going to wait till I have the fl oor, Mr. Chair. Deputy Speaker: Members.

Members. Carry on, Minister. Hon. S. Anton: Th e electoral districts in those other rural areas are not in danger of being eliminated. If that were not the case, then indeed this bill might look dif- ferent, as we would've made eff orts to preserve eff ective representation from those areas as well. Th e facts are clear from the Cohen commission that it is the north, the Cariboo and the Kootenay regions which will lose representation if we follow the recom- mendations of the members opposite. Th at is what they are wishing upon this Legislative Assembly.

Th at is what they are wishing upon the citizens of British Columbia. Those on the other side of the House also refer to the electoral districts that include Prince George and Kamloops as urban districts and raise the question why they were included in the legislation. Let me help them

British Columbia Debates3540 Tuesday, May 6, 2014 out. As other members pointed out…. Interjections. Hon. S. Anton: Let me help them out with the logic, because although it has been explained a number of times to members opposite, clearly, they choose not to accept the logic. Those electoral districts include large rural areas and other small communities. For in- stance, Kamloops–North Th ompson electoral district is over 20,000 square kilometres and includes Barriere, Clearwater and Blue River. Blue River is over two hours' drive from Kamloops.

Likewise, both the electoral districts that include parts of Prince George are more than 20,000…. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members. Order, please. Continue, Minister. Hon. S. Anton: Truth hurts, apparently. Truth hurts. Likewise, both the electoral districts that include parts of Prince George are more than 20,000 square kilometres in size and include other small communities as well. I think when the members opposite looked at the electoral map they forgot to look at the size of those dis- tricts.

More specifi cally, if members look at a map, they will see that if we were to protect rural representation by actually freezing the boundaries of the specifi c rural dis- tricts that surround Prince George and Kamloops, then byextension, we would be freezing the Prince George and Kamloops districts as well, because they share com- mon boundaries. A Boundaries Commission would then be unable to propose changes that would better distribute the over- all population in these three regions. Th at is not our ap- proach.

Our approach is to protect northern and rural representation in those areas that clearly are in need of it. By adopting the regional approach that we have, the Boundaries Commission can exercise its discretion to best apportion the districts in those regions. [1440] In other words, we are building in the fl exibility that the Boundaries Commission needs. Th e suggestion was made that preserving 20 percent of the total number of electoral districts in the province is somehow unfair.

However, it is not the case that all 17 districts that make up these three regions will necessarily exceed a minus 25 percent population deviation. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members, both sides, please. Th e minister has the fl oor, Members. Carry on, Minister. Hon. S. Anton: Coming out of the last Boundaries Commission process, there were, in fact, ten districts that were more than 25 percent below the average — again. Here's the important thing: our approach is to provide the Electoral Boundaries Commission with as much fl ex- ibility as possible while preserving rural representation.

Our expectation is that the Boundaries Commission will propose electoral boundaries that balance the popula- tions in these regions to the best eff ect possible. Some of the members opposite suggested that the courts have said that a 25 percent population deviation is the maximum deviation allowable. Th at is obviously not true. We have had exceptions to the 25 percent devi- ation rule in British Columbia for years, as have other provinces. I would encourage members who are questioning this to read the white paper the Justice Ministry, my ministry, put out last fall.

On page 9 they will see a table that clearly lays out the diff erent rules used by provinces to instruct their boundaries commissions. In all, seven jurisdictions, including the House of Commons, permit exceptions be- yond a deviation of 25 percent of the average population. Th e member for Surrey-Whalley suggested that what is being proposed in this bill is unprecedented in Canada. He gave a brief description of how some other provinces have attempted to deal with the issue of rural or remote representation. But in doing so, he glossed over some important details.

In reference to Newfoundland, he said: "Th ere's specif- ic constitutional protection for Labrador." Well, in fact, what Newfoundland has done in its legislation is exactly the approach we're taking here. So thank you to the mem- ber opposite for suggesting that, because that's what we're doing. Very good suggestion. Th e act that governs the Newfoundland Boundaries Commission says explicitly that there must be four dis- tricts in the region that is Labrador. It also includes instructions to maintain the existing boundaries in Labrador as much as possible.

In fact, that limits the Boundaries Commission there more than we are limit- ing the Boundaries Commission here. It is a more specifi c and limiting statutory instruction than what Bill 2 does. When it comes to Ontario, the member for Surrey- Whalley did not note that Ontario has, in fact, frozen — completely frozen — 11 northern districts. Ontario has said that they're simply off limits to redistribution. Well, that's perhaps not such a great example. We could have done that here with a number of the rural and northern districts in British Columbia.

