2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 24, Number 6

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Second Reading of Bills

Electoral Boundaries Commission

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 39) (continued)

M. Karagianis

L. Mayencourt

B. Simpson

R. Hawes

C. Trevena

[ Page 9185 ]

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2007

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Abbott: I call continued debate on Bill 39,

Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2007.

Second Reading of Bills

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

M. Karagianis: I stand today to respond to the Electoral

Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, Bill 39.

It is very puzzling that one more time this week, I'm standing

here in the chamber to debate against what I consider to be an undemocratic

piece of legislation that's been introduced in the House.

You'll forgive me if my voice gives out. It's been a long week of

debate against the TransLink changes and amendments to that governance.

Interestingly enough, we see in the same week this electoral boundaries

amendment.

If we look back on the history of this topic of the whole genesis

of the Boundaries Commission, this was born out of political interference in how

electoral maps were drawn historically here in British Columbia.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

There was a time not so long ago when, prior to an election, the

government in power would sit in the Premier's office, pull out the map and say:

"How can we maximize our potential to win the next election and define where

electoral boundaries will be?" The Premier and his handpicked staff of the day

would sit and basically redesign electoral boundaries based on their own

political expectations, needs and desires.

[1005]

As a result of probably one of the most notorious events coming

out of that — the infamous Gracie's finger, where a very peculiar map was drawn

in order to capitalize on voters' tendencies towards a specific candidate, and

the scandal that was created here in the province — was born the idea of an

independent boundaries commission and a legislated mandate that every ten years

they would, in a very democratic and independent way, look at electoral

boundaries and determine the size of ridings going into an election.

I know that for most of the citizens of British Columbia,

something that is not uppermost on their mind every day is: "Where is my

electoral boundary, and what does it mean to me as a voter in the next

election?" In reality, this is a very important role that the independent

electoral commission plays, because in fact it determines democratic

representation here in the Legislature. Much as this is viewed at the federal

level, the municipal level and again here at the provincial level, it is

important for how we represent voters and how we offer them representation here

in the House.

The independent commission concept was legislated and set up so

that an independent body would look at the boundaries in a constituency and

would determine, based on population growth or population decrease, where those

boundaries would lie so that all voters in British Columbia were guaranteed

equal representation — that their voice would be equally represented here in the

Legislature.

We've had this process for a number of commissions at this point,

where they have gone out independently and looked at the boundaries. In 1996 the

commission looked at the boundaries. It was early on in my days running for

local government in my community of Esquimalt. I remember that process where the

Electoral Boundaries Commission looked at all of the statistics, the growth, the

demographics of British Columbia and determined that based on increased

population, in some areas the boundaries would be moved slightly. That resulted

in what we have now, the 79 seats across British Columbia which are represented

by the 79 individuals here who have been elected to the House.

That particular map stayed in place for a decade. Now we see that

we have reached the end of that legislated period of time. It is time for the

Electoral Boundaries Commission to once again look at population growth or

decrease in various areas of British Columbia and determine what the electoral

boundaries would look like for the 2009 election.

When this legislation was introduced for this particular Electoral

Boundaries Commission, the mandate that was given to the commission by

government was fair. It offered them all of the independence they required. It

gave them the leeway to add up to six seats in the province if the population

change required that. That mandate was very clear, and it seemed to be very

equitable.

The commission began a process of consultation with British

Columbia. It travelled around the province and said: "This is our mandate. We

have now been given the option of looking at how populations have been

redistributed over the last decade to determine where we might wish to add seats

— up to six above the 79 that we currently have. Somewhere in that range we can

determine the new boundaries."

This process actually cost the taxpayers a considerable amount of

money, as you can imagine. This is a commission of individuals that went around

and held public meetings for over a year and, at expense to the taxpayer,

determined that there was considerable population growth and change in some

areas of the province over the last ten years and certainly some reduction in

population, especially in some of the more remote rural areas and in the north.

The commission took in all of the public consultation that they

were required to over this time period, spent the taxpayers' money wisely, I

would say, and sat

[ Page 9186 ]

down and determined what the new electoral boundaries map would look like for

the 2009 election.

[1010]

Therein begins a series of events that I think have brought us

here today and, actually, have compelled me to stand up here and speak on behalf

of my constituents and again speak to the issue of democratic representation —

and independence, I would say, as well.

Certainly politicians — more, I think, than voters — were

compelled to really watch the results of the electoral boundaries shift, and I

think we had much more stake in it personally. Those of us that run for office

take sort of proprietorial ownership. We become possessive about our

constituents, our constituencies, and we do really watch very closely any shift

and change that's happening in our community.

I would say that it was with some surprise that all of us viewed

the draft report that the Electoral Boundaries Commission tabled in August.

There was a great deal of concern immediately voiced by, I think, everyone who

had been watching this process with some keen interest. It became very obvious

immediately that the commission had viewed the decreasing population in northern

and rural British Columbia in a much more stringent manner than we might have

anticipated and, in fact, had allocated fewer seats to that area of the province

than currently exist.

Equally surprising, the commission had gone through and basically,

really, rearranged all of the boundaries for many areas of the lower mainland

and certainly here on the Island — again, looking at how to evenly distribute

representation for voters in the coming election and for their elected

representatives, the Members of the Legislative Assembly who would be elected to

sit here.

The report came out. Everyone who had a keen interest….

Politicians mostly but certainly others — community leaders who had a keen

interest in how representation would be mandated out of this commission — took a

keen interest, and immediately there was much commentary.

The commission tabled their draft report and then began a series

of open consultations with British Columbians, saying: "This is what we're

proposing. What do you think?" There was already in the first days some reaction

from politicians, from community leaders, but to give the commission their due,

they had only begun the consultation process when a very startling series of

events took place.

Rather than allowing the commission to go about doing its full

consultation process based on its first draft and based on what they were

immediately hearing from rural communities about the reduction in

representation, the government took the very extraordinary steps of halting the

process — halting it completely — and saying: "We actually do not agree. Despite

the fact that we mandated the commission, that we sent them on a journey and

said, 'You can add up to six seats,' we don't agree with the results. Not only

do we not agree with the reduction of rural seats; we actually don't agree with

a whole number of other things here."

So we begin to see the first stages of a very, very clear

political interference in an independent process. It's very interesting. When I

listened to the Attorney General's comments in tabling this yesterday in the

House…. In his opening comments the Attorney General has framed this government

interference in a process in such a way that he has said that the government has

given notice of its "intention to give updated instructions to the current

Electoral Boundaries Commission."

Madam Speaker, I find it quite ironic that this is now being

couched as updated instructions. This was legislation that was presented to the

Electoral Boundaries Commission, was tabled in the House and had a very clear

mandate. The commission went about doing exactly what that mandate was. Rather

than let the next part of the process take place, the government now feels it

necessary to halt that process, stop the process of the Electoral Boundaries

Commission, and to now give updated instructions.

[1015]

One has to wonder: did the government get it wrong the first time

it tabled the legislation? Was the original mandate given to the commission

wrong? Has the government had a revelation in the last year?

Certainly, the commission had intentions of consulting and looking

at that draft map. Actually, precedents have shown us that in the past when maps

have been drawn and communities actually have responded in the negative about

lack and loss of representation, especially in rural and northern British

Columbia, the commission quite likely would have heard that and looked seriously

at how they would replace that rural representation that was lost within the

mandate they had originally been given. But unfortunately, that mandate has now

been pulled out from under them, and the government has determined that it will

now update instructions.

Interestingly enough, the updated instructions are no longer

giving the commission a mandate of complete independence. In fact, they're very

prescriptive. The updated instructions here are very, very specific on what it

is that government is now requiring the independent commission to do. And you

have to actually compare those two words — an "independent" commission that's

now being "required" to do a number of things.

Certainly, no one in this House in any way feels that rural

representation is at stake in the earlier report of the commission, and I

believe they would have clearly heard that in the consultation process and would

have taken steps to repair that aspect of their draft report. We will never know

that, though, because in fact the government has interfered in that process and

is now delivering a new requirement to the independent commission, which in

itself takes away all semblance of independence.

The government requiring the number of electoral district seats to

be returned to rural British Columbia is in itself certainly nothing that you

could oppose. But it's also now requiring, instructing, the commission to

produce 87 electoral seats. So the commission that was originally charged with

delivering up to 85 is now being told: "No, now it's 87."

[ Page 9187 ]

You have to ask yourself again: what happened? What was the

revelation that occurred in the last year with the government that originally

gave a mandate of up to 85 seats? The commission delivered a report of 81 seats,

and the government said: "No, wait. We actually want 87 seats."

