Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, June 3, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 84

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Sarah Robinson

G. Lore

Tabling Documents

Letter from Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, B.C. Command, dated June 3, 2021

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Accessible British Columbia Act (continued)

S. Cadieux

Hon. N. Simons

D. Davies

Reporting of Bills

Bill 6 — Accessible British Columbia Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Accessible British Columbia Act

Second Reading of Bills

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

T. Stone

J. Tegart

Hon. N. Cullen

J. Sturdy

Hon. M. Rankin

T. Wat

M. Lee

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions (continued)

T. Halford

Hon. S. Malcolmson

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General

B. Stewart

Hon. D. Eby

S. Furstenau

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. L. Popham

I. Paton

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 2021

The House met at 1:03 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

SARAH ROBINSON

G. Lore: I am both grateful and heartbroken to rise today. I thank the

House, the Speaker and the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation for the opportunity.

I’m rising to speak about Sarah Robinson. My work with Sarah, in

her role on the Minister’s Advisory Council on Indigenous Women and mine

as Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity, was new. But I have had

the gift of watching Sarah as a warrior and an advocate for Indigenous

women and girls, reconciliation, and the learning and unlearning of our

colonial history, past and present, for many years.

The heartache and trauma of this work has hit many hard this past

week. But it isn’t new, and it cannot be passing. As Sarah has said:

“It’s that individual work that people need to do. And it’s tough work.

It’s not easy.” For those looking to do this necessary work, Sarah’s

legacy includes The Walrus Talks speech from 2017, an incredible

introduction to Indigenous and Canadian histories.

Sarah returned to her ancestors, but to quote, again, Sarah

herself: “No life force, once given, can ever be lost or

destroyed.”

Sarah’s work and life and presence have impacted so many across

this province and in this House, including myself and, I know, also the

Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation, affecting hearts and

changing minds and leading to concrete change. It is neither lost nor

destroyed.

[1:05 p.m.]

Tabling Documents

B. Banman: I seek leave to table the letter from the Army, Navy and Air Force

Veterans in Canada. It was mentioned during question period this

morning.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage, Bill 6, the Accessible

British Columbia Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for the

Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

Then in the Birch Room, I call the Ministry of Agriculture.

Once the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions is finished, then I will

be calling the Ministry of Attorney General.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — ACCESSIBLE

BRITISH COLUMBIA

ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:07 p.m.

Clauses 16 and 17 approved.

On clause 18.

S. Cadieux: This clause talks about how, in the development of standards,

there must be consideration of all of the other relevant laws of British

Columbia, relevant standards in other jurisdictions and the UN

convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Can the minister

explain how relevance will be determined under this section?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. N. Simons: Mr. Chair, welcome back for our afternoon session.

[1:10 p.m.]

Thanks for the question to the member opposite. The minister, in

standards are developed with the express interest in ensuring that there

are no conflicts with any other laws, and “relevant” would be based on

if it has relevance to the standards that we’re developing at the

time.

I just wanted to make sure that that’s why we’ve ensured that the

technical committees for particular standards have representatives from

other ministries or ministries particularly associated with that

standard of development.

S. Cadieux: I guess I understand that, but I guess I also find that

concerning, given that if the subject matter experts in ministries

haven’t managed to erase the barriers themselves and if there’s a

committee that now needs to come together to show them how to do that,

where is the weighting between those who are needing to make the changes

but have not yet made the changes, without being forced to by a standard

that is coming into force as a result of this act?

The UN convention, for example, requires that all “buildings,

roads, transportation and other indoor and out­door facilities,

including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces,” be

accessible, but we know that isn’t the case. I would hope that that’s

what we’re seeking to get to with this act.

Again, if the decision rests with government and with the minister

on when and how to direct the committee to work on various pieces of

this work and there is no stated requirement for all of these things to

be working together, how do we feel confident that the principles, for

example, in the UN convention will be enacted by the work?

I guess the best way I can…. Is this just a box-ticking exercise?

“Yes, we’ve considered it. We’ve looked at it. Check mark.” Or is there

something more concrete so that people can be assured [audio

interrupted]?

Hon. N. Simons: Just to ensure that the member knows that this is in no way

attempting to limit the breadth of our work. My notes on this

section

experience and best practices from current or proposed standards in

other jurisdictions, for one thing. I hope that confirms her

wishes.

[1:15 p.m.]

Section 18(

c) signals our commitment to the United Nations

align with the principles in that convention.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister. So let’s propose and suggest that at some

committee have proposed a standard, and it’s gone through the

consultation period and the minister has approved it. LGIC has approved

it. It is now part of the law. Let’s suggest that standard provides

greater access in some capacity than in existing law in British Columbia

— just for argument’s sake, the building code.

There is nothing in this bill, which we’re debating today to

become law, that expressly states which standard will then win in a

dispute between laws. The AODA has a clause specific to this that

basically states if there’s a conflict between the AODA, including its

standards, and any other provincial law, the final authority is the law

that gives people with disabilities the most access to fully

participating in Ontario in the areas of goods, services, facilities,

employment, accommodation, buildings. That’s

part X,

section 38. Can the

minister explain why this bill does not contain a similar

provision?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: I’m assured and confident that a considerable amount of discussion

went into all parts of this legislation. Of course, when we look at

other jurisdictions, some do and some don’t have this kind of specific

statement. But after the deliberations and ongoing consultation, it was

felt that this protects the integrity of the standards by ensuring that

when we create the standards, we proactively avoid the conflicts that

the member refers to.

Under the very strange situation where there might be a conflict,

we would expect the normal common-law practice rules to apply. I don’t

actually think it’s necessarily practical to simply say that one law

will supersede the other. That, I think, leads to a messy kind of

legislative system. It’s also very difficult sometimes to determine

which law supersedes the other. Our goal is to avoid any potential

conflicts like that. If they do arise, we’ll deal with them, obviously,

in favour of ensuring that British Columbia is the most accessible place

and that all barriers that are identified are removed.

S. Cadieux: Well, I can see already that this is going to be a challenge. For

another attempt at clarification, is the minister then suggesting that

the committee won’t be able to make changes to the building code or that

government will make changes to the building code to align with any

example?

Again, the building code is just an example, but our buildings are

built to that code. If the standard isn’t high enough in the building

code and people are being ex­cluded, as they are today in some

cases, then what is the purpose of the committee setting a standard that

would actually provide access if, in fact, they can’t if the other law

that exists on the books today provides a lesser standard?

I need the minister to clear this up for me, please. I do not see

how, without a statement or a commitment expressly from government,

these changes are going to be made — that, in fact, anything will

change.

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: I just want to point out that the legislation specifically is

geared towards not just removing and preventing barriers but identifying

where they exist. So if, during the process of standard development, we

run across a place where a barrier exists in a piece of legislation or

in a regulation, that could trigger the ministry, the act, to address

that particular area.

I know the member is using the building code as an example, and I

understand that, but we are currently working on the building code, and

the parliamentary secretary, the member for Chilliwack, is actively

involved in that process too. Where we identify barriers, the

legislation is specifically geared towards removing them.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. What are we at? Clause 19, “Rights of

Indigenous peoples.” Can the minister tell us what consultations were

undertaken with Indigenous peoples prior to the tabling of this

act?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: Thanks for the question from my colleague the member for Peace

River North.

The Indigenous communities were involved in the development of

this legislation from the very earliest stages. The consultation process

that the province engaged in included funding First Nations, some First

Nations further, to undertake their own discussions and consultation

processes. We’ve had numerous discussions with Chief Judy Wilson, as

well as with legal counsel for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Mary

Ellen Turpel-Lafond.

[1:35 p.m.]

As we continue in this important process, now that we have the….

Well, once we have the ability to begin the process of establishing

standards and writing the regulations, ongoing consultation will take

place.

I’d point out that we had Indigenous representation on the

advisory committee for the ministry and a lot of other discussions that

took place. In terms of the public consultation, we had over 5,500

individuals provide input to the province, including over 500 people who

identified as Indigenous. That’s an important part of the inclusion of

all diversity of voices in this province as we move towards the

standards and regulation development.

D. Davies: Obviously, there was consultation. That’s good to hear. The

involvement, the public feedback…. Presumably there were some concerns

or issues that were brought forward to the minister about these. I was

just wondering if the minister can share some of those concerns around

this act that he may have received by the different Indigenous

communities, participants and some of the feedback.

Hon. N. Simons: The member asked a question, very relevant and obviously…. The

question he asked was about whether the province made any adjustments or

what have you.

We strengthened the legislation, based on the discussions we had,

in terms of confirmation of at least one Indigenous person on our

provincial advisory committee that Indigenous communities would be

consulted on the independent reviews. The member might want to recognize

that the legislation is written in such a way as to have a focus on the

intersectionality of disability. The community that’s affected is

affected in more than one way. So that was definitely an important

consideration as we finalized the drafting.

D. Davies: I didn’t really get the answer that I was hoping for, so I’ll

maybe dive a little further into the question. The minister had

mentioned that there’s at least one Indigenous member on the committee.

There has obviously been talk about Indigenous groups being involved

from the earliest stages on the bill. We heard they’ve been undertaking

many discussions. Presumably, prior to this act being brought forth to

where we are today, there have been concerns brought up by the

Indigenous groups that the ministry has reached out to.

[1:40 p.m.]

Our question is: can the minister share some of those concerns

that were brought up and how the minister and the ministry acted upon

those concerns that were brought forward?

Hon. N. Simons: The legislation was a process of months and months of hard work,

intense discussions, good discussions, collaborative work together.

Differences of opinion were raised by different sectors of the

community, Indigenous and other. Our deliberation, our work together,

resulted in what I consider to be robust legislation.

I mentioned issues around representation. Specific representation

on the provincial advisory committee was an area that was highlighted. I

wouldn’t characterize it as a dispute or a conflict at all. We work

collaboratively with all of those interested in pursuing the goal that

we have, and that’s a more accessible province.

The two points that I mentioned were in direct response, in fact,

to the member, who may not have understood that I was speaking

specifically to his question. Maybe he’s not used to that. But in fact,

as well, the independent reviews would be…. Indigenous views would be

part of the independent review process.

D. Davies: I guess, in the event, moving forward, if there is a…. I’m still

trying to get past the last answer, which I still don’t think that I

got, actually. In fact, I’m going to go back there. I’m still hoping

to…. This isn’t to be a challenging question. This isn’t to create any

conflict.

We’re hoping to hear…. I mean, it sounds like there were robust

conversations with different Indigenous groups, and 500 people

participated in the public outreach that identified as Indigenous

background. I guess what we’re looking for are — and I’m sure that

they’re recorded somewhere — the specific details of where there may

have been issues and challenges that did not fit, possibly, or did not

work with the X, Y or Z Indigenous communities or individuals in

creating this act.

I’m not looking for the entire list but some highlights of some of

these concerns that were brought forward and how the ministry dealt with

those.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: I know what the member opposite…. I know his role. I was in his

role for a long time. So I’m not misunderstanding the purpose or nature

of the question. I respect the fact that he’s asking about an important

subject area.

I would like to point out that the overwhelming message we’ve

heard, broadly across the province, including from Indigenous

communities, is that this is important legislation. People are very

happy about it finally coming to the floor of the House.