But again, that would have been more restrictive of the next Boundaries Commission than the approach we are taking in this bill, which, as I have noted, does not freeze the boundaries of any individual district in the province. Th at is the im- portant point here. I've heard, also, the suggestion that we should just ap- point a commission and see what happens. "Let's just ap-

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 6, 2014 3541 point them. Th en if we don't like what they do, we'll start all over again." We heard that a few minutes ago. Grand suggestions. Th ere seems to be a sense that the Electoral Boundaries Commission can simply draw up any kinds of bound- aries they wish. But the commission is not free to do so and has not done so for some time. Th e commission is required by law to apply legislative criteria, and it is those criteria as they exist today that are causing the diffi cul- ties, given the demographic realities of the province.

It is the state of the act as it exists today without these pro- posed amendments that prompted the past two bound- aries commissions to urge the Legislature to take action to clarify their mandate. Th ose on the other side of the House, including the Leader of the Opposition, seem to suggest, on the one hand, that there is no issue that needs to be addressed by the Legislature, that everything is fi ne the way it is. [1445] On the other hand, their rural and northern mem- bers talk about the obvious challenges they face in repre- senting their constituents.

But they don't want to take any practical steps to actually protect that representation. In other words, they're quite prepared to throw their dis- tricts to the wolves. Th ey don't seem to realize that when it comes to drawing electoral boundaries, the diffi culties we face in British Columbia are greater than any prov- ince in Canada. We on this side of the House do recognize the problem. It's a problem clearly identifi ed by previous boundaries commissions, and I am confi dent that this bill properly addresses that problem.

Finally, the amendment that I will be moving during committee is intended to address what I recognize was a particular point of contention during debate so far. We on this side of the House are obviously determined to preserve northern and rural representation. We are also committed to fi scal restraint and to not growing the size of government and, by extension, this Legislative Assembly, and I would say that both of those propositions are unique to this side of the House.

But we have also listened to and accepted the argu- ments made by some in urban areas that are experiencing population growth, and that is why we intend to permit the next commission to recommend up to 87 districts, a potential — potential — increase of two districts. As my colleague the Government House Leader said during his comments on this amendment, there is no magic number of districts that will make everyone happy. But we do believe that an extra two seats, if required, strike the best balance between urban and rural represen- tation while still maintaining fi scal restraint.

Again, there is no requirement for the commission to add any seats, but if it does, this amendment will give the commission the latitude to do so. I'm confident that this bill gives the commission all the tools it needs to propose an electoral map that will provide for eff ective representation for all British Columbians, rural and urban. I look forward to continuing this discussion at com- mittee.

I move second reading of Bill 2, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014. [1450] [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Madame Speaker: Members, the question is second reading on Bill 2, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014. [1455] Second reading of Bill 2 approved on the following division: YEAS — 42 Horne Sturdy Bing McRae Stone Fassbender Oakes Wat Virk Rustad Wilkinson Y amamoto Sultan Hamilton Reimer Ashton Morris Hunt Sullivan Cadieux Lake Polak de Jong Anton Bond Bennett Letnick Barnett Y ap Th ornthwaite Dalton Plecas Lee Kyllo Tegart Michelle Stilwell Th roness Larson Foster Bernier Martin Gibson NAYS — 33 Hammell Simpson Farnworth Ralston Horgan James Corrigan Popham Fleming Kwan Conroy Donaldson Chandra Herbert Huntington Macdonald Karagianis Eby Mungall Bains Elmore Shin Heyman Darcy Robinson Krog Trevena Simons Fraser Weaver Chouhan Rice Holman B.

Routley Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 2, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Am endment Act, 2014, be re- ferred to a Committee of the Whole House to be con- sidered at the next sitting aft er today. Bill 2, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment

British Columbia Debates3542 Tuesday, May 6, 2014 Act, 2014, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 24. Hon. S. Cadieux: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. S. Cadieux: Joining us in the gallery are a num- ber of elementary school, grade 5, students from Surrey- Cloverdale, from Surrey Centre Elementary, with their parents and teachers. I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Second Reading of Bills BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 Hon. N. Letnick: I move that Bill 24 now be read a second time. Th is bill amends the Agricultural Land Commission Act to change certain aspects of the administration of the agricultural land reserve and the operations of the Agricultural Land Commission. [R.