I don't understand. It's not clear in this process exactly what

revelation occurred to the government to make them determine that all bets were

off on the previous mandate and that now there's a new mandate that has no

flexibility, no independence for the commission. "You will be required to

deliver these results."

On that basis, I am opposing this bill. I believe that this bill

once again takes away all independence from this commission and requires the

commission to deliver a specific outcome. It's no longer independent.

In fact, that goes against every one of the basic tenets of this

commission being established in the first place. Let's remember that the

commission was put in place because the citizens of this province had determined

that they did not want politicians sitting down and determining maps that would,

at the end of the day, deliver a specific outcome that favoured those drawing

the maps.

Yet we see the very same germs of the kind of political

interference that occurred before the commission was put in place. Now we see it

in the requirements that are being given here to the commission.

I would like to argue here for a much more practical and pragmatic

outcome at the end of the day. I think, based on the fact that the public is not

calling out for more politicians by far…. In fact, the Premier himself, in

opposition, said that it was time for politicians to lead by example. "I am

committed to reducing the number of MLAs and eliminating gold-plated pensions."

That was from the Premier while he was in opposition. "I am committed to

reducing the number of MLAs."

[1020]

Yet we have a bill introduced that said: "You are now required to

deliver 87 seats into this House." If that's not delivering more MLAs…. It's a

complete contradiction in terms.

We have much public opinion, both from voters and certainly from

pundits, that the last thing we require is more politicians in British Columbia

and that in fact this kind of manipulation in delivering more politicians has a

much more political outcome expectation.

We can clearly see, by the parameters being drawn for the

commission and by the letter that the Premier himself made very public in

September, that there is an expectation that these seats will be delivered in

areas that will give the government the outcome they want — more representation

in areas that already favour their political ideals.

I would stand here today to say, first of all, this is enough of

squandering taxpayers' dollars. I think the public are getting fed up with their

tax dollars being squandered on projects that get thrown out. We see this from

this government — a new flavour of mandate every single year in the throne

speech. Most of these have initiatives and money thrown at them, and then they

disappear.

This, again, is the kind of squandering of taxpayers' dollars that

I think voters find totally unacceptable, completely unacceptable. A lot of

money has been spent on a process that the government then stopped — cut off in

mid-process, cut off before the full consultation could occur.

Right after the draft was delivered, they said: "Enough of that.

We're going to start a new process here. We're going to require the commission

to give us an outcome here." Frankly, the time frame that we've got left before

the next election makes me wonder what kind of public consultation will even be

possible in this and what that's going to cost the taxpayers.

I stand here in the House today and say that a more pragmatic,

more practical, more thoughtful and respectful outcome for this province would

be to hold 79 seats and have the commission redraw the maps to give us 79 MLAs

in British Columbia — not 87, not 85, but 79. I believe that we can continue to

maintain the number of Members of the Legislative Assembly and deliver the kind

of representation that British Columbia still needs and deserves.

We have Members of Parliament who cover much larger areas and have

many more voters in them, and they are quite capable of that kind of

representation. So it seems to me that we, at this point in our history, do not

need to be adding more politicians, do not need to be squandering more

taxpayers' dollars.

We need to maintain the representation that we have now for rural

British Columbia and for urban and suburban British Columbia. I don't actually

see any rationale at this point for us adding all of these seats. I believe that

the commission can do its job of defining a map that delivers equal

representation to rural, remote and northern British Columbian communities and

continues to maintain the kind of representation that they have in the House

now.

In fact, all of the maps can be redone — as they have been done

historically, where boundaries were shifted slightly. They moved slightly larger

or slightly smaller in response to population growth. So I don't actually see

the rationale for us adding all of these seats, all of these politicians, all of

these expenses to the tax bill of British Columbians.

Frankly, British Columbians are watching very closely how many

times the government reaches into their pocket and picks out dollars and puts

them into some of these projects. In fact, I think it's more important than

ever, Madam Speaker, as we see growing pressures throughout this province on

families to pay their mortgages, to raise their children, to be able to afford

the kind of lifestyle that's becoming more and more expensive here. I think

British Columbians have said, "Enough," to us squandering taxpayers' dollars on

political interference and a political project of this nature.

[1025]

Until I hear from someone a rational argument that says 79 seats —

with a commission looking again at

[ Page 9188 ]

how those maps could be redistributed to give 79 representatives the kind of

boundaries and the kind of constituencies that could bring good, solid

representation into this House — then I don't see any rationale whatsoever for

supporting this bill.

In the last few days I have stood in this House and talked about a

number of other very significant pieces of legislation where the government

really is imposing their own expectations, their own political gains — outcomes

that they themselves can control ultimately and infinitely. I've stood in this

House and spoken against that.

In fact, on the TransLink bill itself we will continue to speak

against it if the government brings that debate back in here, because it's yet

another example of the government imposing something that is not about fair and

democratic representation — where the taxpayer can rely on the representation in

this House being real, cogent and effective.

I know that the taxpayers…. Although they are not compelled, the

top thing on their minds is not our compelling them to be worried about the

electoral boundaries and: "Where are my electoral boundaries going to be in the

next election?" I know that at the end of the day, they want us to spend their

tax dollars effectively, and that is not by putting more politicians into this

Legislature. It is by redistributing those boundaries in a way that allows for

fair representation in this House and that doesn't add to the tax burden of

taxpayers in this province.

Madam Speaker, I would at this point urge the House to vote

against Bill 39 and, if the government wants to send a clear message to the

commission, say: "Go and look at a map that will redistribute population changes

based on 79 seats in the House. Preserve rural representation. Redistribute

urban representation. Bring us back a map like that." That would be a

responsible representation on behalf of the public and the voters of British

Columbia.

In addition, I see that the bill anticipates requiring the

Electoral Boundaries Commission to deliver 87 members out of an STV. Frankly, I

think one of the messages that also should be delivered here is that this map

has not delivered us any kind of proportionality. That would have been one other

piece of the consultation process that has been missing by the government

immediately calling to a halt all further consultation with the commission.

I urge everyone to turn down Bill 39 and to call for 79 seats in

this House and a redistribution based on that. That's fair and equitable. That

does not cost the taxpayers more. It does not squander their dollars needlessly.

They expect us to be responsible with how we spend those tax dollars, and I

expect to make that representation here on behalf of my constituents.

L. Mayencourt: Madam Speaker, just before I start my

comments on Bill 39, this is the first time you've been in the chair since

you've been elected to become the Deputy Speaker. I want to congratulate you on

that very significant achievement, and I wish you the very best as you sit in

that chair through this next session. I look forward to having lots of great

debates in this chamber with you presiding over it in a fair and balanced way.

Congratulations to you.

I am very, very interested in Bill 39. I actually had an

opportunity in about 1999 to appear before the Boundaries Commission that was

determining what the boundaries would be for 2001.

That was a very important process, because in my neighbourhood a

lot of change was occurring. My neighbourhood is downtown Vancouver, and it runs

from Main Street to Stanley Park and from False Creek over to Burrard Inlet.

It's a very, very densely populated area. Back in 1993 or 1994 — actually, I

think the census was done in 1996 — in that area of the town of Vancouver, there

were 45,000 residents.

[1030]

That's a pretty densely populated area, and most of those people

lived in what's called the West End, which is sort of the heart of

Vancouver-Burrard. People are living there in apartments, in townhouses, in

condominiums and so on. There are a very, very great number of these people

living there, but as the years went by, we started to change the riding quite a

bit.

Just in the last several years Coal Harbour has appeared. Coal

Harbour is a brand-new neighbourhood. I think a couple of thousand people have

moved into that neighbourhood alone. It's just below the Bayshore, and it's a

very important part of our community. It is home to a lot of residents, and it

is also home to a lot of mature residents — people that I would call

empty-nesters, people that have had their children grow up. They've sold their

home, and they've moved into a condominium because they want to live in an urban

setting. They want to be represented in that community.

In addition to that, we have the Alberni corridor. The Alberni

corridor was pretty much vacant over the early '90s and even through to the

beginning of 2001. Now there are literally thousands of apartments or

condominiums that have been built along that corridor.

You can go to the downtown south in my neighbourhood, Madam

Speaker, and about 5,000 new homes have been built there in the last two years.

That's an amazing addition to Vancouver-Burrard. If you take a look at the area

around False Creek North, again, thousands of new homes have been built there in

the last several years.

Why is this relevant? Well, one of the reasons it's relevant is

that there are now in my riding about 120,000 households. According to Canada

Post, if I wanted to send a mailer to each home in my riding, I'd have to have

120,000 pieces of mail delivered.