We heard, obviously, how equity and equal access to opportunities

society. I did point out that during the review of the legislation with

Indigenous communities, we identified ways of strengthening it. When I

process of review by the independent review, I was addressing the

questions.

I would like just to characterize the discussion and the

development of this legislation. It’s not like in here, where we may

find conflict with each other. This is a collaborative process, in which

all parties at the table really want to get to the same place. Actually,

I do think that the members opposite want to get to the same place as

well. I don’t doubt that.

The nature of the discussions was that this is important

legislation. How can we strengthen it? The process of legislative

drafting and the input from the ministry into that drafting process

reflected what we heard.

Clauses 19 and 20 approved.

On clause 21.

S. Cadieux: I appreciate the challenge that he faces in bringing this act to

the House and getting the agreement of all of the parties. As I’ve

stated, I know there will be trade-offs, and I know there will be

decisions made by government that advocates won’t like. But my colleague

was trying to make a point, I think, and I think he made it.

Not everyone, including not everyone on the committee that the

minister talked about as being consulted in the development of the act,

is happy with what they now see. There was a lot of consultation and

there were lots of opinions given and a lot of direction given as to

what the bill needed to contain. The community, including members of

that committee, are not satisfied with this bill.

In fact, Disability Alliance B.C., which sits on that minister’s

advisory, doesn’t believe that the act should even be moving forward in

this House today as it is. They have significant concerns about the fact

that the act didn’t have the active participation of the community in

the actual drafting of the act, only in providing advice and that the

consultations that government undertook are not reflected in the

bill.

I’m going to say this, and that is that I am still pleased that

this bill is moving forward in the House. I do, however, share many of

the concerns of the people that are voicing their concerns publicly, the

advocates.

[1:50 p.m.]

As a legislator who has been here now 12-plus years, like the

minister, I understand there are reasons legislation is the way it is.

There are opportunities, and there’s timing. I am happy that we will

have a bill on the books. I, too, would have liked it to be much

stronger. The minister knows that. The minister knows I had a number of

amendments on the paper that I wished to see, to make the bill stronger.

They didn’t even include the ones that I think are most necessary to

give the bill teeth.

That’s where we’re going to go now for discussion. Compliance and

enforcement. There isn’t really any. The bill puts in place a number of

things. We’ll go through these in the coming sections. But what does

seem to be completely lacking in the bill is a complaints mechanism for

people with disabilities, who are the people facing these

challenges.

Can the minister describe, please, what I am not seeing? Where is

it? Where is the complaints mechanism for people with disabilities, who

don’t believe that the access to be provided by this act is being

provided? Where is the complaints mechanism? How will that work? And

where will it be housed?

Hon. N. Simons: In response, I would say that I do believe we have a very strong

bill, a robust bill that includes…. We passed it already, but it was

section 12, which refers to a feedback mechanism. It says an

organization must have a feedback mechanism, and that includes

government as an organization. So government will not just have an

opportunity to hear about how barriers exist in communities and where

they need to be removed, but feedback will be provided on the actual

standards that have been put forward as well. This is a way to ensure

that the public has an opportunity to let government be aware of any

issues that happen to arise.

[1:55 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: Well, that’s the point. Feedback is not a complaints mechanism.

The opportunity to write to government and say: “Gee, I don’t like this.

This didn’t happen right. Thanks very much. In your next report, can you

please tell me why or what you’re doing about it?” That is not a

complaints mechanism. That doesn’t provide any security for people with

disabilities to report a violation of a standard, a barrier to access,

that is preventing them from accessing something.

They can complain to government or to whichever agency may be

there, but there is no independent process for investigation. There is

no independent process for individuals to seek redress, quite the

opposite of what we see in the Accessible Canada Act, for example, and

even in the ADA from 1990.

I’m going to ask now for the minister to explain here, in

part 21,

the director. Why has the minister decided, in this legislation, to

house all of the potential enforcement inside government? How can we be

assured that this public servant inside a ministry of government that is

also subject to standards can be independent in enforcing violations or

complaints against government for redress?

Hon. N. Simons: The compliance and enforcement person would be an independent

statutory decision–maker. I know that the member served on this side of

the House and knows that they have independence from direct ministry

intervention. But they’re an independent statutory

decision–maker.

It’s similar to other jurisdictions, perhaps not the federal

government. I believe that this allows for the independence that the

member is speaking of.

S. Cadieux: Well, I definitely don’t agree. I think we would have been much

better served as a population of people that have long, long suffered in

many respects a lack of respect of our access needs.

The continued erection of barriers to our accessing public

services, buildings, our environment, our ability to work, our ability

to recreate, our ability to exercise our rights and responsibilities as

citizens — these barriers continue to exist despite all the best efforts

of the public as a whole, as a government, in terms of making great

statements about the need for this.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I understand this all too well, as an individual myself who has

fought these battles inside government and from outside.

[2:00 p.m.]

I know it’s not simple to fix, and I know there isn’t an overnight

solution, but I certainly think this nearly 25 percent of the population

that will face some of these barriers in their lifetime certainly would

have felt better about this legislation if it came with an independent

officer of the Legislature, for example, like we have for the children’s

representative or even the seniors advocate — which, while although

reports to a minister ultimately, has a degree of independence and a

sense of independence of action and concern and certainly would provide

an opportunity for there to be a more transparent complaints and

investigation process.

I can respect that the individual that…. I note the language in

the act, again, says the minister “may” appoint a director, not must.

However, I appreciate and trust that that appointment will be made

forthwith. But I appreciate that the statutory decision–maker has some

autonomy. However, there is no mechanism here for the public to lodge

complaints, to ask for investigation and redress.

I think that is a major point of concern for the advocacy

community, largely. Certainly, I’ve heard from a number of people on

this, not just from Disability Alliance B.C. Certainly, they were public

about their concerns about this in their letter to the editor of the

paper. But also an advocate that I have known a long time, Paul Caune,

who has faced great systemic barriers to his accessing his rights as a

human being and as a person with a significant disability. I know he is

struggling with the fact that this act doesn’t provide the teeth that

advocates hoped it would, after this long of advocating for

things.

As Paul has long said: “Hope is not a plan.” But we’re asking to

put a lot of hope out there with this act. A lot of trust and a lot of….

I think one of his comments was, essentially, this act is asking us, as

people with disabilities, to trust and then, basically, have a big group

hug if it doesn’t work out.

We need more. He points out in an

article that the ADA in the

States, which was put in place in 1990, provides more teeth for

prisoners to lodge complaints against government about their treatment —

and provides opportunity for redress — than this act does. I think we

should be concerned by that. I think the minister needs to know that

this concern exists, because people to this day have been making their

voices as loud as they can and have not seen change within government or

within the communities.

I guess I would ask again. Why did the ministry and the minister

decide that this level of enforcement, a statutory decision–maker within

the ministry appointed by the minister, was the best route, over an

independent office or advocate?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: I thank the member for her question. I know Paul. I’ve met Paul. I

know his advocacy, and I respect the advocacy of all those who’ve worked

to ensure that their province took this issue seriously. I know I raised

it myself when I was in opposition, and we were waiting for the federal

legislation at the time. At least that was the answer. So understanding

that.

I would just point out that the format that we’re using here in

British Columbia is similar to the other provinces. They don’t have

commissioners established. It might be different from the federal. But I

would take issue with the suggestion that it doesn’t have teeth. We have

the independent statutory decision–maker. We have significant financial

penalties available for non-compliance. As I’ve said many times…. I know

that sometimes people accuse me of being overly enthusiastic or perhaps

hopeful. But I am.

[2:10 p.m.]

I think the process that has brought us here…. Despite the fact

that there exists difference of opinion on some aspects of this

legislation, we are working collectively towards the same goal. We are

working towards ensuring that if we identify barriers, we remove them,

and that we set a process forward. We bring in standards and regulations

for different sectors as decided by the community and the minister,

obviously, and we expect people to be in compliance. If they’re not, we

have mechanisms to deal with that.

Clause 21 approved.

On clause 22.

S. Cadieux: I don’t for a minute think that the minister isn’t

well-intentioned. But without a complaints mechanism for people with

disabilities to inform the director or inspectors, how do they know who

or what to inspect, and for what? Without a complaints mechanism, how

will people with disabilities be put at the centre of ensuring that

organizations follow the regulations?

We know that despite the fact that people with disabilities have

always had in British Columbia — or at least, not always, but for a

great deal of time — protections under human rights and so on, the

challenge is that you have to proactively go out and file a complaint.

You have to wait to have it go through the system. It’s a hugely

cumbersome process that relies on people with disabilities leading and

fighting for their rights.

The intent, I would argue, of this bill is to expressly remove the

need for that through the development of standards. However, we also

know that there will be a need to enforce — hence, this

section of the

bill. We’re putting in place, with this bill, significant monetary

penalties. I don’t argue with the minister on that. However, somebody

has to alert the inspector to the fact that something isn’t

happening.

At this point, we don’t understand. There is no articulation of

how those complaints about a lack of compliance or enforcement can be

made for the purpose of inspection. So can the minister explain how that

process will work?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: I would point out that the government was required to develop a

feedback mechanism. There are many ways that the public will continue to

inform government and lead government towards identifying where

compliance and enforcement will be required.

As we develop the standards, and as we receive the feedback from

the provincial advisory committee and technical advisory committees, it

might be established that we find other ways of ensuring that the

director can be contacted for specific issues. The director, obviously,

has the ability to appoint inspectors to look into particular matters.

But the feedback mechanisms and the compliance and enforcement options

available to government remain quite broad, actually, with the

establishment of the standards and as we see the role of the director

get established.

[2:20 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: I’m not sure that that provides much comfort or clarity around how

people with disabilities will be able to have their complaints addressed

in a timely way. But I will move on. Let’s go to

section 26.

Clauses 22 to 25 inclusive approved.

On clause 26.

S. Cadieux: On this clause, we’re looking at reconsiderations and appeals.

Obviously this is after someone has been found in contravention by the

inspector or director and has been issued a penalty. What if that

organization is a ministry of government? Will they be forced to pay

that monetary penalty? And what happens with the payment of that

penalty?

Hon. N. Simons: If there was a finding against a ministry, the ministry would be

subject to the same monetary penalties as any other prescribed

organization.

S. Cadieux: Then if a ministry, under

section 26, appealed for

reconsideration, is there a more significant chance that reconsideration

would be granted, given that the statutory officer who made the initial

finding is now being asked to reconsider their own fine?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: The answer to that is that’s why we’ve established that the

director would be an independent statutory decision–maker and not the

minister, for example. That maintains that level of independence

required.

Clause 26 approved.

On clause 27.

S. Cadieux: This should be a quick one for the minister. Could the minister

just confirm who is or what is the prescribed tribunal that is

referenced here?

Hon. N. Simons: Thank you for the question. The tri­bunal referred to in

section 27 is referring to…. The intent is to direct appeals to an

existing tribunal rather than to create a new one. The name of that

applicable tribunal would be determined, obviously, in consultation with

the Attorney General. But the tribunal would be the body to which the

reconsiderations would be referred.

Clauses 27 and 28 approved.

On clause 29.

S. Cadieux: I know the minister will be expecting this one, as I asked it in

the wrong

section yesterday.