Chouhan in the chair.] Th ese proposed changes will (1) modernize the com- mission, increasing its transparency and accountability to a level consistent with other similar agencies, boards and commissions; (2) formally establish panel regions and provide for the adequate resourcing of panels in each region — the panel regions to be established in the act are the same ones currently used by the commission, so there should be minimal disruption to the current panel confi guration; and (3) change the administration of the agricultural land reserve to refl ect the regional diff er- ences that exist in British Columbia by establishing two zones within the province.

By creating two ALC-administered zones, we are al- lowing for responsible opportunities on farmland in zone 2 while maintaining the status quo in zone 1. Th e purpose of our bill is to ensure that the ALR is working for British Columbians and successfully bal- ancing our desire to protect valuable farmland and to further support farming families and the farming sec- tor.

By broadening the decision-making criteria used by the ALC in adjudicating applications in zone 2, the ALC will be able to achieve its common goals of protecting farmland, addressing the interests of farm families and allowing for responsible economic development oppor- tunities when the ALC believes it is appropriate. Since my appointment as Minister of Agriculture, I have had several conversations and meetings with the B.C. Agriculture Council and met with the Agricultural Land Commission to gain their input into Bill 24.

I have asked for and received many letters from British Columbians who have taken the time to provide me with written feedback, and I would like to thank them for doing so. [1500] As you can imagine, the comments expressed are as diverse as this province itself and have been useful in my deliberations in recent weeks. Th e most substantive issue I heard from many letters I received was a concern that the province needs to ensure the security and availabil- ity of food in British Columbia, not only for today but for the future.

We agree with this belief, and Bill 24 is in- tended to help respond to that concern by providing the ALC with the ability to enable farmers to increase their family income and their ability to continue farming and, in some cases, to encourage active agriculture on lands that are currently unproductive. As a result of my consultation with the B.C. Agriculture Council and the Agricultural Land Commission and a careful review of the letters sent to me by the general public, I believe there's an opportunity to improve upon the original bill.

I will be proposing some amendments to Bill 24 as part of the committee debate. Th ese amendments will include the ability of the chair or a regional panel to raise signifi cant applications to the executive committee of the commission. Th e executive committee consists of the chair and six vice-chairs, one from each region.

Th ese would be applications that could potentially aff ect more than one panel region or where the application deals with a new matter that has not been considered before, where an application is of provincial signifi cance, or where a local panel determines that it is best heard by the provincial committee.

For example, in the future the executive committee could examine signifi cant projects, as they did in the past with the South Fraser Perimeter Road, or innovative projects like anaerobic digestion, which is the process of turning animal waste into energy, and compressed hay, which is a method of compressing hay so it can be ex- ported. Both are examples of new matters that would be considered by the executive of the commission the fi rst time they came up as applications.

Bill 24 will also be amended to clearly outline in pri- ority order the criteria the commission must consider in all land use decisions in zone 2. Th is list of considera- tions will give priority to the purposes of the commission as set out in the act — namely, the primary principle of preserving agricultural land, encouraging farming and enabling farm use on agricultural land. All other factors would follow in descending order of priority. Th is change is intended to confi rm that the ALC's highest priority re-

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 6, 2014 3543 mains preserving land and ensures that panels make de- cisions in the best interest of agriculture. As we said from the outset, British Columbia is a large and diverse province with diff erent agricultural practices, diff erent populations and diff erent pressures. It's a prov- ince with diff erent social and cultural realities in our dif- ferent regions. A one-size-fi ts-all approach to regulating the use of farmland does not refl ect this reality. Th e development and population pressure in zone 1 is signifi cantly greater than that in zone 2.

Th at's why it makes sense to keep zone 1 status quo. In the course of public discussion and debate, it's im- portant to underline that even with the changes to legisla- tion, the ALC continues to decide how land is to be used, independent of anyone else, including me. To that fact, aft er consultations with the B.C. Agriculture Council and reading the letters received, we are reinforcing the independence of the ALC. Th roughout my consultations I did hear recommenda- tions to consider changes to zone 1, including some who wanted the same fl exibility as now intended for zone 2.

I respect those opinions and understand that they were always made with the best intention for B.C. agriculture. Our view is that keeping zone 1 status quo protects agri- cultural farmland in areas facing pressures related to urban growth. While it's very diffi cult to reach complete consensus, I believe the changes mentioned today further support farmers and the growth of the agricultural sector, as was always intended. I want to take the opportunity to thank British Columbians for sharing with me their vision for a strong agricultural centre in British Columbia. I share that vision. We share that vision.