We're supposed to have about 45,000 people in our ridings. I

certainly have a lot more, because I don't think those 120,000 people are all

living alone. As a matter of fact, I know I've got a baby boom in that

neighbourhood. Now, the babies in that neighbourhood don't get to vote, but they

depend upon us to provide them with child care, elementary schools, middle

schools and high schools. They are people. They are citizens of British

Columbia.

[ Page 9189 ]

I've got 120,000 of those people, and I want to make it really

clear. I'm not complaining about that, because I love this job. But I want to

say that my people are not getting the same kind of representation as the member

for North Coast, and the reason for that is that there are differences between

rural communities and urban communities.

Yesterday we heard from the member for North Coast, and he argued

vociferously that it was a bad idea to add new seats to the Legislature and to

protect the rural communities. Well, if we look at the census data for 1996 and

for 2001, we'll see that there has been a huge dip in the population in Prince

Rupert. In other words, a lot of people have moved out of Prince Rupert,

according to Census Canada, and therefore, they are less deserving of

representation.

Well, that's just plain wrong. That doesn't have anything to do

with reality, because in the last two years we've seen a massive increase in

economic activity in Prince Rupert that has translated into people coming back,

people coming back to Prince Rupert to work at the port, at the new community

college and in the Queen Charlottes. The census doesn't tell the whole story,

and unfortunately, those are the statistics that the Boundaries Commission

relied upon when they started their deliberations around this.

[1035]

Sometime in mid-November of last year the member for Peace River

South, who is adjacent to me in this chamber — well, usually, anyway — asked the

Attorney General, when we were talking about the Boundaries Commission being

appointed: "Are we going to be able to preserve rural ridings in the north, in

the Kootenays, in the Cariboo?" He asked that question in this chamber on second

reading of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, which mandated the

Boundaries Commission to come and do this divvying up, if you will, of the

province.

The Attorney General said: "We're going to protect rural ridings."

Why? Well, because rural ridings need their representatives and nobody…. There

are people who say in this chamber, as members of the opposition have today,

that we don't need more politicians in British Columbia. Actually, it's not the

politicians that are needed. What is needed is representation for the population

that lives in that community. That is a reasonable expectation of every citizen

of British Columbia.

Now, Madam Speaker, we have a lot of time that we've spent on this

bill, and I've heard a lot of the debate. I'm very interested in what both sides

have to say, and I'm trying to be very respectful of what both sides have to

say. But I think that one of the things we have to recognize is that people in

British Columbia said to us unequivocally, with the release of the Boundaries

Commission report, that this was no good.

This didn't take into account the fact that the north is important

to British Columbia's economy. It didn't take into account that it takes longer

for the member for Prince George–Omineca to travel across his riding than it

does for me. I can walk around my entire riding in about two and a half hours.

He might have to drive eight hours to get to the boundaries of his.

I know that there are members in this chamber…. The member for

Skeena will literally travel a whole day just to get to one community of 300 or

400 people in the northern part of his riding. The reality of it is that he

should have fewer constituents than I have, because he has to travel so far to

get to them. He's going to spend a lot of time on doing those sorts of things.

We are not the only members of the Legislature who have those

kinds of situations. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant knows that she's

got an unprecedented building boom that's happening in her neighbourhood. I

mean, it's phenomenal what's going on in Mount Pleasant. You go up Main Street,

and you see hundreds and hundreds of new developments happening that are going

to be housing for people. She, as a good member of this House, can get around

her riding with no problem in a couple of hours.

Well, the member for North Coast cannot. The member for Columbia

River–Revelstoke cannot. My goodness, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke

can't even get to his riding from Victoria. He actually has to go to Calgary to

catch a flight out of the province to drive back, and God only knows how long

that takes. But what it does do is to take him away from representing his

constituents for a period of time while he's on that highway or in a plane.

There is a difference between rural and urban ridings, and there should be a

difference between urban and rural representation.

Madam Speaker, last night we were in this debate, and someone sent

me an e-mail. I want to just read from this e-mail a couple of the things that

they sent over, because I think it's very representative of how British

Columbians felt about the report that just came out.

First one is this: "We've been very vocal about saying that we

shouldn't lose rural representation. Not often the Premier and I agree, but on

this one, we'd like to see rural seats remain. We don't think we should lose

rural representation." That was the Leader of the Opposition on September 13.

So the Leader of the Opposition, the NDP, actually said about a

month ago: "You know what? We shouldn't be losing our rural seats. We shouldn't

be losing a seat in Prince George, we shouldn't be losing a seat in the

Kootenays, and we shouldn't be losing a seat in the Cariboo."

[1040]

I don't know what the members opposite have been talking about for

the last little while. They're opposed to preserving those seats. Well, you

know, you guys have got to get behind your leader. It's time for you to support

the poor woman. She's had a rough, rough time here trying to get you guys

organized, trying to build a consensus within your party, and it's very

important that you guys start thinking about what you're doing to her. That's

what's happening to your party.

Interjections.

L. Mayencourt: Oh, I see I've hit a raw nerve. I've hit a

raw nerve, and I….

[ Page 9190 ]

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, please confine your remarks

to the bill.

L. Mayencourt: Yes, Madam Speaker. Let me back off from

that.

I want to move on to another quote that I'll share with you:

"On the whole, I think that what this bill does is achieve

that balance of representation between British Columbia and urban British

Columbia, and from my own perspective, in terms of how we handle growth in the

lower mainland, which is crucial, because that is not going to change.

"That's going to continue, and it's something we

have to make sure we address, because in the same way that we don't want rural

seats to disappear in redistribution, we also don't want to see the opposite,

where you have urban seats which have become so large, they've become difficult

to service."

Once again, that is from the member for Port

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. That member spoke quite passionately. He knows he's in

an urban riding, and he knows that he needs to have a redrawing of the

boundaries so that his community is fully represented.

When we think about the representation portion of it, we often

think that we're only…. The Boundaries Commission looks at this as: how many

voters are in a riding? It doesn't take into account the moms and the dads that

aren't on the voters list and that still need representation.

I have immigrants in my community, as does the member for Port

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, that are not voters. They still need an MLA to come

into this chamber and defend their rights. They need someone that can come into

this chamber and speak for them. That means that we are representing a different

number, if you will, than what the Boundaries Commission represents it as.

The other members of this House have spoken, and I want to talk

about one of them who was here yesterday and spoke about this. He said: "The

increase in the number of seats in the Legislature from 79 to possibly 85 will

allow some retention of rural seats." Now, that was important to that member on

that day, which was, oh, October of 2005. The reality of it is that he knows

that rural B.C. is deserving of representation.

In the previous couple of years we've seen a tremendous increase

in the economy of the area in the Kootenays. We've seen people coming home.

We've seen kids that have been off in Alberta coming back to the riding of

Columbia River–Revelstoke. We've seen increases in the transportation

infrastructure because there are more people there, and we've seen job growth in

that neighbourhood. It has not been reflected in the most recent census. I think

it's very, very important that the people of the Kootenays, the people of the

Cariboo and the people of the north have effective representation and that their

seats be protected.

Some of the speakers across the way today have talked about the

fact that we're preserving the seats in the rural areas to protect our majority.

The members opposite have a riding in the Kootenays. The members opposite have

two ridings in the Cariboo. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't really

have a whole lot of….

It doesn't benefit anybody when you draw lines around the

province. It only benefits the people that are voting. What happens when we do

that is we make sure that one person has one vote and that they are represented

in this chamber with passion, intelligence and commitment. That's what that is

about. It is not about drawing lines so that one party can win over the other.

[1045]

I am not sure why members opposite are afraid of having more

ridings in Vancouver and are also afraid of having the same number of ridings in

rural B.C. I don't get what it is that they are so afraid of.

We have a democracy in which, no matter what, everyone in British

Columbia that wants to run has an equal opportunity to do that to advance their

ideas. What they need is a good idea. They need a platform to stand upon. They

need a good leader. They need a good marketing campaign. They need to be

sincere. They need to get out there and work their hearts out.

My riding had been held for 30 years by the NDP. That's not a safe

seat. That is a seat that really…. In many ways the NDP have said that they own

that seat. They even have every intention of getting that seat back.

The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter where you draw

the line. There are going to be some people that are NDP, there are going to be

some people that are B.C. Liberals, and there is going to be another group that

is doing a whole different thing. There's nothing wrong with that.

What the NDP needs to do, if they're concerned about losing a seat

in Vancouver, is to get in there and work hard, and they'll make it — or they

won't. Now, recently, they haven't, but that's not…. I'm not trying to be

partisan here. But that's what you do in an election campaign, and that's what's

going to happen when we go to 79 or 87 or STV or whatever. Whatever the

electoral system is, it applies to me, and it applies to everyone in this

chamber. It applies to every member.