Understanding that this committee could theoretically be very busy

— there’s a lot of work to do — they could decide to tackle a lot of

issues at once, to really delve in and provide meat to the bones of this

legislation in the shortest possible time frame, which would then mean

they are providing an awful lot of their time and expertise to this

process. Can the minister please explain what, at this time, the plan is

for remuneration of those committee members?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: What this

section does is allow the minister, in accordance with

the general directives of Treasury Board, to reimburse or pay an

technical committee for reasonable travelling and out-of-pocket

expenses. It also allows the minister to pay members of the provincial

committee.

As I mentioned, payments are subject to Treasury Board directives,

including the directive on remuneration guidelines for appointees to a

ministry and Crown agency board.

S. Cadieux: I do hope that in that case, it is looked at as such, and the

significant contribution that these individuals will make with their

knowledge and personal experience will not be undervalued in relation to

that type of expertise provided by appointees to Crown corporation

boards and such. It is long recognized that this community has been

asked to provide their expertise in a charitable way for far too long. I

hope that the minister and Treasury Board will take that

seriously.

With that, I’d like to just say to the minister: thank you to you

and your staff for being available and being as forthcoming with answers

as you were. I remain cautiously optimistic that we will see some change

as a result of this.

As I say, as a person with a disability and as an advocate, I am

deeply disappointed by the legislation. But as a legislator and a member

of this House, I am also very proud that we will have

an act on the

books that we can continue to hold this minister to account for filling

out and for moving forward judiciously and with the utmost speed as

possible. I appreciate his desire to ensure broad consultation but also

understand that at some point, somebody makes a decision, just as the

minister has in relation to this legislation.

His unwillingness to accept an amendment to it, for a couple of

words, cautions me somewhat in his willingness to move this forward

quickly, with the needs of the community and the desires of the

community. However, I am going to put that aside, and I am going to say

thank you and congratulations. I am pleased to be a member of this House

as we move forward with this historic step.

He can count on the fact that I will be watching closely as we

move forward. I appreciate very much his repeated offers to include me

in forthcoming processes.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am done with my questions.

Hon. N. Simons: I just would like to take this opportunity, as well, to make a few

final comments. I’d like to just first thank the member for Surrey South

and the member for Peace River North, separated by a few miles but

united, I suppose, in the hope — perhaps cautious hope, but I understand

that — that we will fulfil what British Columbians expect of us in terms

of making our province more accessible and more inclusive.

[2:35 p.m.]

It’s a commitment we made as government. Understanding the

hesitance in the community that has probably…. One of the communities

that has worked so hard and fought so hard to ensure that we become more

accessible over the years.

This is not the end of the process by any means, and this is not

going to be entirely government’s sole responsibility to make this

province more accessible. We are counting on the goodwill and we’re

counting on what I believe to be the belief of British Columbians — that

our province is a better province when people can be included in all

aspects of society.

This bill that’s before the House today, I believe, will bring us

much closer to the destinations that we’re aiming for. I expect to be

held accountable. That’s part of the process here.

I thank all the members of the committees and all those who

participated in the consultation process to bring us to this point for

their contributions. I respect the fact that there remains some

differences of opinion with respect to the content of the legislation.

I’ve been here long enough to know that’s not uncommon. However, I

remain certain that we have the tool necessary to bring us to a more

accessible and more inclusive province.

I neglected to introduce the staff who have been in my right ear

for the last two days. They include Deputy Minister Dave Galbraith, Sam

Dufresne, Tricia Daykin, Shaylin Williams, Brynne Langford, Amanda Arnet

and Denise Clair Smith.

I thank everybody who has been part of this process. There is a

lot of work ahead of us, and I count on goodwill and common intentions

to get us to the place we’re aiming for.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: That’s a lot of voices in your head, Minister.

Clause 29 approved.

The Chair: Does anybody have questions or comments on clauses 30 to

33?

Clauses 30 to 33 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. N. Simons: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:38 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 6 — ACCESSIBLE

BRITISH COLUMBIA

ACT

Bill 6, Accessible British Columbia Act, reported complete without

amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the committee sit again, Minister?

Hon. N. Simons: At the next sitting.

Mr. Speaker: So ordered.

Hon. N. Simons: I move that we have a recess.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. The House will be in recess for ten minutes.

The House recessed from 2:39 p.m. to 2:42 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. N. Simons: I now call third reading of Bill 6.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ACCESSIBLE

BRITISH COLUMBIA

ACT

Bill 6, Accessible British Columbia Act, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. N. Simons: I call second reading of Bill 7.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

T. Stone: I’m pleased to rise and continue my remarks on Bill 7, which deals

with the Electoral Boundaries Commission. Electoral Boundaries

Commission is a process which is required by law in British Columbia. I

think all of us in this chamber know that. The commission is charged

with a very important responsibility and that is to review the

boundaries and the number of seats every two elections to make

recommendations for potential changes.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

On the front end of that process, the government of the day has to

provide the Boundaries Commission with a mandate. I’ve certainly been

through this process once before, two election cycles ago. I was sitting

in the government at that time. So I was very much part of the

discussions as a member of government with respect to the mandate that

we believed made the most sense to balance representation by population

as a core principle in our democracy with the important principle of

effective representation.

The proposed changes that are contained in Bill 7 would provide,

quite notably, for the potential increase in the size of the

Legislature, or the number of legislators in this place, by up to six

additional ridings, six additional MLAs. That would increase the total

number of MLAs from 87 to 93.

[2:45 p.m.]

I will say as an aside that I haven’t come across too many

constituents or too many British Columbians who, as a matter of top

priority, have said to me they think the answer to all of our problems

is more politicians, more provincial politicians. Nevertheless, the

Boundaries Commission, in its deliberation, can come back with a

recommendation to increase the size of this place by up to an additional

six seats.

Also quite notably, I think even more notably than the potential

for more members in this chamber…. We’re all kind of wondering where the

additional members would go. It’s a bit tight in here now, but I’m sure

we’d figure that out.

The other major change that’s contained within Bill 7 would

provide for the elimination of protection on 17 seats that currently

exist that are contained within three regions in the Interior and the

north. In the Cariboo-Thompson region, there are five ridings that are

protected. In the Columbia-Kootenay region, there are four ridings

protected. In the north region, there are eight ridings protected.

Again, that’s 17 seats that are currently protected.

By protected, what this really means in practical terms is that

there cannot be…. The current legislation makes it very clear that there

cannot be a reduction in the number of ridings or districts in each of

those three areas. The area that I live in, the Cariboo-Thompson region,

with five seats…. While boundary changes within that region are

permitted between those five seats, the current legislation does not

provide for a reduction in the number of seats from the current five —

similarly with the north region and the Columbia-Kootenay

region.

Quite disappointingly, we are dealing with the potential removal

of this provision, which is contained within this bill that’s before the

House, Bill 7. It is a clear decision that is being made by the current

NDP government to move toward more of an electoral quotient approach to

the determination of the number of seats and where the seats are and

what the boundaries of seats are in British Columbia.

The electoral quotient concept really, in its most simplistic

terms, involves taking the total population of British Columbia, which

is around five million, and dividing it by the number of seats that the

Electoral Boundaries Commission decides to recommend. Again, they can

move from the 87 that we have currently, up to a potential of 93. You

divide those total number of seats into the population, and you get an

average population number, which would be, if they did go ahead with the

additional six seats, an average population per riding of about 55,000

to 57,000 people.

There is an accepted practice when going through the process of

determining exactly those allocations of seats and the population levels

within them. It’s an accepted practice of allowing for plus or minus 25

percent of population in a riding. That’s 25 percent plus or minus the

average for the province. That plus or minus 25 percent deviation is a

long-established and acceptable practice, not just here in British

Columbia but right across the country.

Again, Bill 7 removes the requirement for the commission to

recognize “the legacy of our history and the need to balance the

community interests of the people of B.C.” when fixing boundaries. That

would be removed from the act through this Bill 7.

Bill 7 also, again, removes language that the commission can

exceed the plus or minus 25 percent deviation “where it considers that

very special circumstances exist.”

[2:50 p.m.]

That language is to be replaced with language that says: “…if it

considers it necessary to provide for effective representation.” A very

different approach to addressing the reality of rural British Columbia

and the need for ongoing effective representation.

Now, let me just back up. I want to say this. Certainly, I very

much — I know my constituents up in Kamloops do as well — support,

understand and respect the need to continue to honour, as a core pillar

of our democracy, representation by population, certainly in the context

of the plus or minus 25 percent deviation that’s allowed on that as

well.

There has been very significant population growth over the last

number of decades in the Lower Mainland, in particular. We’ve also seen

significant population growth in the Okanagan, even in my hometown of

Kamloops. Our population growth hasn’t been as pronounced as, say, that

other city down the road. I think it’s Kelowna. Kelowna has grown quite

a bit faster than Kamloops has, but Kamloops has continued to

grow.

The reality is that Kamloops has two seats here in the

Legislature, albeit mine is geographically much smaller than my

partner’s, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. He has a large rural

area attached to his riding. The fact remains we have two seats that

represent the city of Kamloops and the surrounding Thompson valleys.

Based on the population growth that we’ve seen in the two Kamloops

ridings and in the city in particular, I wouldn’t expect that there

would be a dramatic change coming from the Boundaries Commission based

solely on the principle of representation by population — again,

allowing for that plus or minus 25 percent deviation.

But in the Lower Mainland, there has been very significant

population growth. I’m actually from the Lower Mainland. I was born in

New Westminster. I spent the first ten years of my life in Port

Coquitlam. My father — I’ve spoken about him often here in the

Legislature — was a very proud Vancouver firefighter. I still have a

whole bunch of relatives in the Lower Mainland, particularly in

Surrey.

If I just look at those three communities in the Lower Mainland,

New Westminster…. When we left the Lower Mainland and moved up to

Kamloops in 1981, New Westminster had a population of about 35,000.

Well, it’s doubled since that time, in terms of what the population is

today. It’s about 70,000 today.

Port Coquitlam, or PoCo, is where I went to elementary school.

PoCo, back in 1981, had a population of about 27,000. It’s more than

doubled since that time. We look at Surrey. Surrey in 1981 had a

population of about 147,000. Today the population is over 600,000.

Surrey is on a rapid trajectory to eclipse Vancouver in population. It’s

going to happen. One of the fastest-growing and most dynamic cities not

just in the province but across the country.

I say all of this because I want to make very, very clear that

these rapidly growing urban centres, predominantly in the Lower

Mainland, absolutely must have a strong voice here in the Legislature.

They absolutely must not have their voices diluted because they have

population levels that are so dramatically more than the population

levels in other ridings in other parts of the province. The key is

balance. The key is balancing that representation by population

principle with the principle of effective representation, ensuring that

there is actually equitable representation.

If we just look at the seat count, it’s 87 seats today. I might be

wrong on this by one or two. I’m not entirely sure if Powell

River–Sunshine Coast is considered Vancouver Island or the Lower

Mainland.

Interjection.

T. Stone: I’ve hurt the feelings of the minister from Powell

River.

Let’s say Vancouver Island has 14 seats today, the Lower Mainland

49, the Interior and the north 24. On a percentage basis, that works out

to 56 percent of all the seats in the province are in the Lower

Mainland, as it should be. Well over half the population of the province

is in the Lower Mainland.