I can tell you that the consultation doesn't end here. As we committed to when we introduced the bill, we will be sitting down with the agricultural sector, the Agricultural Land Commission and local government to get their input into potential updates to existing regulations. [1505] Bill 24 was introduced because we want to help farm- ers grow their business and earn a better living.

We intro- duced it because we want to support farming families in continuing to produce food on their land and because we wanted the commission to have the modern tools it needs as it goes about its business in supporting agriculture in British Columbia for another 40 years. British Columbians want the commission to continue making independent decisions, with preservation of farmland as its number one priority. Th ese amendments to Bill 24 ensure that those views are clearly written in law. I look forward to hearing from the hon. members during debate of this bill. N. Simons: Hon.

Speaker, I rise today to speak strong- ly against Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, and in accordance with Standing Order 45A, I inform you that I'm the designated speaker. I hope that my words and the words of my colleagues, all of whom will speak, are heard by the members and ministers across the aisle and that they are thoughtfully considered. I'll make the case that Bill 24 should never have been conceived, Bill 24 should never have been draft ed, Bill 24 should never have been tabled, and Bill 24 should not be passed.

Sometimes I rise in the House and say what a pleasure it is to stand and take my place in debate. I sometimes say it's a pleasure to represent not only the residents and constituents of Powell River–Sunshine Coast but all of British Columbia. While it is sometimes a pleasure and it's always an honour, today it's my duty. It's my honour and it's my duty to rise in this House, and I do so with a profound sense of sorrow and a dose of bitterness, not just with the subject matter of this legisla- tion before us but with the manner in which this legisla- tion has found its way to the fl oor of this House.

Th at bitterness is fuelled by memories of the fi rst core review I ever heard about, the one conducted in 2002, led by Kevin Falcon, who made it his mission to use talking points and vague assurances of red-tape-cutting to jus- tify his cuts to core services and core programs that sup- ported families. In particular, the bitterness I feel is from the fact that this government either didn't care or failed to learn lessons from that core review.

If people of this province remember — I'm sure they do, and we may have failed to remind them more recently — this was the government that changed the rules of how children were placed in care with relatives. When the fi rst case ever came about and the child was killed, the govern- ment hired me to investigate. I found that government undertook changes without due consideration of the im- pact of those changes and without adequate consultation with the people who knew the issue the best. Unfortunate parallels can be drawn here.

I realized then that there's a direct connection between the minis- ters of this chamber and the lives of little children, includ- ing Sherry Charlie. Today's core review kept its hands off the system that we have to protect children and found its way to try to change the policies that have protected our most valued and our most cherished and our most cov- eted lands — the land that we use to help support agri- culture and to support the growth of food.

Without consultation and without care for the con- cerns raised by every sector from every corner of this province, the government is bashing its way forward, contrary to good reason, contrary to common sense and contrary to every credible piece of evidence that says we need to protect land for the future. Th eir misleading characterizations of the changes adds to that bitterness. But let me be clear. It's obvious the government will do whatever it wants. Th e government, if so moved, can pass any piece of legislation it desires. If they want Bill 24 to pass without

British Columbia Debates3544 Tuesday, May 6, 2014 amendments, that will be their choice. If they want Bill 24 to remain intact with some minor amendments, that will be their choice. If they want to amend the bill to satisfy the overwhelming opposition they have heard and seen from all sectors and from throughout the province, that too will be their choice. If they decide that they don't really have the mandate to pass this legislation prior to consultation, and if they decide to refer the matter to a committee for study, that too would be their choice.

It's the position I strongly recommend. [1510] My job here is to point out that the legislation will be bad, not only for farmers and producers of today but for the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the future, who are oft en referenced in this House. We protected the land suitable for agriculture 40 years ago. Not for us then and not for us now, but for the genera- tions that are yet to come. It is to the utmost detriment of future British Columbians and Canadians that our current government is proposing to pass this ill-advised legislation.

I'm going to begin by pointing out how important it is that we protect land suitable for agriculture. I will refer to the challenges that we face as a society long aft er all of us in this House will have left this earth. I will then talk about the protections we have had in place for 40 years. Th e politicians faced stiff opposition when the Agricultural Land Commission was fi rst created and the agricultural land reserve established. Th ey were later seen as visionary, incredibly visionary, in their outlook, far ahead of the curve.