The game that we play is to go out with our ideas, our beliefs and

our commitment. We talk to people on our streets. We say: "We're trying to do

this, and the other party is trying to do that. Therefore, you make your

choice." That's really what this is about. It is not about politicians. It is

actually about the people that we represent.

As I said, I was at the Boundaries Commission hearing back in

about 1999, and I appeared before them to talk about my neighbourhood. The

reason I did that was that according to the census data and the projections that

they had, by the 2001 election we had 55,000 people living in my riding.

That wasn't the case at all. By that time I had over 70,000

residences. I'm not talking number of people; I'm talking about doors or

mailboxes. That's how many people had moved into the neighbourhood. Why? Because

no one could predict in 1999 or 1996 how fast Vancouver-Burrard was going to

grow. You just couldn't.

[ Page 9191 ]

Every lot in my neighbourhood right now that's vacant is under

construction. What that means is that there are going to be a lot more people in

my riding tomorrow than there were yesterday. What that means is that the

Boundaries Commission is not tapped into that information.

There are three individuals, great individuals, that are serving

their province, going out and doing the best that they can. But the fact of the

matter is that they don't get to see the whole province. They don't get to see

the increased activity in Prince Rupert. They don't get to see the increased

activity in the Cariboo. They don't get to see what's happening in Columbia

River–Revelstoke. They don't get to see what's happening in Prince George.

What is happening is that people are moving back to B.C. The

population is growing a lot, and it's good to see. Each and every one of those

people that comes back needs an MLA that they can turn to, that they can say:

"Here, I have a problem or an idea or an opportunity. I want that brought to

this Legislature." Every one of those individuals is entitled to that. Whether

they're on the voters list or not doesn't much matter.

I know that the little kids at Lord Roberts Elementary need an MLA

to make sure they get the right kind of playground equipment. I know that the

kids at Dorothy Lam day care centre need an MLA to make sure they have the right

kind of facilities and well-trained professional care providers. So it is not

about the politicians. It is about people.

[1050]

I wanted to mention the comments of another speaker from October

of 2005. It's the member for Nanaimo. "They" — rural communities — "are

conscious of the fact that the numbers of members they elect do not, in fact,

provide a sufficient counterbalance to the great numbers of members who come

from urban areas."

The people of the north do understand that people in urban

settings need to have equal representation as well, but they also know that it's

not the same kind of work for their MLAs. They know that MLAs in the north have

a particular set of challenges that are not met in the city.

I talked a moment ago about the issue of how many people live in

my riding. Well, if I was the member for North Coast, I could mail out to

everyone in my riding perhaps 28,000 pieces of mail. In my riding it's 120,000.

The member for North Coast gets exactly the same amount of money to do that

mailout that I do. Guess who gets to do the mailout? He gets to make the mailout.

Why? Because he has a budget for it, and my budget — the same as his — will not

even touch the mailout cost.

It's amazing that a member who comes from a riding with 30,000

thinks that my riding of 120,000 doesn't rate an increase in the number of MLAs.

When we looked at the Boundaries Commission report…. I got it

while I was away. I had a chance to look at it, and I was kind of disappointed.

Why? Because I think that Vancouver should have 12 MLAs — not ten, not 11. The

Boundaries Commission recommended 11.

Interjection.

L. Mayencourt: Yes, and the member from Surrey right now is

saying the same.

You know, there's an incredible story that's happening out in

Surrey. As a matter of fact, I think yesterday, or a couple of days ago, 900

suites in a new development sold in, like, 30 hours. That's the kind of growth

that Surrey is experiencing.

It's the kind of growth that we experience in Vancouver-Burrard.

It's happening in Mount Pleasant. It's happening in Burnaby. It's happening in

Richmond. It's happening all across this province — more people moving into the

province, getting great jobs, contributing to the society that we live in and

wanting to be certain that their views get communicated here in this chamber.

That's what it's about for me. I've got to look after the people

that I represent, but I also know, from having an extensive travel opportunity

through the province, that the province is more than the census says it is. I

know that it presents challenges that the boundaries committee couldn't even

contemplate.

Over the last six or seven years, I've travelled this province

maybe a dozen times. I'm always amazed at the kind of people that I meet.

They're very different in different parts of the province, and that's okay. They

need someone who looks like them, sounds like them and understands their issues

to come here and talk for them. They need to be in this chamber in some way,

shape or form. They aren't going to do that if we cut back three seats in the

north.

That was wrong. That was not really…. I mean, I understand that

the way the committee was looking at it was: "You know, this is what we have to

do." Well, the fact of the matter is that it is what they had to do. But I don't

think they wanted to do it that way, because they say in their report: "We don't

have any choice in this matter."

Well, this is an effort on the part of all members of the

Legislature to protect rural seats. I'll bet you anything…. I guess I shouldn't

be betting here, but I would say that almost everybody in this chamber is going

to rise on a division on this bill. Everyone is going to stand up and vote in

favour of it. So what does that say about the members that have spoken against

it?

It says that they want to play a game with it, and I don't think

that's fair. I don't think it's fair for individuals on any side of the House to

try and turn this into a political football. It just doesn't make any sense.

[1055]

At the end of the day there is not a member over there that is

going to vote against preserving rural seats in British Columbia. You know why?

Because no matter what they say in this chamber, they are good people. They care

about British Columbians as much as I do. They know that the north, the Cariboo,

the Kootenays — in fact, all 12 regions that were identified by the Boundaries

Commission — are deserving of fair representation that considers the challenges

that an MLA in those areas would face.

[ Page 9192 ]

That is what we need in this chamber. We need people from across

the whole province to come in here and speak and be part of the important

debates about the future of British Columbia.

Madam Speaker, I cannot tell you how much I enjoy the job that I

have here. I love it. I love the people that I represent. I love the

neighbourhood that I'm in. I love this province. I've been from one end of it to

the other.

People are depending on this chamber, the people that sit in this

chamber, to do very important work. The people of British Columbia said loud and

clear, when the Boundaries Commission report was put out, that this wasn't good

for B.C.

Now we have an opportunity to preserve those seats and, in fact,

add an additional five. Where would those five be? I don't know. It seems like

the members of the opposition think they're only going to be in Liberal-safe

areas. But I don't think there's a safe area anywhere in this province for NDP

or B.C. Liberals unless they stand up and defend the people that they represent.

That's what we do on this side. We are here to speak for and defend the rights

of our citizens, and it's very important work for us to do.

There is nothing about this whole process that is about drawing

lines that say that this is an NDP seat and this is going to be a B.C. Liberal

seat. I and many members in this chamber have proven that nobody owns a

neighbourhood. You only get to represent a neighbourhood because you've earned

it, and when you have earned it, you have the right to come into this chamber

and speak on behalf of those people. For the last six years that has been my

great pleasure and great privilege and great honour.

I want to thank you for allowing me to speak in this debate. I

think it's important. I really believe that we should pass this bill, protect

rural seats, recognize that our urban centres are growing, and get on with the

job of making this Legislature reflect exactly what British Columbia's all

about. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

B. Simpson: The member for Vancouver-Burrard closed with

some interesting comments that I'll start with before I get into the substance

of what I want to say today. I always find it fascinating when members in this

House say that we shouldn't use a bill before the House as a political football.

I'm not quite sure what planet those members are living on, if

they don't think that this is a political debate that occurs in this House every

day. Whether it's question period, whether it's legislation, whether it's a

throne speech or a budget speech, it's a political debate. And to say that

because we don't agree with the government on any bill, somehow we are playing

politics, and the other side is not, is just simply silliness.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

The other aspect that I wanted to deal with, with the

member's statements, which I find quite fascinating…. He made the comment: "The

people of B.C. said loud and clear." Well, the only loudness that came in

response to the Electoral Boundaries Commission report was in rural B.C. It was

met with deafening silence in urban B.C. I heard clearly from rural British

Columbia, without question, that they wanted rural representation protected.

When you talk about urban B.C., I did not hear a cry from urban B.C. for more

seats. I did not hear the corollary from the urban electorate that they wanted

more MLAs.

[1100]

I find it also quite fascinating that the bulk of the member's

comments were about mailouts. I mean, who wants another mailout from another

politician in their mailbox? This is not a debate about mailouts — about whether

I've got more to mail out or he's got more to mail out. This is about effective

representation.

I also find it quite bizarre that that member believes that he

knows how we're going to vote, when people have already stood up in this House

and said how they're going to vote. We are going to reject this political

interference. We're going to reject it for what it is. It's a way for this

Liberal government to interfere with the duly constituted Electoral Boundaries

Commission and the independence of that Electoral Boundaries Commission.