[2:55 p.m.]

If the Electoral Boundaries Commission was to come forward and

recommend adding the maximum number allowed, those additional six seats,

and take the Legislature up to 93, and if all six of those seats were

recommended to be put into the Lower Mainland, that would increase the

seat count in the Lower Mainland to 55. The Lower Mainland would have

almost 60 percent of the representation in this place. The point I’m

trying to make is that if that’s what the commission deems is fair to

ensure that the voices in these rapidly growing urban areas are not

diluted, then I can get on board with that.

What I have a problem with is the proposal in this bill that

doesn’t try to tiptoe around diluting the voice of the Interior and the

north and the Kootenays but actually directly attacks it, directly

removes the protections that are in place today to ensure that effective

representation of the people — the voices in the Interior, the north and

the Kootenays — remains. That, to me, is not fair.

Now, as I said a moment ago, equal does not mean equitable. The

principles of representation by population need to be balanced with that

concept of effective representation. The Attorney General, in bringing

forward this bill and making some public comments, has often said that

the protection that is currently in the act has made British Columbia an

outlier in this regard. He’s gone on to say most other provinces don’t

have these kinds of regions.

Well, that’s actually not true. That’s not true. Nova Scotia’s

commission, in their most recent go-around with this process, had a very

specific component to their mandate, which was to ensure effective

representation for Acadian, Black and Mi’kmaq populations in that

province. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba all have ridings in their

provinces, largely in the northern half of their provinces, that are

quite significant in size but have much less population in them than

you’re going to find in…. A northern Alberta riding will have far fewer

people living in it than you’re going to have in an Edmonton or Calgary

riding.

The federal government. If we look at the federal parliament,

greater Toronto should have quite a few more seats in the federal

parliament than it currently does. Alberta and our province here in

British Columbia should have more seats in the federal parliament than

we currently have. You can ask yourself the question: should Atlantic

Canada have as many seats as they have in the parliament? They’re

overrepresented when you look purely at the numbers.

The point I’m making is that these are the accommodations that

have been woven into the fabric of these other provinces and into our

national institution, recognizing that people in rural areas, people

that live in disparate, small communities, also have a right to

effective representation.

So much of the province’s wealth comes from the Inter­ior,

the north and the Kootenays — forestry, mining, energy, gas, lots of

other industries. We need vibrant communities in these resource-rich

areas of our province, but these communities also need to have strong

voices and effective representation here in Victoria.

I worked in mining. In fact, I put myself through university

working for a company that, at the time, was called Placer Dome. I did

mineral exploration and diamond drilling. I drove all over the northern

half of the province for three summers in a row, one of the best jobs

I’ve ever had.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I did a lot of work in the Vanderhoof area, Fraser Lake, Smithers,

Stewart. Anyone who has travelled on Highway 37, the Stewart-Cassiar

Highway, from the Kitwanga junction on Highway 16 to the Yukon border….

Of course, it’s a spectacular drive into Stewart on Highway 37A. You

drive that 725 kilometres from the Kitwanga junction to the Yukon

border, and you go through a whole bunch of very small, disparate

communities.

[3:00 p.m.]

The proposal that’s on the table here would significantly dilute

the representation for those British Columbians. It’s disheartening to

think, if you actually live in those communities, where so much of the

collective wealth of this province is actually generated…. People who

live there see most of that wealth exported out of their communities,

out of those regions. Now, on top of this, we’re going to say: “Let’s

dilute their representation.”

In 2019, I took a trip, with the current Leader of the Opposition,

up the entire Highway 5 north of Kamloops. We stopped in communities all

the way up: in Barriere and Clearwater, Valemount and McBride — huge

travel distances. The number one issue we encountered everywhere we

went, the number one concern people raised, was the lack of access to

services, the lack of feeling heard in Victoria, notwithstanding how

hard their MLA — again, who is the Leader of the Opposition — up in that

Valemount-McBride area works and shows up. These people deserve to have

effective representation. This bill dilutes that.

As a former Transportation Minister for four years, one of the

aspects of the job that I enjoyed the most was getting out around the

province and visiting these communities. Sure, you’re announcing

projects and opening up projects, and that stuff is all fun. But the

real appreciation comes from going into these communities that you might

not have much history with and meeting the people, getting to know them,

getting to understand their issues.

Again, you realize that in all of these rural, small communities

scattered over huge travel distances, they really do struggle with

access to services, health care, housing, mental health, Internet. Heck,

you can be in a community like Clearwater. Sure, they have Internet

challenges, but before you get to the Internet, they still have huge

issues with their cellular service. So do so many communities around the

Interior and the north.

Highway maintenance is a big, big challenge in these rural areas.

I did a circle tour with my family back in August of 2014. We drove from

Kamloops to Victoria to Port Hardy, on the ferry to Bella Bella, to

Ocean Falls, into Shearwater and over to Bella Coola. We then drove to

Williams Lake and back to Kamloops. It was 1,934 kilometres, 32 hours of

travel time — one of the most spectacular drives and vacations that

we’ve ever done as a family.

Again, you stop all along the way, you talk to people, and you

realize how hard life is for so many people in these communities. That’s

not to say that life isn’t hard for people in urban centres either, but

it’s to say that these folks are already doing the best that they

possibly can, often having to drive hours upon hours to access health

care, hours and hours to access their MLA. This bill sets out to further

dilute that.

The bottom line, for me, is this. The impact of any potential

changes on my riding in Kamloops and the other Kamloops riding, the two

ridings I spoke of a little while ago, is likely to be minimal. We might

have some boundary changes around the edges. If the commission goes

ahead — because there’s no protection built into the bill — they very

well could say, for the Fraser-Nicola riding, which is immediately

southwest of my riding, that maybe the recommendation would be to merge

it into my riding.

That would not be good for the people of Fraser-Nicola, which is

already one of the largest ridings, with one of the most First Nations

communities of any riding in the province — very small communities. The

current act affords those protections for these ridings in the Interior,

the north and the Kootenays in the form of a very clear directive that

the Boundaries Commission must adhere to. It must be

followed.

[3:05 p.m.]

It’s a foundational principle that is basically saying to the

people in these areas of the province that they deserve effective

representation. You can’t accomplish effective representation by further

diluting their voices, making these ridings larger and making people

drive 800 kilometres to access services instead of 650 kilometres,

including accessing their MLA.

Bill 7 proposes to remove these protections. It means that people

in many constituencies like Cariboo North, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Peace

River North, Peace River South, North Coast, Nechako Lakes, Skeena,

Fraser-Nicola, Kootenay West, Nelson-Creston, Columbia

River–​Revelstoke and Kootenay East potentially are going to end

up in much larger ridings, some as large European countries.

I don’t support removing this protection. I don’t support the

aspect of Bill 7, which facilitates the removal of this protection. I do

support adding more seats in the Lower Mainland — if that’s what the

Boundaries Commission decides to do, based on the significant population

growth that’s taking place there — but I believe rep by pop needs to be

balanced with effective representation. Equal does not mean equitable.

The decision by this government to remove the protections in place for

rural B.C. means supporting this Bill 7 is something that I’m going to

have a tough time doing.

J. Tegart: It is a pleasure to stand in the House today and represent the

constituents of Fraser-Nicola addressing Bill 7, the Electoral

Boundaries Act. This’ll be the second review of the electoral boundaries

during my term as MLA. During the last review, my riding boundaries

changed. I hear from many constituents in my riding that they feel like

they’re often the tail end of a riding. They’re tired of being switched

back and forth.

Constituents feel a very real connection with their MLA and with

their riding. That is obvious by the comments that they make when

changes happen. At one time, Ashcroft, Cache Creek and Clinton were

tacked onto Cariboo South. At the next review, we were back in

Fraser-Nicola. Hope has been in the riding, out of the riding and then

back in the riding at different times. Princeton, as a community, has

also been in Fraser-Nicola and is now out of Fraser-Nicola.

When we talk about democracy and the importance of voter

engagement, I think we need to remember how important stability and

consistency is in building the relationships we need to build with

constituents — in engaging them in the electoral process and in

democracy. Now, I understand it’s important to ensure that there is a

process to review electoral boundaries and ensure that they reflect

population growth. I think it is important to also ensure that

boundaries reflect equity in representation. Are constituents able to

contact, connect with and interact with their elected representative in

a relatively equal way around the province?

Bill 7 draws boundaries based on one criterion: population

numbers. Sounds pretty simple and pretty straightforward, but democracy,

representation, is often not simple. In my speech today, I want to put

some meat on the bone. I want to share some information with the House

about what it’s like to be an MLA in Fraser-Nicola. I begin my story

when I was elected in 2013. I drove a small compact car. I was over in

Merritt at an event. I didn’t want to use taxpayers’ dollars to stay

overnight. I was only an hour and a half away.

[3:10 p.m.]

I got in my car, and I started home at 10:30 at night. As I got

near the top of the mountain, I thought: “Wow, there sure are a lot of

bugs out here.” As I drove, I thought: “No, those aren’t bugs. That’s

snow.” I was dressed in business dress, high heels on — not prepared for

a snowstorm. When I found myself plowing snow with the front bumper of

my car, I thought: “You know what? I think I need to phone someone to

come and get me.”

I pulled over to the side of the road. No cell coverage. Still

snowing like crazy. It took me 4½ hours to drive home. I decided, during

those panicked hours in my probably first six months of representing

Fraser-Nicola, that the little compact car needed to be traded in for a

four-wheel drive. For the amount of time I spend in my car going out to

communities, that was one of the best decisions I’ve made.

For those of you who don’t experience some of the more rural

things, think about what weather does in some of the Interior and

northern ridings and how that affects representation and how we expect

people to come to us. During winter, that is often impossible. Then the

next thing we think: “Well, they can phone us.” Many of my people don’t

have phones and no cell coverage and no Internet.

When we talk about representation and equity across the province,

I think we need to think of much more than just numbers. As we drive

around the riding, I have one road that I travel very often between

Ashcroft and Merritt. I can tell you, driving home one night…. There is

a bear that will never forget the evening that he came into contact with

my CA and I. We have never driven that road without seeing wildlife.

That’s another thing you need to think about as we think about people

being on the road and driving to communities in order to meet with us so

that we can be an effective representative for them.

I want to tell you a little bit about the geography of

Fraser-Nicola. Stretching from north of 70 Mile House all the way to the

U.S. border in the south, as far east as the Shuswap regional district,

all the way to the Squamish-Lillooet regional district in the west, the

Fraser-Nicola riding is a large geographic area with a diverse

population — more than 31,000 square kilometres. Our region is larger

than Belgium. It is actually 3,000 to 4,000 times larger than some of

the ridings you will find in Vancouver, ridings like Vancouver–West

End.

I have Clinton, Lillooet, Cache Creek, Ashcroft, Lytton, Hope,

Merritt, Logan Lake. I have the Fraser Valley regional district, the

Squamish-Lillooet regional district, the Thompson-Nicola regional

district.