I'll then talk about the process by which this bill has come to this House, the stealth with which Bill 24 was planned, and what the legislation is going to do. I'll talk about the 12 sections of the bill that were written by un- known authors at the behest of unnamed lobbyists in the soundproof, secret back rooms of this government's of- fi ces and how their actions could impact our agricultural land protection system, our food security and the well- being of future generations. I'm glad the Minister of Health thinks it's funny.

Th en I'll talk about the opposition that exists within the province from all sectors and the desire and willingness of the vast majority of those opposing this legislation to participate in a process that could strengthen our agricul- tural land protection, strengthen our support for farmers and make agriculture a growing sector for the benefi t of B.C. and the future food needs of the world. I will conclude with how this legislation could be changed to strengthen it and to ensure it always refl ects the principles and purposes for which the Agricultural Land Commission was created. Mr.

Speaker, let me point out how important it is that we protect land suitable for agriculture. I'll refer to the challenges that we face as a society, that we'll face in the future, that our children and our grandchildren will face. I fi nd it sad, actually, almost ridiculous, that a legislator in 2014 has to stand in any parliament or any Legislature to remind a government that agricultural land is important and worth preserving. I fi nd it sad…. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. N. Simons: Have I struck a nerve? Deputy Speaker: Members, please come to order. Member, continue. N.

Simons: I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I'm quite sure that the members opposite will have their opportunity. If they want to shout it across the aisle, that's fi ne. It's a two-way aisle. Th ere is some obvious concern about this bill through- out the province, and clearly, there is some sensitivity on the part of the cabinet that is bringing it forward. Th at's well deserved. Th ey should be concerned, because this is probably the worst piece of legislation I've seen in this House, and I've seen a lot of bad legislation.

Let me reiterate that I fi nd it sad and really ridiculous that in 2014 a legislator anywhere in a developed country has to stand and talk about the need to protect agricul- tural land. Why? How is it possible that we have come to this? Th at this government, perhaps in its denial of cli- mate change…. [1515] Interjections. N. Simons: Th e previous Minister of Agriculture, the one preceding the current Minister of Agriculture, was on the record saying that he wasn't sure that climate change was going to have any impact or was any respon- sibility of the people.

While the minister wants to suggest that I go back and read about a conversion on the road to Damascus, I think what we should be focusing on is the need for a reversal of this policy. Perhaps they'll fi nd their own road. Th e previous Minister of Agriculture in this chamber said on the record in Hansard that he didn't think that there was a relationship between human action and cli- mate change. I'm wondering if the current minister has the same belief, because this legislation before us is so ob- viously contrary to the best advice of the scientists and academics and what people who would take

part in that discussion say about the need to protect land. As my col- leagues on this side of the House have to do, we have to stand up for agriculture. I'm sure that many of the fellow MLAs and private members on the other side are torn up about this law,

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 6, 2014 3545 because like the vast majority of British Columbians — I can say with assuredness — even if they didn't agree with the land reserve when it was established in the '70s, they have probably come to recognize that it was well ahead of its time, that it turned out pretty well. It may have some fl aws, but it has protected land that without any doubt whatsoever would otherwise have been developed on — condominiums and high-rises and warehouses and rodeos and all sorts of other stuff .

We would have lost that land forever, and British Columbians would have been less food-secure than we are now. Academics tell us — and some of these academics are from the Fraser Valley, where the centre of excellence was recently established, and I think maybe that's a…. [Applause.] Th eir applause actually highlights their own hypocrisy, because the people who are interested in preserving agri- cultural land and the opportunities for agriculture in this province work at that university, and they talk about the shortsightedness of this legislation.

Th ese ministers, who sit here deeply buried in their homework, should know that. Th ey want to maybe smirk or smile, half smile. It's not an issue that, to me, needs to be dismissed this easily. According to the Washington-based Center for Global Development, Canada has fallen to last compared with 27 other countries when it comes to climate change re- mediation. We've had ten Ministers of Agriculture since I came to this House. Th e last one, picked by the mem- ber for Kootenay East, was not even a believer in human- caused climate change.

I wonder if the Minister for Core Review, the same member for Kootenay East, has a simi- lar perspective. Nothing could better explain this reckless and ignorant attack on the lands we're going to need for generations to come. Interjections. N. Simons: Maybe the Minister of Jobs might want to have her chance. I'm the fi rst speaker. Th ey all have a chance to speak on this. We don't really know who the Minister of Agriculture is anyway, because he didn't write this bill. Maybe it's the member who wants to talk across the aisle. I don't know.