That's why we're going to vote against this bill — not because we

do not stand for rural representation and the protection of rural representation

but because of the principle that the Premier does not have the right to do what

he did. That's why we will reject this.

I actually regret that we're having this debate. I regret that

we're having it on a number of fronts. I regret the timing of it. It's very,

very late in the cycle. As British Columbians are aware by now because of the

debate around this issue, the Electoral Boundaries Commission is a process

that's in legislation. It's a process to protect the independence of a group of

people to determine what the ridings will look like for the next two elections.

It was put in there, as many members on this side of the House

have explained, explicitly to prevent political interference and this thing we

call gerrymandering. That's what it was meant to do. This late in the day, to

give the Electoral Boundaries Commission the mandate that the Premier wants to

give them is very unfortunate, and it is political interference.

The second thing I regret is the content of this bill. Under the

guise of protecting rural representation, what effectively it's going to do is

dissipate that representation. What effectively it's going to do is water it

down.

The other thing I really regret is that we have a Premier who is

trying to balance two political realities. He's trying to balance the political

reality of his position in the mid-1990s that we should gut this Legislature of

MLAs, that he is for small government and that he is for fewer politicians. I

don't believe the Premier has moved on that. I don't believe he's changed that

position.

The other political reality that he's trying to balance is how

much this government lost in rural British Columbia in the last election — the

number of seats they lost — and the fact that if they persisted on this path

with the Electoral Boundaries Commission being

[ Page 9193 ]

stuck with the mandate they had, he would lose more seats, because the reason

for the backlash was a belief that the government was further undermining rural

representation. That's what I want to speak about today.

I want to be crystal-clear that I support maintaining rural

representation. I support it for a number of reasons that I'll speak to in a

moment. I don't want that to be misunderstood, but I reject this bill.

I was one of the first — in fact, I was the first — to give a

presentation to the Electoral Boundaries Commission here in this building. The

member for Skeena and I had the privilege of giving that presentation, but we

also had to sit through the DVD for the Electoral Boundaries Commission. If

anybody went to those early presentations and had to see that DVD…. It was

rather painful. I'm not sure what it was they were trying to do or how much they

spent on the marketing strategy for that.

That aside, it was a very engaging discussion. I think we sat and

talked for about an hour and a half. I found that the Electoral Boundaries

Commission was very interested in what we had to say as two rural

representatives. To show the strength of our commitment to rural representation,

the member for Skeena and I were the representatives for our entire caucus. We

were sent there to ensure that the Electoral Boundaries Commission heard from

rural B.C. right out of the starting gate, that they heard what our concerns

were.

Here's what we talked to them about. Right away we said that we

believe that rural representation needs to be protected. We also said that we

did not believe that the commission needed to add significantly more seats,

because we did not believe that British Columbians wanted more politicians than

necessary and we didn't believe that it was justified in terms of fiscal

responsibility. That was our message. We still hold that message, and it's

really why we're rejecting this bill today.

[1105]

Rural British Columbia is going through a fundamental transition.

We have a rural caucus. I'm very proud of the work that our rural caucus is

doing. It's 13 representatives of our 39-member caucus. We are working very hard

to come up with a rural strategy that addresses rural British Columbia's issues.

We have gone out into the ridings that we represent. We had a

great meeting in Quesnel. All of the rural caucus members were there. The

opposition leader was there. We engaged in a substantive discussion with the

members of my community, and we intend to continue to replicate that.

The entire caucus has been in Cranbrook, Kamloops and Prince

George, talking to people out there. We fundamentally understand what's going

on, and we can and will continue to represent those interests here in this

House.

The transition that rural British Columbia is going through is

fundamental, and in some cases it's quite severe. The area of the northwest, as

the member for Skeena has represented in this House, is seeing the collapse of

the forest industry as they know it. The last mill in Terrace closed.

In the northeast, as members of the Finance Committee, we heard

loud and clear that they are struggling to meet their infrastructure needs. They

are struggling to meet their social services needs. They have people who cannot

find homes. They have people who cannot get mental health and addictions

services. We have a fundamental shift going on that needs to be fully

represented in this House by members who understand what's going on there.

We also spoke to the commission about the first nations

representation that's necessary. First nations representation is

relationship-based. It is not something where you can be a fly-by-night, come in

or give them a mailer as a substitute for representation. It's something where

you have to, over time, be present in those communities, work with the elders

and the leaders in those communities and understand their issues at a deeper

level.

They're very reluctant to speak when you first go in. They're very

reluctant to talk to yet another politician who's going to be a fly-by-night in

their community. It takes time. For those of us who live in rural British

Columbia, that's an additional time constraint on us. I have in my community

many first nations communities that have different levels of representation and

different needs to add to the other communities that I have to represent. We

discussed that with them.

In fact, one of the things that I'm curious about is how we do get

first nations representation in this House. We need first nations MLAs. We need

first nations to represent directly their own interests in this Legislature,

just as we need more women and just as we need more representation from other

cultures. Representation and effective representation goes beyond this debate

that we're having here. It goes to how we reflect in this Legislature the very

fundamental nature of the communities that we have throughout this province:

first nations', other cultures' and women's representation.

I also have a number of small communities in my riding. We have a

joke in my riding that those of us from Quesnel and Williams Lake, we're the

urbanites relative to those who live in Horsefly and Likely. Those who live in

Horsefly and Likely are the urbanites for those who live in Miocene or some of

the other smaller communities that are there. It's a cascading downward effect

of what constitutes being urban.

I have not been able to do the job that I promised to do when I

was elected. I promised I would get out to all of those communities on a regular

cycle. I have gotten out more regularly than other MLAs have in the past in that

area, a sacrifice to my family and my time at home, but I have not been able to

get out to those areas at all to the degree that I would like to be able to get

out to.

Again, in my area a mailout to those communities does nothing.

What they want is to see me. They want to see me in their coffee shop. They want

to see me at their picnics. They want to see me at their Father's Day events. We

talked to the commission about that.

[ Page 9194 ]

One of the things we said at the commission is that we have an

obligation as rural representatives to protect the interests of those rural

communities, to protect them against skewed priorities of the government. We're

going to get very little derivative benefit from the Olympics. That's very

clear. We're going to get very few benefits from it, particularly as we start to

escalate the cost overruns and it takes away from core services. It takes away

from educational services and services to seniors. It takes away from our

ability to deliver quality care in our health care system.

[1110]

We've had the debate in this House about ambulance service. We've

had the debate in this House about the recent retraction of funding for schools

and the funding for rural schools.

Rural MLAs are needed in this House, not in a watered-down fashion

but with a strong voice and a strong representation, in order to make sure that

the interests of rural B.C. are maintained and argued for — in particular with

this government, which is an urban, corporate-oriented government.

The corporatization and privatization of services does not work

for rural British Columbia. It doesn't work at all. We do not have the critical

mass. We do not have the economies of scale. We have none of the things that

this government argues will benefit the taxpayer through privatization.

It doesn't work. We've seen that with the whole issue with

Retirement Concepts in Williams Lake, where this government has retracted all

public service provision of seniors care in that community, has given us one

window we can go to, a window that is suspect in the minds of the community, and

it's the only choice we've got. It doesn't work.

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I think the member has been

generally doing a good job, until recently, of addressing the bill in question

here. But I believe that he should keep his remarks on point with respect to the

bill.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that — a little bit more

political interference in the debate.

Deputy Speaker: Member, second reading is with regards to

Bill 39 and the relevance of Bill 39, so if you'd please continue on that tone.

B. Simpson: Yes, I am.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard posed the question of the

opposition not being in favour of rural representation if we voted against the

bill. That's the substance of the debate. Are we in favour of rural

representation or not? We are definitely in favour of rural representation.

That's what this bill is supposed to be about. What I'm arguing is that it's not

about that at all.

What we should have done, I believe, is had a more substantive

debate before the first mandate of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. It's

another thing that I regret. I regret that we did not have a debate in this

House prior to giving the Electoral Boundaries Commission its mandate on what

constituted effective representation for British Columbia.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the population

growth is concentrated in the lower mainland and the south Island. It doesn't

take a rocket scientist to know that because of the transition out in rural

British Columbia we're having a decline or a stasis in population.

We should have taken that debate into this House. One of the

struggles I have with how this House works is that we get a bill tabled, and we

talk about the bill and…. In that case, most of us on this side were very new.

We were still learning the process, still learning how to read bills and

understand what it was we were saying yes or no to. But we should have had a

debate in front of the bill that said: what is effective representation?