I have the Ashcroft Indian Band, the Oregon Jack Creek Band,

Lytton First Nation Band, Kanaka Bar Band, Siska Indian Band, Skuppah

Indian Band, Nicomen Indian Band, Cook’s Ferry Indian Band, Lower Nicola

Indian Band, Upper Nicola Indian Band, Coldwater Indian Band, Nooaitch

Indian Band, Shackan Indian Band, Skeetchestn Indian Band, Bonaparte

Indian Band, Canoe Creek, High Bar Indian band, Whispering Pines Indian

Band, Pavilion First Nations, Xaxli’p First Nation, to name a few. I

have over 30 First Nations communities in my riding.

I have four MPs who represent my riding.

[3:15 p.m.]

I would like to talk a little bit about representing a huge,

land-based riding, compared to, perhaps, the Chair’s compact,

high-population riding. My comments come from talking with colleagues

and listening to some of the challenges of the urban versus the rural

riding representation.

The issues I hear about in my riding are…. I try to meet with my

local government representatives at least once a year. So that’s eight

incorporated communities, three regional districts, four school

districts and over 30 First Nations chiefs and councils. Many are more

than 2½ hours’ drive from where I live. It is so important that MLAs

build relationships with local leaders to understand their issues. In a

compact riding, you may have one or two local governments to meet

with.

I also attend events, parades, swearing-in ceremonies,

celebrations throughout the ridings, and again, that involves travelling

to all those communities where they’re being hosted.

Health care is a challenge in my riding. Many of my communities

can’t find doctors. Many of my communities don’t have emergency rooms.

Many of my communities don’t have transit. Retention of doctors, nurses,

support services, emergency rooms…. Ambulance services, not only for

local citizens but for the travelling public, because every road into

the interior of British Columbia comes through my riding…. Basic

services are provided in my two largest communities, but everyone must

travel to a larger centre to receive any specialist services.

The further challenge is the lack of public transportation.

Keeping services open and available over weekends is a huge challenge

for many of my small communities. If the ER is closed, you must travel

at least an hour or two to the nearest hospital. We have minimal mental

health and addictions services. We talk about health care and the

challenges around health care on a weekly, if not daily,

basis.

Affordability is another issue in my riding. We are an

economically depressed area. Affordability is a huge issue, which is one

that I would share, likely, with the Chair. We talk about housing and

homelessness, family-supporting jobs and support services and seniors

housing, because our seniors have often been part of a family that is

third and fourth generation in our small communities. That’s where they

want to live, because they love where they live. But they also have an

expectation that they will have strong representation in this

House.

Agriculture is big in my riding. I’m not sure that that’s a huge

issue in the Chair’s riding, but we talk about transportation for

agriculture, talk about abattoirs, talk about farmers markets,

agricultural land reserve, insurance — which is very difficult to get

for crops — farm-to-table, drought and flooding, immigration and

immigrant workers, and wineries who are just developing and are looking

for support services.

In my riding, we host one of the largest open-pit mines in North

America — provides excellent jobs. But we meet often to talk about

permitting. We talk about environmental stewardship, competitiveness,

the lon­gevity of the mine, shipping and transportation of goods.

When you have a mine as big as Highland Valley Copper, we talk about how

you plan for closure, because it’s going to have huge effect as we look

to the future. But we also have mining out in Bralorne, underground

mining. So we talk about mining.

[3:20 p.m.]

The next one we talk about is forestry — sustainability of

forestry and those jobs and how important forestry is to the history of

our riding and to the job creation in our riding.

We’ve had mill closures. We’ve seen the mountain pine beetle. We

talk about wildfires. We talk about annual allowable cuts. As I talk

about the issues and the opportunities that we have in our riding, I

hope you have, as members, an opportunity to think about how common the

issues are or perhaps how different they are and how that representation

is so important in this House, no matter which riding you

represent.

I have learned more about highways and roads than I ever wanted to

know. Every highway coming out of the Lower Mainland to go into the

Interior goes through my riding. The Coquihalla, the closures during the

winter, the incredible work done by the crews who keep that highway safe

and open. The Fraser Canyon I’ve talked about in this House many times

and the opportunities around the beauty of the drives through my riding.

But we also talk about potholes where you feel like you could bury your

car. We talk about slides and weather events and closures. Highways and

roads are not only important to my riding; they’re important to the

province.

Good representation and understanding of what happens when we have

a weather event, the ability to pick up a phone when someone phones you

and to know who to call…. Those crews are absolutely incredible, but

that’s part of representation. If I lived in Williams Lake and the

Coquihalla was mine — part of my riding — it would be incredible to have

such a huge area.

My colleague from Cariboo North talked about wildfire and

emergency management. We have all learned so much over the last five

years in regards to wildfires. We’ve seen flooding that we’ve never seen

in the last ten years. The water tables are so high. The flooding events

that used to be unusual have become a yearly event. As we talk about

climate change, we need to make sure that we start being proactive

rather than reactive.

But those are the kinds of things we talk about in my office. I

actually have two offices because my riding is so huge. I don’t want

people to have to be in a car for four hours to get to me.

First Nations relationships are incredibly important in my riding.

With over 30 bands, I spend a lot of time meeting and building

relationships with chiefs and councils. That is a key activity for an

MLA. I can’t imagine if we got bigger. We love to go to events at First

Nations communities, celebrating and participating in ceremonies and

special events, advocating and supporting the work being done at the

local, provincial and federal level.

[3:25 p.m.]

Education, economic development, job creation. I’ve shared in the

House a project that I’m so proud of in the Fraser Canyon. Our office is

a key component of that project, because when you represent so many

small communities, the capacity to actually carry a project is often

very difficult for them. They don’t have the staff. They don’t have the

ability to pull everyone together. So through my office and through a

partnership with First Nations, the village of Lytton and the chamber of

commerce, we’ve been able to put together a project that I believe is

going to make a significant difference through the Fraser

Canyon.

I can’t imagine, if we were bigger than we are, being able to take

on projects like that that will make such a difference to our small

businesses and our communities who have been devastated since the

Coquihalla was built.

I’ve tried to give you a taste of a day in the life of an MLA in a

large rural riding. It is a challenge. It is exciting. You get to see

some of the most beautiful country in British Columbia. I would say so.

We welcome the world in my riding.

The important thing is that constituents in my riding need to feel

valued. They need to feel valued by those of us who represent British

Columbia. When your riding is one of the ridings that gets changed every

time there’s a boundary review…. People in my riding feel like they’re

undervalued.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

They are part of Fraser-Nicola. They identify with Fraser-Nicola.

Fraser-Nicola boundaries are there for a reason. They’re trade routes.

They’re tradition. I certainly don’t disagree that in fast-growing

ridings, we need to reassess and we need to look at representation. But

that doesn’t mean that we take away.

I have to say that I was very disappointed when Bill 7 was tabled

in this House. I’ve been particularly disappointed in the lack of

comment from members on the other side. I think this is a critical

debate about democracy. It goes to the heart of the work we do. I think

this bill is one of the most important bills that we will see as we talk

about representation in British Columbia. To have the other side not

even get up and speak….

There are a great many members who this is going to affect, and

this doesn’t just affect you. It affects those that you represent. We

have an obligation to be their voice. We have an obligation to ensure

that we reach out, that we listen and that we bring their voice to this

House.

Although I’ve heard reassurances that the commission has the right

to make the boundaries and do that sort of thing, I can tell you that

people in my riding are pretty concerned. When the one big thing Bill 7

does is take that protection out, that the Interior, north and the

Kootenays will have the same number of seats, it sends a message. It

sends a message to the people who live in my riding. It sends a message

to the people who live above Hope. We don’t live beyond Hope. We live

above Hope.

[3:30 p.m.]

I can tell you that our people will be passionate when they make

presentations to this commission, and many of their comments and much of

their concern and anxiety will come from removing that

protection.

That protection isn’t partisan. That protection is about

representation. That protection is so that people in large, rural

ridings have the opportunity to drive a reasonable distance to see their

MLA. When you think about a compact, 12-by-12 block riding versus a

riding like mine the size of Belgium…. We deal with slides. We deal with

weather. We deal with mountain passes. Then we expect people to get in a

car and come to an office and see us.

Well, I can tell you that as an MLA, it is me who is on the road,

because people in rural B.C. are tired of being told to come to the

centre. They want services and representation in their communities. If

we, as a House, don’t recognize that — and I believe that we send them a

message by taking that clause out — people in rural B.C. once again feel

undervalued.

So in my comments today, when you draw a boundary based solely on

population, you leave the heart out of our ridings. It’s the people,

right? It’s the people you represent. You need to ensure that people in

Metro feel that they have the strong ability to be represented, and

people at Anahim Lake need to feel that they have access to their MLA

also.

That clause there guaranteed that those ridings and the

constituency within those ridings did not get any bigger. I think that’s

a critical point. But I’d ask everyone in the House to really think

about what it’s like. When we talk about diversity and inclusion, and we

talk about how important democracy is, this is our opportunity to show

people that everyone counts.

Life in Fraser-Nicola is always interesting. It is an incredible

experience to represent a riding that is so huge but so different. So

many communities with unique challenges and opportunities. But I can

tell you: everyone that I meet in my riding values the representation

from this House.

I ask, as you look at Bill 7, to think about that and to really

think about what this bill does as we look at boundary review. Thank

you, Madam Chair. It’s been a pleasure to address this House.

Hon. N. Cullen: It’s a pleasure to be with you here today. I’m actually in

Victoria, strangely. I’m not often here, given these COVID

times.

I am speaking to you from the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples

territory.

I represent the beautiful and extremely large riding of Stikine in

our provincial Legislature.

[3:35 p.m.]

To my friend from across the way, from Fraser-Nicola…. She

lamented that not enough government speakers, MLAs, were speaking. I’d

say: “Careful what you wish for.” She also lamented the enormous size of

her riding, which is large, I suppose. But it is one-seventh the size of

Stikine, which is the largest riding in the Legislature.

I see my friend from North Coast joining us, whose riding is not

only very large as well — I think quite a bit larger than Fraser-Nicola

— but is also incredibly complicated to get around, given that North

Coast has many stunning communities up and down the north and into the

central coast that require all manner of transportation to get back and

forth and are always weather-dependent and include, of course, the

beautiful islands of Haida Gwaii.

I think to put things in context today, for my remarks, I consider

it an incredible honour and sometimes a challenge to represent rural and

remote communities in our Legislature. In fact, those of us that seek

office from rural British Columbia have this extra task in front of us

to help bring those voices to this Legislature and beyond to other

communities in the province and throughout Canada. What we are

challenged with here in this conversation is about those concepts of

balance and fairness and opportunity for the citizens that we seek to

represent as elected people, to make sure that they all have their

voices heard as effectively as possible.

Now, geography and location play a significant role in that, of

course. So, too, does the quality of the representatives that we send. I

say this because we have probably all had the experience of being

running for office, taking on an incumbent and hearing that they don’t

show up much, that they’re not present much, that they don’t come out to

our communities much, and visiting other ridings where we say: “Please,

get us a good representative, because the person we have right now —

from sometimes the Liberal party, sometimes others — doesn’t seem to

take their job as part of being here and present in our

communities.”

So geography matters. My friend from Fraser-Nicola talked about

the difficulty of having as much as a 2½-hour drive between her

communities. Well, I’d welcome her to join me on my 22-hour drive that I

am taking to Lower Post and Atlin a little later in this month. I don’t

lament it. I don’t ask anyone to feel sorry for me or expect to send me

cards of gratitude. That’s the job. That’s the job we sign up for: to

represent people. I consider that an incredible privilege.