Maybe they could have the courtesy of perhaps listening to the comments of the critic. Maybe he isn't concerned beyond his lifetime. Maybe the Minister for Core Review isn't concerned about the protection of agricultural land. Maybe he doesn't think that his kids or grandkids are going to need agricultural land in the future because he's got a store to go to. But the problem is that all children of the future are going to suf- fer if we weaken our protection of agricultural land and if we put it up subject to potential development pressures.

Th e Minister Responsible for Core Review obvious- ly knows that he's on very thin ice and it doesn't take much for him to fall through. Th is is something that every sector in the province that has anything to do with agriculture or food security or soil science or climatol- ogy is against. [1520] Th e minister might have the opportunity to talk about the so-called tremendous support that this bill has. It has no support in the province, except for perhaps…. Th e member referred to one farmer in McBride, and that's fi ne. People have diff erences of opinion.

But this is legis- lation that fundamentally impacts the entire province, how the province has, as a province, protected agricul- tural land's future. If the minister is concerned about his children and his grandchildren, maybe the minister should learn about the drought currently aff ecting California and Texas and other contiguous states, where over 800,000 acres of land were not planted this year because of the severe drought. In fact, they don't call it a severe drought. Th ey don't call it an extreme drought. It's one step further. It's an extra- ordinary drought.

It has impacted the food production capabilities of Californians, and it has impacted their exports, and it has impacted their jobs. It has impacted government rev- enue, and it has impacted farmers' revenue. Quite frankly, if this minister has any ounce of credibility on this issue, he'll refer to the fact that climate change is making our protection of agricultural land more and more import- ant every day. Let me refer to some of the facts that we're facing, facts that are going to impact us greatly.

I think it's our responsibility to do what we're elected to do, and that is to safeguard the future needs of our population, not just our needs today. I have here in my hand…. I'm not using it as a prop. I'm talking about the fact that in Arizona there are 14 counties under a drought. In Arkansas there are sev- en. California, 57. In Colorado, 15 counties; 51 coun- ties in Kansas; 32 in New Mexico; 16 in Nevada; eight in Nebraska. Oklahoma has 37 counties — drought. Texas, 149 counties. Utah has 12. Th is is not something that we should be in any position to ignore.

If the ministers are not aware of it, I consider it important that they become aware of it. Th e impact on California alone — $3.56 billion in crop losses. Prices to consumers are going up 10 to 15 percent. Lost opportun- ities, lost jobs — 20,000 lost jobs in the agriculture sector.

It just shocks me, as I said earlier, that in 2014, when every other jurisdiction is doing what it can to protect land, especially land that's suitable for agriculture, this government is, by anyone's estimation, weakening the protections that we've had in place — at once down- playing their importance and, at another time, talking about they're the biggest changes ever. Th e California Farm Water Coalition has upgraded its estimate of acres farmers will leave idle this year from 500,000 to 800,000 because of the lack of water. How

British Columbia Debates3546 Tuesday, May 6, 2014 much fruit and vegetables do we get from California? We have a signifi cant import of fruit and vegetables. Interjection. N. Simons: Not to mention almonds. Th ank you to the member for North Island. Th is is not a good time for us to be weakening the pro- tections we have for farmland, and Bill 24 is, without a doubt, the biggest attack on our agricultural land reserve system that we've seen since its inception 40 years ago.

I sincerely hope that the people of the province might be able to exert the infl uence of their many voices to con- sider letting this government know how shortsighted it is — and how based on absolutely no mandate — to make changes of this signifi cance. Farmers, ranchers, soil agrologists, climatologists, en- vironmentalists, the general public — basically, people who eat — are concerned about this legislation.

While the minister has proposed amendments already, they are not going to go anywhere near satisfying the agriculture sector that their thoughts and their considerations were taken into account when the legislation was draft ed and when the amendments were contemplated. [1525] Th e problem in California is just the lack of water. Th e retail prices, for California consumers, are going to challenge aff ordability of food. Unemployment is going to rise to levels above 40 percent in the communities af- fected. Now, this isn't going to mean that we're…. Th is is a cautionary tale.

I think it's our responsibility as legisla- tors to take this information and incorporate it into the way we think about how we protect land. Unfortunately, it is gobsmacking, really, to consider that the government elected in 2014 thinks that it's appropriate to reduce the protections we have to preserve agricultural land. Th e two-zone idea. I'll get to that when I talk about the serious fl aws in the legislation. But their fl aws are from

section 1 to

section 12, and it's only a 12-section act. From the beginning I think this was ill-advised, as I said. In British Columbia alone there is going to be an an- ticipated increase in the amount of precipitation falling as snow over the winter, and projections forecast a sig- nifi cant decrease in the amount of snowfall in the spring. Precipitation impac ts. I'm talking about the Peace River regional climate projections, the projections for the climate in the area of this province where the gov- ernment thinks agriculture is secondary and agriculture is not important.