There's a standing committee that we could have used to go out and

talk to British Columbians about what constitutes effective representation. We

could have done what the Electoral Boundaries Commission said in their report

that we didn't do.

We did not give them an effective mandate. The mandate we gave

them forced them to come forward with what they did, which was to take three

seats away, try and keep the numbers low and only recommend the addition of the

three seats. We failed in that. We should have had that debate.

It's really fundamentally why I believe the STV portion of this

has gotten purchase — why people are interested in the STV debate and why they

want to see us change our first-past-the-post electoral system. I believe what

they want is for this House to be more effective.

We need to have substantive debate in legislative committees. We

need to be able to go out and around the province and talk to British Columbians

before a bill is crafted and before it comes into this House. Or counter to

that, if the government tables a bill, we then take it to a legislative

committee and we go out and find out what British Columbians think about it. We

talk to people who know a lot more about the implications of that legislation

than we do, and both sides get to hear it. That's how we can make this place

much more effective.

We can go and talk to British Columbians, either before or after

bills are crafted or even both, so that we make good legislation and we make

legislation that works for British Columbia. We failed to do that in this case.

[1115]

I think what's really happening in this situation is that the

Premier, who has always stood on the principle that he believes we should have

fewer MLAs in this House, had to reconcile a fundamental backlash in rural

British Columbia against what the Electoral Boundaries Commission had proposed.

He had to reconcile those two things.

What he did then was to first signal something that was very

confusing to all of us — we weren't clear on what it was the Premier was

actually saying about what he was going to do — and then bring a bill into

[ Page 9195 ]

the House that tries to reconcile those two polarities for the Premier. What

he's doing now is mandating the 86 in order to dissipate that rural vote and

give rural B.C. what they think they want. But really, I believe this bill

undermines it.

The opposition will be bringing forward an amendment to this bill

that we think makes it somewhat palatable. The Attorney General was not correct,

when he tabled this bill in the House, that this House gave unanimous consent

for 85 seats. We gave unanimous consent to the Electoral Boundaries Commission

to make that decision for themselves as to how many seats were necessary for

them to do their job.

We believe we need to do that again. We need to leave it in the

hands of the Electoral Boundaries Commission to make the determination.

This is late in the day. It's late for good public consultation.

It is a regrettable stance on the part of the Premier. It is a regrettable

debate. But there's a possibility of making it palatable for this side of the

House when that amendment comes forward. I urge the other side to consider that

very carefully because it's what will give the Electoral Boundaries Commission a

new mandate that at least gives them the ability to determine what British

Columbians need in terms of the number of seats, while protecting rural

representation.

I want to close by reiterating. This is not about mailouts. This

is not about how many households I have to mail to versus other members in the

urban area. It's not about positioning the urban electorate against the rural

electorate. It's about finding out a way to have effective representation in

this province. I don't think this bill does it, certainly not as it stands.

I will go on the record — for the member for Vancouver-Burrard —

and categorically, crystal-clear, without a doubt will be standing up here and

saying no.

R. Hawes: This is all very interesting. I do want to

comment on one thing. The tenor in the House today is certainly more civil than

yesterday. I think this is a very serious debate that deserves a kind of

thoughtful tenor, and I'm very happy that we've arrived at that place.

I heard the member from Quesnel saying numerous times….

Interjection.

R. Hawes: Sorry, the member for Cariboo North. I regret

that for a moment I forgot about Likely and Horsefly.

I heard him say a number of times that he regrets that the Premier

did what he did. He made a number of references to the Premier. I have yet to

hear the Premier speak on this issue in the House or to speak to this bill.

This is the Attorney General's bill. The Attorney General brought

this bill forward, and I know that at some stage the Attorney General is going

to speak to the bill. The Attorney General, as a former Justice of the Supreme

Court of British Columbia, has some knowledge of law in this area and certainly

some knowledge of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it applies in this

country to all of us.

What I want to touch on here for a minute is, first, the rules

that dictate how we arrive at the number of ridings and how representation is

basically formed, not just in British Columbia but in all of Canada.

[1120]

A fundamental tenet of democracy, the principle of democracy, is

representation by population, which basically means that we should all

technically represent the same number of people so that every person has an

equal voice. We all know that's not possible, but what the Charter says is that

to the greatest extent possible, we should first look at representation by

population as a driving tenet.

The Supreme Court has further interpreted the Charter, which does

limit the kinds of things that can be done by an electoral boundaries commission

or a government or anyone, if they wish to not be in violation of the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms in this country.

Chief Justice McLachlin said in the Saskatchewan reference case of

1991 — and I just want to read this, Mr. Speaker:

"Effective representation and good government in this

country compel those charged with setting electoral boundaries sometimes to take

into account factors other than voter parity — representation by population, in

other words — "such as geography and community interests."

"The problems of representing vast, sparsely

populated territories, for example, may dictate somewhat lower voter populations

in these districts, and to insist on voter parity might deprive citizens with

distinct interests of an effective voice in the legislative process as well as

of effective assistance from their representatives in their ombudsman role. This

is only one of a number of factors which may necessitate deviation from the one

person–one vote rule in the interests of effective representation."

We have for a number of years had lower than the number of

average voters in some ridings in the rural areas in this province. But to the

greatest extent possible, we have attempted over years to be at least as close

as possible to the representation-by-population fundamental tenet of democracy.

That has necessitated, because of changing growth patterns and

particularly changing demographics in different areas of the province, a growth

in the number of seats.

If the province were growing equally in every single region, there

would be no reason to adjust the number of seats at all. But because we are

growing in an unequal fashion in different regions of the province, in looking

at representation by population or voter parity, we have to make adjustments.

That's why we have the Boundaries Commission every eight years.

The Boundaries Commission, as it went out to do its job, then had

to consider how they would look at the changing demographics in British

Columbia. There are rural areas in British Columbia right now that actually have

diminishing population and are projected to diminish further out to 2013, which

is the window that I think at this time the Boundaries Commission is looking at

when they do their projections.

There are other areas that are growing substantially. They're just

booming. We've talked about that, and

[ Page 9196 ]

we've heard that here. Every year that that happens under what we have today,

those who are in those rapidly burgeoning areas are actually losing ground in

the voter parity argument, and those in the rural areas are gaining on that.

Nobody is saying that's completely unfair, but there comes a time

when you do the review that the Charter of Rights says we should now look at

evening that out, and we should bring it back to as close to voter parity as

possible.

In doing that, we had our debate on the bill that the Boundaries

Commission went out under this time, which said you could have up to 85 seats.

They took a look, and they had a number of possible choices. They could do

nothing, just come back and say there's no adjustment necessary — which, of

course, would mean that those rapidly burgeoning areas….

I'll speak about my riding in a minute, which in 2006 is already

30.9 percent over the average number and above the amount that is allowed under

legislation — and I'll explain that in a minute — which is the 25-percent

difference. There are other areas that are very, very vastly under.

[1125]

So when the commission, I think, went out and tried to make its

choices…. I just want to explain one more thing for those who may be sitting at

home, because this can become a very confusing thing. To determine how many

residents should be in a riding, you take the number of seats and divide it into

the population of the province, and that will give you the average number of

people who should live in every riding. Then there can be a variance of 25

percent, plus or minus, from that average number across the board.

In some ridings — rural ridings in the north and other areas — the

deviation has been more than 25 percent. Those ridings have been looked at as

exceptions in the past. But as the changing demographic happens, they are moving

further and further from that fundamental tenet — the

representation-by-population tenet.

The commission, when it looks at this, has no choice. They can't

do nothing. They could have gone up to 85 seats, and they took a look at that.

By preserving the seats in the rural ridings and then adding seats in the south

or in the urban areas, that would not have diminished the difference in

representation by population sufficiently to make a difference in their view.

So the only thing they could do to try to bring us closer to that

fundamental tenet of voter parity, I believe, is to lose the seats in the north

and add seats in the south. So they took away three in the rural areas — not

just the north, but the Kootenays, the interior and the north. Each lost a seat.

They took away three rural seats and added five in the urban areas. That created

something closer to voter parity.

Their hands are sort of tied, because that's what they had to do.

They could have increased the number of seats further, I suppose, and gone to 85

seats. But under what they're trying to accomplish here — which is some form

closer to voter parity — with the number of seats allotted that they were

allowed to look at, there was no way to even get close to voter parity. This is

a very complex thing that the commission does, and it seems to me we diminish

the difficulty of their task by coming forward with all of these things in the

House that….

They spend weeks and weeks moving population around on computers

and trying to figure out how to fit everybody in, in a way that fits within a

legal framework. So I think we do them a disservice when we try to say: "Well,

they could have just done this, and it would have been easy." It's not easy.