Now, I know my Liberal colleagues across the way don’t mean to

sound like complainers, don’t mean to sound like they’ve got it

especially hard. But as I’ve been listening to the speeches today, it’s

leaving a strong impression that they are expecting condolence cards in

the mail for a job that they stuck their hand up for and said: “I want

to represent this riding and have the privilege of representing this

riding in the provincial legislature.”

What we’re dealing with here in Bill 7 is this opportunity every

decade in which we assign an independent commission to look at the

boundaries and the ridings and the maps and the communities and the

categories to make sure that our elections take place and elect people

from various regions of the province in the most fair way. It’s trying

to balance out — this commission, as other commissions have done in the

past — things like representation by population, which is a foundation

of our democracy and has been since, well, almost since we

began.

There was a long period of time, of course, in Canada and British

Columbia where it wasn’t representation by population, unless you

happened to be a white male. It was representation by other things.

We’ve since evolved somewhat through much struggle. Some of that

struggle came from people who represented the place that I now have the

privilege to represent. I’m thinking of Frank Calder and Larry Guno and

Frank Howard and others.

Now, Bill 7 lays out other important balancing parts of the

equation: effective representation. Effective representation can mean a

lot of things. The connection of geography, of culture and place, of

communities of history and context, so that people feel a part of

something and connected and don’t feel disconnected and placed into

ridings that just don’t make sense.

Now, we should say at the outset…. I have seen more than a few

electoral boundaries commissions in my time, both at the provincial and

federal level. It’s a challenging task we assign these three

individuals.

[3:40 p.m.]

There is no perfect map available. There is no perfect sequence

and orientation of the electoral maps of British Columbia that every

single British Columbian will be satisfied with. That’s fine. We’re not

looking for the perfect. We’re looking for the good and for the very

best that we can.

For those trying to understand who this commission is, it’s

important to know that one of the commissioners will be the Chief

Electoral Officer, which is appropriate. A second will be either a

judge, currently sitting, or former judge. The third will be somebody

who is recommended by the Speaker, in consultation with the Premier and

the Leader of the Official Opposition. A three-panel judge.

I would say, as a rural representative…. I know my friends from

Vernon-Monashee and North Coast would very much like to see the

possibility of having somebody with strong lived experiences, from rural

and small-town British Columbia, to be able to inform the commission of

the lived realities of people who do live in some of our smaller, more

remote communities, because of course, they’re different. Of course, the

challenges in representing people, especially in 2021 and going ahead,

are always multifold.

I have never been one…. I have represented rural populations in my

previous life as a Member of Parliament, with a much larger riding:

331,000 square kilometres. That was Skeena–Bulkley Valley. It still is

very ably represented by my friend Taylor Bachrach, the Member of

Parliament.

The riding of Stikine is just short of 200,000 square kilometres,

for those geographers playing along at home. It is challenging because

of the simple math and the driving and the difficulty of float planes

and trains and dogsled and skidoo and all sort of things that we use to

get around some of our more remote communities and the challenges of

weather and winter and all of those things. That is what we asked to do.

We asked to represent people in this way. Again, it’s an incredible

privilege.

Now, the riding I represent in Stikine is not just the largest

riding in British Columbia. It is also the riding with the lowest

population, just around 20,000 people. We have ridings in British

Columbia, of course, in the more densely populated urban parts, that

have three times that population.

This is what the commission will be tasked with under Bill 7: how

do you make sure, in the representation by population, that one British

Columbian’s vote is not worth four, five, six, seven times the value of

another British Columbian’s? That’s a real challenge and a question that

I know we get from people who live in the cities and the suburban areas

of this province. “Why is my vote worth that much less?” But when you

explain the challenges of what it is and the particular needs of those

living in rural British Columbia, I think there’s an understanding that

can be made — that it isn’t the same realities.

Are there challenges in representing very densely populated urban

ridings? Of course there are. The many, many cultural groups…. I know

MLAs and MPs who have 40, 50, 60 languages spoken within their

constituencies. That represents a different order of opportunity,

privilege and challenge.

Now, for us up in the northwest, we very much pride ourselves in

having our voices heard. We very much pride ourselves in electing people

to the best of their abilities that make sure that our interests are

discussed in places like the Legislature and the House of Commons and in

the general discourse of British Columbia. We have a long history of

electing people really good at making themselves heard — sometimes

elected to government, sometimes elected to opposition. But the

underlying point that I’ve seen most consistently — not always; I can

think of a few exceptions — is that we have presented fierce advocates.

People know where Skeena is. They know where North Coast is.

You used to know…. I’ll leave off any of the temptations towards

partisanship, because ideally, what we are talking about today is our

role as legislators, to make sure that we never, in any circumstance, do

what our American cousins, for example, do when it comes to dividing up

the electoral maps: inserting a heavy tone of partisanship.

For those unfamiliar, if you haven’t watched a good political

science movie, when Americans go to redraw their maps, it’s entirely

politically charged and sometimes racially charged, where maps are drawn

to exclude certain communities, push them out if they don’t vote a

certain way, if they don’t look a certain way, and then try to cobble

together either Republican or Democratic districts. The boundary

commissions are run by a Republican or Democrat, depending on who the

governor is, and so on and so forth. Canada doesn’t do that.

[3:45 p.m.]

Most Canadians don’t realize that important distinction. It’s an

incredibly important one, because regardless of who wins the election,

the game itself can’t be rigged. That’s why we have an independent

commission that does this. That’s why, as you go across Canada, there

are guidelines given to those commissions.

So 25 percent above the median population, 25 percent below gives

the commission some boundary as to how many people they’re trying to fit

into a riding. Considerations, as I said, about geography, demographics,

cultural, history connection are important — not dividing First Nations

communities, for example, not dividing cultural communities. The

commission is given all of these guidelines from which to paint the new

picture of British Columbia.

It’s done without politics, which is something that we should just

be so grateful for, because it allows us the opportunity to have the

discussion we need to have, which is: who could best represent us? Who

do we hope to speak on our behalf in the parliaments, in the

legislatures of this country to represent our views, regardless of their

political orientation?

Now, from my perspective, as somebody…. I can speak, as I said,

with some authority about this, representing now the largest riding in

the provincial map of B.C. and, formerly, one of the largest ridings in

all of Canada at the federal level. The effort has to be made by the

representatives. I hear my friends from the Liberals say: “We don’t want

our constituents always to have to drive 2½ hours to see us — 3½, 4½, 20

hours.” No kidding. That’s why we go out. That’s why we do the work.

This is not a job. This is a vocation. It’s a calling.

If there are members who lament the idea that they have to drive

an hour or an hour and a half down the road or they have three, four,

five communities that they have to try to represent and it feels too

hard, well, I hate to break it to you, but perhaps this isn’t the right

line of work. This line of work requires the effort of going to where

people live, to see and be with them in their communities — not

expecting them to drive the 2½ hours to see us in our office but going

out to their communities and living on the road and being on the road

and representing them that way.

We also, of course, know that these 18 months have shown us that

our ability to connect has changed over time. So 40, 50 years ago what

we’re doing here today was obviously impossible. Representing people

looked different. I knew people who served in this House and served in

the House of Commons who would travel down to Victoria or travel to

Ottawa, out of Stikine, out of Skeena, once a year. They would leave,

and they’d come back eight months later, after the Legislature was

finished. They’d do a little tour around, and then again, four months

later, they would train back to Ottawa or train back to

Victoria.

Things have changed. Our ability to connect has changed. I hope

the commission reflects that — on the need to make sure that we have

things like connectivity, the ability to have good cell service and

Wi-Fi and all those things that our B.C. NDP government has invested so

fiercely in over the last little while.

Now, the B.C. Liberals have a bit of a challenge in their

dialogue, because they want to pretend that they’re representing and

fiercely defending rural interests in opposing this legislation. But

they’re going to try to do that thing that politicians do that drives

people crazy. They’ll say one thing to rural British Columbians, for

example, and say something different when they’re in the city or in

Richmond or in Surrey. They’re going to say, “We don’t want any more

seats given to that big city down there,” when they’re talking in places

like — I don’t know — Kamloops or Prince George. But then, when they’re

going to make the speeches in Richmond and Surrey come next election,

they’ll say: “Of course, you deserve better and more

representation.”

Our population has grown by about half a million people since the

last time we did this. That requires us to consider effective

representation and, of course, the principle of representation by

population, because most of that half a million, all of us would

acknowledge, has concentrated itself mostly in the urban environments.

So what do we do about that? Well, we offered the commission the ability

to go up to as many as six additional seats.

Now certainly, some of my colleagues from across the way are going

to cry about that. Well, cool your jets. Under the Liberal watch, just

two commissions ago, they offered the exact same thing to the

commission: to consider adding more seats to the Legislature — the exact

same number, in fact. Let’s put that to the side.

If what we’re trying to do is make sure there’s an element of

fairness in our electoral boundaries, in what it is when a voter goes in

to vote, and that their vote doesn’t count for one-fifth, one-sixth,

one-seventh of what a vote might count for in other districts, then of

course, allowing for more seats to go into those areas that have

experienced that rapid population growth is something that the

boundaries commission should and will consider.

[3:50 p.m.]

But we’re not telling them to do that. Again, back to the critical

element, the foundational principle of independence so that these wise

minds that we elect…. We gather, we select two of them from the

commissioner of electoral B.C. So there’s a retired or current sitting

judge and then an independent commissioner, which can hopefully

represent the views that are represented here.

This is also for Liberal colleagues that wish to “talk out the

clock,” try to delay this, try to block this. We are on the clock,

friends. By statute and by law, we need to put this thing together so

that Elections B.C. can get back a report and so that this commission,

in fact, first can go out and be in our communities and listen to our

communities, hopefully in the flesh and blood. Hopefully restrictions

will be lifted by the time this commission is struck and ready to go and

do its consultation and that they can visit our communities,

particularly in rural British Columbia.

I’m sure they will, because that’s what commissions have always

done: hear from people, present some options for the maps, get six

months of feedback and then present something to the Legislature from

the Electoral Boundaries Commission as their final report. Then

Elections B.C. can run, so we’re in time for the next election in

I hope nobody, in their opposition, tries to represent this as

being fast-tracked or anything like that, because our obligation as

legislators is to make sure that our independent elections commission

has the opportunity and time, first of all, to engage meaningfully with

British Columbians from all walks of life — urban and rural, rich and

poor — so that they can hear what people are hoping for from their

democratic representation and that they can try to put together the best

maps available, draw the lines as best as they can.

Again, there’s no perfect science. It’s little bit art, a little

bit science, so that when we can come back we can know that the next

election will be run fairly and that these principles of effective

representation, of representation by population, are able to be

done.

Now, I rarely — I hope you can tell in the tone of my remarks —

ask anyone for any kind of, I don’t know, special status because I have

represented and now represent such a large place or that anyone should

feel bad for me in any kind of way, because I consider the opportunity

to represent a place like Stikine an incredible privilege — one of the

greatest privileges of my life.

In fact, that drive, that getting to the feast halls, that getting

to the communities, the remotes — the Telegraph Creeks, the Atlins, the

Stewarts and the Dease Lakes — that’s part of what gives me the fabric

of how I try to represent people, those long drives, understanding what

their realities are.