As one member said, agriculture is an industry of decline, and the government is not interest- ed in decline. Is that the opinion of the Minister of Agriculture pro tem? Is that the position of the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister Responsible for Core Review — that the agriculture in the north is unviable because they don't get the same amount of farm cash receipts? Th at would be shocking, and it's insulting. It was insulting when it was said in this House the fi rst time, and it's insulting again when this government seems to agree with that kind of assertion.

I'm talking about the Peace River and the need to protect land everywhere. Zone 1, zone 2. How can the government talk about the disparate and varied regions in the province and then decide to chop it in half? Are there only two types of land? Are there only two types of terrain in this prov- ince, two types of agricultural land? Absolutely ridicu- lous. Based on absolutely nothing. Interjections. N. Simons: Y eah, I have been all over the place, and I do know that there are more than two types of areas in this province.

We've got a little duet going down at the end of the aisle here, maybe a little humour to keep them from focusing on the matters before us. Th e impacts of climate change on our province make it even more important now than ever to ensure that we keep our options open for how and where we produce our food. When we start closing down those options…. We may not feel them in our own lifetime. We may not feel them in our children's lifetime, but our grand- children are going to feel them for sure.

Quite honestly, I don't know how this government came along and decid- ed, without any consultation, without any mandate from the people of this province, to incorporate…. I think that's the part where they're kind of pleased with themselves. Th ey snuck this one through without telling the public that they were contemplating it. Y ou know what? Th ey won the election. So they get to do whatever they want. I think they're kind of grinning and giddy about that. Th is is the opportunity they've been waiting for — a dog with a bone, and this time he's get- ting too close.

If the minister is interested in opinions that aren't his own or facts that he hasn't constructed, he should listen to the concern of agriculture ministers from 65 countries who got together in Berlin earlier this year to talk about the "immense challenges" facing farmers — resource scarcity, climate change and the loss of soil fertility. Th ey conclude that "food production will have to rise 60 per- cent between now and 2050 as the world population ex- pands to nine billion." Maybe it's not this minister's concern. Maybe it's not the Minister Responsible for Core Review's concern — about the population rise.

But we do live in a global econ- omy. We live with concern for our neighbours. We also have to look aft er our own food security. [1530] Well, with pressures on other areas because of climac- tic changes, we need to be more prepared here, even if the changes in climate don't impact us directly. All evidence

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 6, 2014 3547 suggests that it will. We should be prepared to be able to provide food for those who need food. Sacrifi cing good agricultural land when we only have a small amount is a ridiculous idea.

The ministers concluded in a written statement in January that agriculture must "adapt to new conditions, deal with risks and recover quickly from crises." Two studies, from the UN Panel on Climate Change and the National Climate Assessment, due to be released today, in fact, make it clear that "climate change, includ- ing extreme weather and rising temperatures, will af- fect every part of our food system, including crop yields, prices, storage, processing, distribution and even food quality." It's not as if it's just academics and scientists that are identifying challenges and problems that are coming our way.

We know and farmers know the signs are pretty clear. In the United States federal crop insurance paid out rec- ord amounts in 2011 — approximately $10.8 billion. In 2012 it reached $17.4 billion — beat the record due to the drought, due to climate change, due to the changes in the climate that are causing extreme weather events, whether they be droughts, fl oods, early freezes, frosts or too many hot days.

Th ese two new reports I referenced earlier, the UN Panel on Climate Change and the National Climate Assessment, say that it will "alter the stability of food sup- plies and create new food security challenges for the U.S. and for other countries." It's clear that global agricultur- al markets are linked. Climate change abroad will aff ect food security everywhere. Th ere is no reason to believe that the impacts of these climatic changes won't hurt us as much as or more than they hurt the United States. We're going to see a reduc- tion in production and a concomitant increase in prices. We need to be able to….

Th ere are going to be nine billion people on this planet by 2050. It's not a long time from now. It's not a long way off . I was looking at a diary that my great-aunt, my grand- father's sister, wrote about her travel to the market, her travel to Mount St. Vincent, I think, just outside Halifax, in a horse-drawn trailer, a carriage. Th ey were bringing berries from the farm for sale. Her story was only 100 years ago. Berries were grown and brought by horse and buggy to the big centre nearby. I'm telling you this be- cause I think it needs to be seen that time goes by; im- pacts take place. Th ings change.