This is a very, very difficult task.

When they did what they did, and then there has been some

discussion about…. In fact, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin said that MPs

have no problem representing very vast areas. That may be true, but I have

noticed, and I'm sure most people in this House know, that the closer the

government is — the sphere of influence of the government — the more in touch

with the people they need to be.

Local government is right on top of the people. I mean, they have

public hearings on a regular basis. They're out there doing parks in the local

area. They're doing all of the things with their local community, and the local

community is with them all the time.

We in Victoria are not quite meeting as much with our population.

We do our work here in Victoria. We deal with a lot of things that are of a

provincial interest. We all have constituencies. We go out and visit all over

with our constituents and represent them and act, as Justice McLachlin said, in

an ombudsman role. But we do not meet with our constituents on a face-to-face

basis nearly as much as at the local government level.

Then you move up to the federal level, and it's even less. They're

dealing with these visceral things that are way further away, that are more

disconnected from mom and pop. They're talking there about national defence and

trade issues that are international, that are country to country. That's not

really something that mom and pop want to meet on a regular basis with their MP

about. So while MPs have a lot of contact, it's not as much as MLAs, and

certainly not as much as the local government.

The further people are away by distance from their representative,

the more difficult it is for them to talk to their representative, at least in

person. But the more that they need to meet with their representative, certainly

it makes sense the smaller the area they represent is.

[1130]

After the last election I was appointed to the position I hold in

government, which is the government Whip. My colleague from Bulkley

Valley–Stikine was being appointed to the Deputy Whip's position.

After the election he decided he would make a trip around his

riding. So he left, and he was out of touch by any form of communication for

between ten days and two weeks because he did not at that time have a satellite

phone, and there's no way of contacting anyone. It takes him ten days to two

weeks to circle his riding and visit the people and the communities that he

represents. It's a very large, diverse riding.

[ Page 9197 ]

With what was being done under the proposal that came forward from

the Boundaries Commission, the first go-around, the ridings in the north were

going to become much, much larger. In fact, from a provincial standpoint, I

would put forward, impossible to represent.

So, clearly, everyone in this House…. I have not heard anyone on

the opposition side say that the rural seats should not be replaced. Everyone

agrees they should be. Everyone agrees that there should be effective

representation in the rural parts of the province. But there have been arguments

put forward that what we should have done was waited and allowed the

presentations to be made to the Boundaries Commission, and maybe they would

have, on their own, restored those seats.

Well, their report out would have been in February. If they didn't

restore those seats, we would be in quite a quandary. I don't think we would be

able to go out again, recharge a commission — because we couldn't, I think, have

accepted that report…. We would have had to recharge a commission, start the

process, and I don't think we could have completed it in time for the election

in 2009, which would mean that we were just going to carry on the way we were.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear that there has been in

the past…. I'll just refer here to some of the history of setting electoral

boundaries. This is from Elections B.C. In 1975 the Norris commission made some

recommendations, and the Legislature did not adopt any of the commission's

recommendations.

Well, that could have happened here. If the commission just

carries on and we don't do anything now to give them the ability to make changes

— which they could not make under the previous charge, without cutting out those

seats — I think they may have come back with a report that looked similar to

what they came out with in their preliminary report. Frankly, I don't think that

is acceptable to anyone in this House — seeing those seats in the north lost.

I don't think we could have waited. I just think the risk of

waiting is too great. I would not want to see this province carry on into the

next election with 79 seats. There are a number of reasons for that, which I'll

get into in a moment.

There has been a lot of talk about gerrymandering and the

government doing this and that and trying to manipulate. Well, I just want to

first point out who's on the Electoral Boundaries Commission. These are people

who have been appointed and who are, I would suggest to you, beyond reproach.

The Hon. Bruce Cohen is the chair, Justice of the Supreme Court of

British Columbia. I would suggest he's a man of impeccable integrity who cannot

be influenced to make decisions in favour of anyone. He will make the decisions

that he thinks are the right decisions to make. Stewart Ladyman is a respected,

retired school district administrator with extensive experience in all aspects

of education administration. He is a man of impeccable character and integrity.

Harry Neufeld is the Chief Electoral Officer for the province of

British Columbia and has a long, long history of electoral management experience

— a man that was appointed to be the Chief Electoral Officer in British Columbia

a few years ago by a committee that, frankly, I chaired and that had at least

one member of the opposition on it. It was unanimously accepted to appoint Harry

Neufeld to the position of Chief Electoral Officer. So I know that both sides of

the House respect Harry Neufeld, his neutrality and his impeccable integrity and

credentials.

[1135]

When we go through…. Regardless of what charge is given to the

Electoral Boundaries Commission, they will decide where the boundaries are. They

could put seats wherever they think it's appropriate to put seats.

I know they're going to do it in a way that reflects as closely as

possible what is necessary under the Charter of Rights. I know they're going to

try to reflect the decision of Chief Justice McLachlin, who set some

interpretation of the Charter of Rights.

I know that the way they're going to set the boundaries is going

to be as close as possible to being within the parameters of the law as it can

possibly be, and the first tenet, which I know they're going to respect, is the

tenet of voter parity.

When you add seats, what happens is that the average number of

voters in each riding obviously falls. The more the number of voters in each

riding and the average fall, the closer the ridings that have a short fall are

to voter parity with the rest. That's one of the reasons that this had to be

done this way.

I've heard a number of the members here talk about the initial

public consultation from the commission and the fact that very, very few — I

think only two — of our elected members on the B.C. Liberal side of the

Legislature made any kind of a presentation. I know that one of my colleagues

made a presentation asking for a name change for the riding that she represents

— hardly a substantive intervention.

Most of us, I think — the vast majority of us — on this side of

the House felt that making a political representation to the Electoral

Boundaries Commission is simply not on. This isn't about politics, and we are

politicians. As the previous speaker from Cariboo North said, every debate in

this Legislature is politics. Well, you know, we have….

Under the Electoral Boundaries Act, one of the things that they

look at is communities of interest. Actually, communities spoke. They spoke

volumes about what their communities of interest were. As politicians, when we

go to speak about what the boundaries should look like, the temptation is far

too great to say: "Well, don't include that area because they don't generally

vote my way, but include that one because they're big supporters of mine."

Frankly, the kinds of representations that would be made by MLAs

in this process — direct interventions with the Electoral Boundaries Commission

— at the very minimum are somewhat suspect, I would suggest, and that would

include myself.

I would be sorely tempted, if I were making a representation as an

MLA, to be trying to protect my

[ Page 9198 ]

self-interest. So I didn't make a representation; nor did the members on this

side of the House. We did not make those kinds of interventions.

Our communities did. In my riding the city council passed a

resolution on what they felt was important. I can tell you that when I was a

mayor, I made a representation to the Wood commission because what they

originally proposed was not, in my opinion, in the best interest of the

community that I had been elected to serve in as mayor.

I just want to speak for a minute about that. My own riding used

to be called Mission-Kent. Kent and Agassiz are at the extreme eastern end of

the valley. There's almost a mountain between the Mission area and the Kent

area, and there is nothing in common between the two areas other than a ribbon

of highway that connects them. They don't share shopping areas, hospitals,

school districts, telephone exchanges.

There is no commonality here. There's no community of interest.

Yet a previous commission chose to marry those two communities together and then

ask an MLA to come here and represent both, when, you know, it's very difficult

to represent two communities that have nothing in common.

I know that in the northern areas and the rural areas there is

lots in common because they're all rural, and much of the rural interests are

common. But when you get into semi-urban or suburban areas, it's a little more

difficult when there are areas of no commonality.

[1140]

When the Electoral Boundaries Commission came in — I can't

remember the year — with Justice Wood as the chair, I made a representation on

behalf of my communities to say: "Please don't leave us with the Kent area. Put

us with an area of common interest. If you can't have us as a riding on our own,

then either put us with Abbotsford or, if you must, put us with Maple Ridge, but

not Kent. Well, they chose to make it Maple Ridge–Mission.

Frankly, the area of commonality in Mission would be Abbotsford if

they have to extend a boundary beyond the community. Mission and Abbotsford

happen to share a sewer system, a water system, a recycling plant, the regional

hospital. Both are outside of the GVTA area, which means that there is still a

regional hospital district, and the property taxpayers in Maple Ridge and

Mission continue to pay for their hospitals through their taxes rather than

paying the GVTA tax. That's an area of commonality. They also have…. It's not

long distance to telephone each other.

There are many reasons that people should go and make a case that

the community of interest runs that way, and that case was made by the Mission

city council and, I think, a number of citizens. Certainly, me making the case

would not — I felt, anyway — be seen as something that is neutral and only

talking about a community of interest.