Now, the fearmongering I’ve heard from some of my colleagues in

the media when talking about this bill is actually distasteful. Here

they are, some of my B.C. Liberal colleagues, out saying: “They’re going

to merge seats into these mega-massive seats that are going to be huge

and enormous.”

First of all, none of them could be bigger than the riding I

represented as a federal MP. Secondly, the idea of six additional seats,

as I mentioned before, was the hope for concentration and looking at

where population has grown significantly.

By the way, all of the demographics show us that the population is

going to continue to grow dramatically over the next ten years. Whenever

you’re doing one of these commissions, they will, of course, look at the

current state, the current census, who lives where, how many communities

of affiliation, culture and orientation and all of that. They will also

look at projections. They will talk to demographers and say: “What’s

happening in Vernon-Monashee? What’s happening in Vancouver? What’s

going to be happening in the Shuswap over the next five to ten years?”

Because this is about anticipating what comes next.

Now, I would say this. The raw numbers are true. We’ve seen, over

generations, the urbanization of the Canadian population. British

Columbia has not been immune to that. We’ve seen greater populations

growing. We’ve seen significant immigrant communities finding and

locating themselves in homes in some of our larger cities — suburban

places, as well. We have noticed, and the statistics are starting to

show this. I hope the commission — I’m sure it will; these are smart

people — is starting to looking at some of the new demographic

trends.

Some of them existed prior to COVID and have been accelerated in

the last 18 months. That’s the trend of young families, in particular,

moving to remote, rural British Columbia. We’ve noticed this in the

Hazeltons and Smithers and other communities that I represent. I know,

for some of my friends in the Interior, we’ve seen new-found pressures

on housing and new interests in living in places that are stunning and

beautiful.

[3:55 p.m.]

Because we’ve made investments in things like high-speed internet

and better cell service, people are able, if they can through their

work, to stay connected to jobs that didn’t even exist ten years ago and

certainly were a little bit dodgy in terms of connection five years

ago.

We’re seeing an increasing number of young families move into my

region. It is an incredibly hopeful thing. It comes with its challenges,

of course, moving and creating more housing stock and trying to make

sure that things stay affordable. Our government has invested millions

upon millions of dollars in trying to create more affordable housing.

This is important and something we’ll continue to do.

So the story of the urbanization of Canada, the story of the

urbanization of British Columbia is one that we always have to follow in

terms of the actual raw numbers. I’m proud because I think the quality

of life that we offer in rural British Columbia is

incredible.

I grew up in a very large city. I left it kind of as soon as I

could, as soon as I was legally able to, and found that the community

connections that I loved in the city, the small neighbourhoods and

communities of affiliation, existed in all sorts of new and important

ways in rural British Columbia.

Ever since coming and having my family be raised in Smithers,

B.C., in Wet’suwet’en territory where I came from, I have been a fierce

advocate to my urban friends that there are other ways to live. The

800-square-foot apartment that you paid far too much for can look a lot

different — a little bit more breathable — in some of our smaller

communities. And we have excellent health care that we are investing in

more and more.

I think there’s an important point in this dialogue — and some of

my Liberal colleagues have raised this, and I know some of my NDP

friends as well — that the resources and the wealth of this province are

predominantly in rural British Columbia. The extractive resources, the

renewable resources — a lot of the innovation that we do. It is also a

place where reconciliation has the greatest and some of the strongest

opportunities for manifestation.

We’re seeing that. I was just in dialogue with the Tahltan

leadership last week, which come from the further north part of the

riding I represent. The Taku River Tlingit, the Kaska Dena — we’re

headed there in a short little while up to Lower Post.

I’m sure all of my colleagues and those listening would be

interested because, of course, in Lower Post, as my friend from Nechako

knows, there’s a residential school, a place of incredible horror and

abuse for generations of Kaska Dena, Taku River Tlingit people, Tahltan

people and others, that the federal government, for many, many years,

said should serve as their municipal office, their post office, the

place that people have to go in and out of to work and to get basic

services for many years. The Kaska Dena, in particular, said: “This is

just a constant re-traumatizationof our people to have to walk into that

building.”

Just recently, it was with incredible emotion and pride that I got

to attend a virtual ceremony with the Premier and the Minister of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and the MP, Taylor Bachrach, and

the leadership from Kaska Dena, from Taku River Tlingit and from the

Tahltan to announce that we had received enough funding from the feds to

finally knock that building down and to build them a proper building

that is not a source of retraumatization and re-scarring.

But the principle of representing rural B.C. proudly, strongly and

without excuse or without pretence, I think, is important for all of us

that come from rural B.C. We’re not complainers. We’re hard workers that

come from the north and from the Interior. We’re proud of where we live.

We want our voices heard. These are all understandable

things.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

We want governments to understand and appreciate the particular

realities of what it is to live in rural British Columbia. That is not

an unrealistic expectation and hope. We’re not blind to the fact the

vast majority of British Columbians, of Canadians, are huddled along the

southern border in often very large cities and that the basic math of

how our democracy works is that cities get very strong representation

from those urban centres, as is also right. It’s not a zero-sum game

that wants to be played.

I caution my friends across the way of trying to pit rural British

Columbia against urban B.C. We need the both. It’s what makes us

beautiful and strong as a province. The vitality of our cities, the

cultural experience, the business acumen and the ability to be the

gateways to the world that we want are vital to have strong and

strengthening, constantly renewing urban environments.

[4:00 p.m.]

And we need the delivery of services. The respect and

understanding of rural British Columbia, regardless of our political

orientation. This should be something that unifies us.

When we’re looking at things like representation, electoral

representation…. I was one who was a fan of a more proportional voting

system, which I think makes each vote more effective. While that dream

is not active right now, it will come again.

It makes sense that every vote counts, that every vote has some

effect on the outcome. What a strange and radical notion that is. The

fact that most of the world has moved that way still seems like an

affront to my conservative colleagues across the way. It’s strange. It’s

a weak form of gerrymandering, if you ever saw one, in a

first-past-the-post system, but it’s what we’ve got.

In this opportunity, we have this ability to make sure that our

legislation is respectful, not partisan and independent. We put some

guidelines and some banks on the river. We put forward eminent people

who understand things like demographics, understand things like the law

and effective representation. We say: “Go forth. Consult with British

Columbians in a meaningful way. Consult with Indigenous leadership in a

meaningful way. Cultural communities. Business communities. Understand

what it is that people are hoping for.”

In my experience, when we talk to people about voting systems or

electoral boundaries, we’re not really talking just about those specific

things. We’re talking about the essence and the heart of our

democracy.

All it is, is an expression of hope. When a Canadian goes into a

ballot box and makes their mark on the page, they’re hoping for good

representation. They’re hoping to send people forth who can speak

loudly, speak with integrity and not represent just their party or their

personal interest but represent their communities, represent their

voices.

Are there challenges in representing rural British Columbia? Of

course there are. Of course the drives are long, and the traffic can

be…. Well, the traffic is not bad. The roads can be sometimes bad. Bad

weather. Flying in and out can be a challenge.

Again, you know, buck up. This is the job. Nobody putting their

hand up to run in rural British Columbia thought it was going to be a

15-minute bike ride across their riding. Otherwise, they don’t know how

to read a map. While that can be a challenge sometimes, it’s also an

enormous opportunity to really understand how the world works for many

British Columbians that are not in the urban centres.

We do it proudly. We do it with humility. We make sure that we’re

always raising the voice of rural B.C. regardless of our political

representation.

Now to the people that I represent. Yeah. Of course sometimes they

say: “What’s happening? Why did this city get this, and why did this

city get that?” Forever that will be the conversation. That’s okay.

That’s okay. I have to always be able to come back to them and say:

“When we invested here in Stikine and here and here and here, it was to

make sure that Stikine was stronger, that we were investing in ways to

make our communities more connected, more together, more

fair.”

My argument has always been that it’s not just about our

communities in Stikine. It’s about the entire province. When we put in

interconnectivity, when we make sure that the resource extraction

economics are done well and done fairly, as we’re doing in the forest

renewal plan, that’s to help out communities not just where we live in

the forest sectors but right across British Columbia. We know so many

rents and revenues go down to the city and help build those cities up as

well. We’re proud of that. We’re not going to begrudge it. We’re not

going to ask anyone for some great sympathy.

The last thing I’ll say…. This is important. It is written into

this act, and it’s critically important for me. Approximately 40 percent

of the riding I represent is First Nations: Wet’suwet’en, Gitxsan, all

the way through to Tahltan, Taku River Tlingit, Kaska Dena. It is one of

the relationships that I hold most sacred. I feel so incredibly

privileged for the lessons and the learning and the patience which the

leadership from those communities has given me over the

years.

I want to say to colleagues and to the commission, when it forms

itself, to understand these communities as best as you can — their

histories, their connectivity to each other. We have seen, at times,

boundaries commissions undervalue that.

Our government was the first in North America to bring in the

declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. It must be manifest

across all of our legislation that’s brought into the House, and it’s

being manifest through more and more of our government policy as we go

along. It should apply here too, and it will.

This is important. There are many Indigenous, especially young

people, that look at the state of our politics sometimes and say: “Why

should I bother voting?” Making sure that we hear their voices and hear

their hopes and desires for the future in this process, in particular,

and throughout all that we do is essential.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the time, and to colleagues

for your attention. Good luck to us all as we try to represent those we

were elected to do.

[4:05 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: I am pleased to take my place in the continued debate on Bill 7, a

piece of legislation that may well, in fact — no, will — have profound

implications for the future of how British Columbians are represented in

this chamber.

We all understand the need to review and amend boundaries after

every other general election. The interval, in this case, was

foreshortened due to the opportunistic and predatory snap election.

Normally speaking, a three-person, independent, non-partisan Electoral

Boundaries Commission is established.

They’re tasked to look at the current electoral boundaries and

propose changes to the areas, boundaries and names of the electoral

districts in British Columbia. Clearly, this is needed to keep up with

the changing demographics and regional circumstances, population growth

and communities of interest but, importantly, within a framework and a

terms of reference that are set by this House.

While appointing the commission may be routine — as I say, every

other election and, in this case, slightly prematurely — the changes

proposed in this legislation before us are not routine, as the clear

intention of government is to remove the protections that have been put

in place to ensure that rural British Columbia remains well represented

in our Legislature, even as the voices of those constituents are already

being overshadowed by growth in the urban parts of the

province.

Specifically, this bill seeks to remove the existing statutory

protection in three regions: Cariboo-Thompson, Columbia-Kootenay and the

north. Well, that sounds so innocuous, doesn’t it? Three regions, just

three regions. But the reality is that these three regions comprise the

majority of the land base in this province. The effect of this

legislation will be a real reduction in the representation in this

Legislature for the people who live and work in what is the majority of

the land base of British Columbia.

It’s well understood and appreciated that because of population

growth in urban areas, principally on the south coast…. This growth has

been sustained and rapid and increasingly will dwarf the rest of British

Columbia. This is a fact. This is the reality now. That will likely be

the case forevermore, notwithstanding the comments of the member for

Stikine.