My grandparents would have wanted me to be ready, just as I would want, if I were to have grandchildren, for them to be ready. I have no vested interest in this. I'm elected to protect what I think is important for the public. I don't have chil- dren. I'm not going to have grandchildren. Despite that, it's important that we consider everything we do here with an eye on the future generations. I think that this legislation takes the eye off the future generations.

It saddens me more than anything, because I believe that we here will adapt, but we're going to make life real- ly, really diffi cult for future generations if we allow agri- cultural land to disappear. We only have 5 percent of our land in British Columbia suitable for agriculture; 5 per- cent is not a lot. We have a vast number of commodities, and we do a lot of good exports. We have a vibrant agri- cultural sector, but this is a kick in its gut, and I think that the people who are going to be impacted the most are being born now or are soon to be born.

Th e reports I referenced earlier tell us what's coming, and if it's not our responsibility as legislators to fi gure out how we're going to deal with things as they come, I don't know whose responsibility it is. [1535] To quote from the Natural Resources Defense Council: "Many agricultural regions will experience declines in crop and livestock production from increased stress due to weeds, disease, insect pests and other climate change– induced stresses." I would like to just point out that it's not fearmonger- ing when one addresses issues that are likely to occur, be- cause we do have the time to adapt.

We do have the time to mitigate their impacts. We do have the time to address the clear and present dangers. We should not be afraid. We should be taking bold action to do exactly the op- posite of what this government is doing — exactly the opposite. Increase the protection of agricultural land. Increase our support for farmers. Increase our ability to become food-sustainable or food-self-reliant or food- sovereign — not what this government does, trying to fi ll their pockets as fast as possible before they leave this place.

Th e report continues to warn that the increase in pesti- cide use because of the increase in pests will in turn, of course, impact our surface and groundwater resources. We can adapt if we want to, and of course, we must. It begins by not going backwards, the way this government wants to, by weakening the protections we put in place. I have to reiterate that it's absolutely stunning that in this day and age an anachronistic proposal can change the way we've protected farmland for 40 years, with the scorn of almost the entire population of British Columbia. He'll have to withstand that scorn.

Th e Minister for Core Review will have to withstand that scorn, and the min- ister who's doing his duty by obeying the Minister Responsible for Core Review, by dutifully going along with what he's suggested. He will also have to endure that scorn, and I think it would be well placed. We did have some hope. Of course, we were led on, ob- viously. We had hope when the minister said there would be consultation. Th ere wasn't any consultation. Th e mea culpas are just a joke. It's a little bit of a slap in the face to any right-minded citizen in this province.

It's one thing to apologize, and it's one thing to do it over again. Th e Minister Responsible for Core Review and the Minister of Agriculture have some answering to do.

British Columbia Debates3548 Tuesday, May 6, 2014 Maybe they're going to get off scot-free. Maybe they're going to be able to get by without seeing the impacts of their shortsighted policies, because maybe they won't be here when their grandchildren are here, or great- grandchildren. It saddens me, because it's just bad policy. I can't put it any other way, although I'll try. Bill 24 is not a good idea for the province of B.C. I don't know why aft er 40 years this government de- cided that they've got some bee in their bonnet that makes them think that they've got the answers, because they certainly don't.

Th ey didn't ask the questions. Th ey didn't seek the input, but they've got the answers. Th ey made them up. Th ey pulled them out of a bag somewhere in the back of their car, I think, with no respect for the agricultur- al sector — none evidenced — despite the fact that the Agriculture Council has been quite clear that they weren't supportive of the legislation in its original form. Th ey're likely not going to be supportive of this legislation, and it's not just because of their own interest in this sector, I would point out. I think that they were very clear in their latest state- ment.

Th e agriculture sector said they understood the need for broad consultation. And broad consultation, just to be fair, does not mean accepting and reading e-mails. If you want consultation, you have other examples, even on the government side, of consultation. Well, they had the fake consultation on the ferries, but they did have real consultation on liquor. Th ere's more attention paid by this government to whether or not there should be a fence around a beer garden at a folk festival than there is on how we protect agricultural land for fut

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20140506pm-Hansard-v12n2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20140506pm Hansard v12n2
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e9d301f7d7ccabeb0326e75378eeed8229819d7e

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).