I know that my colleagues on the south side of the river felt the

same way, and I know that most of my colleagues, if not all of them, in this

House also felt that making those kinds of representations would be a political

manoeuvre that we did not want to engage in. So we didn't. When the members

opposite talk — and many have in their arguments in the House here — and point

out that we did not make representation…. I'm quite proud that we did not make

representations, and I don't think that anything should be read into that other

than that we believe this should be a neutral process, non-political.

As we move forward here now, I just want to make this very clear.

The three rural ridings will be restored.

I do want to say this about my own riding. My riding, as I think I

said, is today — as of last year — 30.9 percent over that 25-percent variance.

Mine is 30.9. By the year 2013, if there is no change made here, my riding will

be more than 50 percent over the allowed average. That means that every person

in my riding is actually having their vote diminished because the fundamental

tenet of voter parity is being eroded every day as populations move. The only

way to ensure that that voter parity doesn't continue to be eroded is to add

seats.

Now, the Boundaries Commission takes a look at where those seats

should go — if they go on Vancouver Island or they go into Vancouver or Surrey

or Burnaby or wherever they see — through a very complex method of determining

this. Every time that you change the boundaries, there's a domino effect. It's

like ripples that go out in the water, and it changes everything. So they

continually have to model and find the way to fit all of this in.

In the end, the one thing that isn't quite so hard to figure out

is that dividing the population of British Columbia by 87 seats results in an

average population count in each riding that is significantly lower than it is

today. It makes voter parity, in preserving those northern seats, more equitable

and keeps us closer to the fundamental tenet of democracy. It has nothing to do

with gerrymandering. In fact, it has to do with the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms that we all enjoy.

[1145]

My citizens, if their rights under that Charter are being eroded

further, actually probably have a right to challenge this under the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms.

The first thing I want to say is that Justice Cohen understands

constitutional rights, as do, I would suggest to you, every justice and every

judge in this province. So as we go through this process, I know Justice Cohen

will be looking at fundamental rights.

I know that the Attorney General, who actually had this bill

drafted under his purview — not the Premier, not members of this Legislature,

but the Attorney General, a former British Columbia appeal court justice who,

incidentally, has also got very deep knowledge of the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms — has looked at what needs to be done here in order to keep this within

the ambit of the charter, to keep it within honouring the fundamental tenet of

democracy.

I would suggest that the Attorney General will, in his closing

remarks, address some of the reasons why this bill is necessary, why these

changes are necessary and why it does address the fundamental rights of people.

I would strongly suggest that all of us who

[ Page 9199 ]

have absolutely no experience sitting on the bench as a justice, which is

actually every member of this House other than the Attorney General…. Perhaps he

could educate us.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am definitely supporting this bill. It

does what it should do for my constituents, for the constituents in the rural

areas and for all the people in the urban areas. I am absolutely convinced that

the commission is going to fairly and reasonably take a look at fitting in where

all of the boundaries go. The public will have an opportunity to comment on

that, and we will move forward into 2009 and have an election that's based on

the fundamental tenets of democracy.

C. Trevena: I rise today to talk about Bill 39, the

Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, and I will be opposing it.

Before I go into some of my arguments opposing it, I was very

interested to hear the argument, I think somewhat tortuous at times, from the

member for Maple Ridge–Mission about why this is going to be an independent

process and why it isn't gerrymandering. Maybe in the gerrymandering thing,

there are some agreements there, but the member used the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms as the justification as to why this is going to be an independent

process and said that he believed that it should be a neutral process and it

should be non-political.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I think, on that issue, we're all agreed, or I hope we're all

agreed, that it should be non-political. The reason why I'm standing here today

to oppose this bill is because it has been politicized. Whether or not it is

gerrymandering…. Gerrymandering is a very specific definition, where the

boundaries of certain electoral districts are set, and in this case this is not

being said. It is the number of electoral areas that is being set, so it may not

be gerrymandering, but it is most definitely political interference.

The member also said that the system we have — representation

through population — works because it is independent and that the commission

works because it is independent. I think we should be agreed that we have a

Boundaries Commission that should be independent. We have three people on it who

are very distinguished and should be given the independence.

[1150]

When we first debated the Boundaries Commission in 2005, we, at

that time, as a House, gave them a mandate. We did give a mandate of looking at

the electoral boundaries that we had in B.C. and looking at the population, and

they could go up to 85 seats. That was the mandate we gave them, which gave a

lot of freedom. They could have stayed at the status quo or moved to up to 85

seats.

This legislation changes that. It changes the independence. It

takes away the independence of that Boundaries Commission, because it determines

how many seats there are going to be. It determines that there will be rural

seats, and it determines there will be 87 seats.

There is also the 25 percent plus or minus within the act. It says

that: "for the purposes of complying with paragraph (b)" — which is retaining

the interior rural seats — "the commission may exceed the 25% deviation…." So it

is setting many parameters here which were not set in the past, were not set in

the previous bill — in the bill that we all accepted — and I think are very

problematic.

As a society and as a democracy, we have to have a certain

distancing. The commission system of distancing political interference from the

electoral system in Canada started in the '60s, when commissions were started up

federally. By '64 there were commissions for the federal parliament. In 1989 we

had our first Electoral Boundaries Commission, which is 20 years ago almost — 18

years ago.

In 1989 it was decided that we do not want to have political

interference in the electoral system. We want to have people who we can all

respect, who are independent, to decide how many seats we need in this House and

where they should be. I think that we should all support that. We should all

support the separation of the electoral process and the electoral mechanics,

right from seat allocation through to the vote count. That should be kept away

from politics. This is part of what makes our democracy healthy. Once we start

getting the political interference and saying we are going to have X number of

seats, we are going to have 87 seats, and we are going to have seats in this

area, we have immediate political interference.

This is why I will be opposing this bill. I do not like the fact

that if something doesn't go the way that the government wants, they will turn

around and say, "Well, we're going to change the rules, and this is how it's

going to be," particularly when it is something as important as the electoral

process.

We're seeing in many ways that rules are being changed. I know my

colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin was talking earlier on about how she was

standing here in this House earlier this week talking about the TransLink

debate, as were many of us, about the increasing autocracy of the government,

the lack of consultation and changing of rules, taking democracy away from

people who are involved. I think that this is another example of that.

We are facing a crisis in our electoral system and a crisis in our

democracy. We see fewer and fewer people turning up to vote. My colleague from

Cariboo North mentioned the fact that our representation in this House…. We have

no first nations. We have very few women. We do not represent the ethnic makeup

of our province equally.

We have an issue where we are seeing young people not wanting to

get involved in the electoral process. When they are told that the electoral

system is set and that we have so many seats for so many people and we have an

independent commission who can do that, they like that. But when you say to

them, "Ah, but when the Premier doesn't like the results that that electoral

[ Page 9200 ]

commission provides, he will step in and change the rules," they say: "Why

should I get involved?" They say: "It's the same game. It's people fixing the

system." They're saying: "This isn't democracy. We can work better from the

outside. We don't believe in what you're doing in here."

[1155]

That trickles down through everything that we do in this House —

if we lose that trust. I think that this move to fix 87 seats, to take the

independence away from the Electoral Boundaries Commission, definitely

underlines that distrust and will make more mistrust.

There is, obviously, a certain irony that we are talking about 87

seats and the number of MLAs being set. There is an irony that the Premier not

so long ago was saying that he wanted to have fewer MLAs. I think that would be

the thought of many people in B.C.: "We don't need so many MLAs. Why do we need

so many? Let's cut them back."

Just over ten years ago the Premier said: "We will cut the number

of MLAs. We should have between 50 and 60." That was when the Legislature was at

75. "We should have between 50 and 60 MLAs." Now the Premier wants 87 MLAs. Our

population has grown, and there is a need for representation for a growing

population. But that representation should be set by the commission, not by the

Premier.

People are framing this debate around the issue of rural

representation. I represent a rural riding. In fact, under the Boundaries

Commission map — the previous map — my constituency would have grown. It would

have taken in an area that many people…. Many people got in touch with the

commission and said they wanted to be included in North Island rather than

Powell River–Sunshine Coast, because it was more natural for them. The people

who live in Gilford Island, Echo Bay, up the mainland coast — their points of

reference are Port Hardy and Port McNeill rather than Powell River or the

Sunshine Coast.

The commission listened to them and included those people in the

constituency I am very honoured to represent.

Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

C. Trevena: Noting the hour, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve

the right to continue my remarks and move adjournment of debate.

C. Trevena moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on

the Internet.

Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the

Internet.

Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright ©

2007: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175