That’s why it’s so important that we preserve and protect the

voices of those who live and work and raise their families outside of

urban British Columbia. This government appears to be dismissive of the

issues that are created by collapsing ridings and silencing voices

through barriers to access. This House must be cognizant of this issue

and must provide guidance to the Electoral Boundaries Commission to make

sure that the electoral boundaries of this province are drawn in such a

way as to provide every British Columbian with effective

representation.

The question is: should the bulk of the land base of this province

and the people who live on it have an ever-diminishing say in what

happens in the place that they live? Effective representation is not

simply about the equity of population. A 2015 electoral commission

report suggests that factors like geography, community history,

community interests and minority representation should be taken into

account when deciding how to draw electoral boundaries.

We agree. But we believe that in order for the commission to feel

unconstrained by conventional deviation limits, they need guidance and

support in making recommendations that recognize the unique nature of

this province and the vast territory and sparse populations that will be

impacted if government gets its way.

[4:10 p.m.]

I did, in the past, have the need to represent to a federal

boundaries commission. As the mayor of Pemberton, I presented back in

2010 or so. At that time, federally Pemberton was part of the riding in

Chilliwack. Frankly, it was a dysfunctional situation. Pemberton’s

orientation and community of interest is within the Sea to Sky, rather

than the Fraser Valley. Arguably, at the time, you couldn’t even get

there from here, certainly not without traversing dozens of other

ridings. It made little sense, but that was the decision of the boundary

commission of the day.

However, it does highlight and speaks very much to the issues of

community of interest and recognition that geography has a profound

impact on effective representation. Our current electoral boundaries in

much of rural British Columbia recognize the unique circumstances of

these places and the reality that while they may not have as large a

population as other ridings, it would not be possible to provide

adequate and timely representation if the boundaries were expanded to

reach the proposed electoral quotient.

In my riding of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, due to our population

growth, it’s not likely that we’ll see major changes. But I certainly

appreciate the challenges that many of my rural colleagues face. West

Vancouver–Sea to Sky is 10,000 square kilometres; my colleague, West

Vancouver–Capilano, 72 square kilometres. She could probably walk across

the riding several times before I could drive across mine.

I live in Pemberton, which by road is somewhat in the middle of

the riding. The road network is actually a big U around the mountains of

Garibaldi Park. But Pemberton is still hours away from the office in

Horseshoe Bay and many more hours away from Harrison Lake and Twenty

Mile Bay, which is the southeastern boundary of West Van–Sea to Sky.

It’s really hard to think of a more diverse set of circumstances, and

it’s a comparatively small, in a provincial context, riding.

The residents of West Vancouver — of Gleneagles, Eagle Harbour, of

Caulfeild and Cypress — have little in common in their daily lives with

the people who live in N’Quatqua or Samahquam or Tipella or Skatin. Many

constituents in the eastern portion of the riding have no — or often

unreliable, and certainly expensive — Internet services, and access

roads are long and gravelled and sometimes, frankly,

underwater.

It’s hard for urban residents to appreciate the impact of

hour-long school bus rides either way, on logging roads in river

valleys, skirting the edge of a lake, which drops precipitously 800 feet

into a murky canyon. But those are exactly the circumstances of some of

the First Nation communities in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, let alone the

circumstances across the vast north.

These people are tied to the land in a way that most of us cannot

at all appreciate. They often face economically precarious situations.

Access to health care may involve flying in doctors, and education

opportunities are limited. Even as they live, in my case, relatively

close to Metro Vancouver — as the crow flies, it’s just a jump across

the mountain — in reality, it’s a world away.

A large percentage of First Nations communities across British

Columbia, and certainly in the central part of the province and the

north, are located in regions that are far larger and far more isolated

than the Stl’atl’imx. Many communities and residents across the Interior

are far more remote yet are set to have statutory protections dismantled

and removed.

Some 30 percent of First Nations in British Columbia live in the

north and the Cariboo-Thompson region. This House needs to ensure that

they also have proper access to the representation they are entitled to.

I believe it’s important to maintain a system that makes sure that

communities with such varying needs can be effectively represented in

our Legislature.

[4:15 p.m.]

I know the challenge of representing a riding like West

Vancouver–Sea to Sky. But the idea that Peace River North — which is 16

times the size of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, which is, in turn, 150

times the size of West Vancouver–Capilano, yet it has a fraction of the

population of either of those ridings — would be collapsed and combined

with a riding like Stikine…. It would then comprise a riding of almost

half the physical province and would still have less population than

West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. It’s crazy to think that this could be the

outcome of Bill 7, which will remove rural riding

protections.

Of course, that’s not to say that we don’t need to add seats.

Regions with growing populations must be properly represented. We know

the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley have seen significant growth,

as have other, essentially urban, areas of the province. Electoral

boundaries will need adjustment to accommodate this growth. That will

mean new ridings and more seats in these rapidly growing

places.

The ability for MLAs to connect to constituents is vital to an

effective democracy. The sheer size of some of the existing ridings are

already a barrier to British Columbians having access to the

representation they need and are entitled to. The fact that they are

sparsely populated should not be used as an excuse to further diminish

their voices.

The majority of the land base in B.C., with its relatively small

population, has the potential to be marginalized. We need to protect and

enhance, not diminish and weaken, the connection between those electors

and their elected officials and their place in the

Legislature.

This House must continue to provide specific limitations and

direct the boundary commission to not reduce the already small number of

rural seats and undermine the representation of people whose voices are

already being dwarfed by the rapidly growing urban population of British

Columbia.

Frankly, it’s hard not to be too cynical about the motivation of

this government. I’m very disappointed in the government members who

represent some of these very ridings whose constituents’ voices will be

diminished, as those members know exactly of what I speak.

It’s a shame that these government members are so cowed by the

caucus whip and the power of the Premier’s office that they are willing

to defend — and in fact, support — the dilution of the voice of the

rural constituents, which is exactly what the previous speaker, the

member for Stikine, just did. I expect that if any further government

members choose to stand up and speak, they will do the same: defend the

dilution of the rural voice. Indeed, it is a shame.

Rural perspectives are important to all British Columbians. The

voices of families from across the bulk of this vast province must be

maintained amid the growing dominance of urban British Columbia. This

legislation will have a chilling effect, and I ask this House to

recognize this fact and act.

Hon. M. Rankin: It’s an honour to stand in this place and represent the people of

Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I do so today with pride, talking about Bill 7,

which would purport to amend the Electoral Boundaries Commission

legislation by some significant changes — changes which, I will argue,

are required by the law.

My road map today for this presentation to the House would be to,

first of all, talk about how we got here: the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms, which provides, in

section 3, a guarantee of a right to vote,

and how that’s been interpreted by the courts. I’ll talk a little bit

about that, and then I’ll examine the changes that Bill 7 would bring to

the existing Electoral Boundaries Commission Act.

I’ll then examine some of the criticisms that we’ve heard from

opposition members to this initiative. Then, finally, I will talk about

the implications of the United Nations declaration on the rights of

Indigenous Peoples, which this House unanimously supported in the

past.

We had, just in terms of history, a watershed moment in 1982. This

country decided to adopt a written constitution. We’ve had one in the

past under the BNA Act, but we ended up deciding that we would entrench

Charter rights and freedoms for Canadians. That changed everything. Ask

any lawyer. One thing it did was entrench the right to vote.

[4:20 p.m.]

It didn’t say what that meant, but in a democracy, they said the

courts will pour meaning into that. They said that our constitution

should be seen as a living tree, and we should see how the world evolves

and pour meaning into those rather vague words going forward. That’s, of

course, what the courts have done.

As members have noted, after every two elections, there has to be

one of these commissions so that politicians don’t decide what the

boundaries of their ridings are, their constituencies are, but rather an

independent commission — an independent commission made up of a judge or

a retired judge, the Chief Electoral Officer and someone selected by the

Speaker. That has been around for a long, long time. It’s a guarantee in

our system that an independent commission would have the discretion,

have the independence, to do what politicians should not be allowed to

do.

Anyone who studied the United States and looked up on Wikipedia

the word “gerrymander” — or, indeed, to be closer to British Columbia,

remembers Gracie’s finger — will know why we need to have an electoral

boundary commission to do that critically important work. It’s the basis

of a democracy, and I’ll come to that in a moment.

The notion that there is one person, one vote, in general, makes

sense. Most people say: “Why should my vote be worth less because I live

in Surrey than if I live in the Stikine? Is that fair?” The court have

said yes, it can be fair, that there can be a deviation from

representation by population if it’s not too gross a

deviation.

Under this legislation and, as I will say, grounded in the case

law, the deviation the courts have been permitted in this country — it’s

been more aggressive in other countries — is 25 percent, plus or minus.

That deviation from equality of representation has been seen as

something we can tolerate and still pay homage and put meat on the bones

of the notion that we’re all equal in this province. Our vote should

count the same but within the necessary deviation that the courts have

permitted.

Let me go through a bit of a history lesson. The Charter in 1982.

In 1988, in our province, Mr. Justice Thomas Fisher was a commissioner

for one of these boundary commissions, the kind of which we’re here to

talk about. After a very thoughtful analysis, Justice Fisher said this:

“The plus or minus 25 percent range is the limit to which the other

representational claims may legitimately modify the principle of one

person, one vote.” Let me say that again: 25 percent, plus or minus, is

the range to which other representational claims may legitimately modify

the one person, one vote principle.

A couple years later, in 1989, the Supreme Court of British

Columbia had a chance to look at this. They, in a case called Dixon

v. British Columbia , took a hard look at British Columbia’s

electoral map. I just want to tell you the extremes that were

contemplated there to show you how far we have come.

The court talked about the electoral district of Atlin. Now,

you’ll know that isn’t around anymore, but you’ll know where it is — in

the northwest part of our province. The court said that at the extremes

in British Columbia, the electoral district of Atlin was 86.8 percent

below the equal population norm, while the district of Surrey-Newton was

63.2 percent above the norm, for a total variation of 149.7 percent.

That is not atypical.

The court goes on to say that in Canada, federal ridings are based

on a permitted deviation of 25 percent. I was surprised to learn that in

other countries, like Australia, 10 percent is the maximum that they’re

allowed to deviate from the principle of equality. So the court went on

and said that the electoral map in British Columbia was invalid. It was

contrary to

section 3 of the Charter — the right to vote, the equality —

and was not saved by

section 1. The boundaries were

unconstitutional.

It’s a very big principle, because a court struck down the map. We

don’t want to have that happen here. We want an electoral boundary

commission that’s guided by principles and not by anything that is

political in nature. I think that’s what the courts are trying to say.

Equality of voting power, the court said, is the single most important

factor, but we recognize we can’t have absolute equality in the real

world, so we’re allowing you to deviate on certain

principles.

[4:25 p.m.]

What are those principles? There has to be a valid factor, not

just because one particular party does better in this poll versus that

poll so we’ll add it — did I mention Gracie’s finger? — in order to help

a particular government of the day. The court said: “Only those

deviations should be admitted which can be justified on the ground that

they contribute to better government of the populace as a whole, giving

due weight to regional issues within the populace and geographical

factors within the territory governed.” Geographic considerations

affecting the servicing of a riding and regional interests meriting

representation may fall into the category and be justifiable.

Just to fast forward. That is precisely, as I’ll come to, what is

in Bill 7. Twenty-five percent? Right there enshrined in the statute.

Constitutionally, it seems necessary in any event. The factors that

would justif