2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th 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, October 22, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 29, Number 11

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2015

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Madame Speaker: Good morning, hon. Members. It’s a special day in the sport history of our country, and I call upon our Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.

Tributes

VICTORIA SHAMROCKS — MANN CUP
CHAMPIONS

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know that all the members of this House are celebrating, with the Leader of the Opposition in his riding, the Mann Cup coming back to British Columbia. Today I would like to introduce some of the players and coaches from the Victoria Shamrocks.

I had the pleasure, with a number of members of the House and the Leader of the Opposition — who had a different outfit on at that time — to greet all of the coaches and a player. I’d like to welcome to the House today Jim Hartshorne, Chris Welch, Bob Heyes, Rod Wade, Jordan Sundher, Dave Lowdon, Corey Small and Rhys Duch.

I would ask the House, because this is a very momentous return of the oldest cup in the country, to join me and all of the members to welcome them to the House. [Applause.]

J. Horgan: It truly is a magical day for me, born and raised in Victoria and a proud Victoria Shamrocks fan for as long as I can remember thinking, which has been for some 50-plus years. It is a great privilege to be here with my colleagues from New Westminster, representing the Salmonbellies; from Coquitlam, representing the Adanacs; from Nanaimo, the Timbermen; from Maple Ridge, the Burrards; and also Langley, the Thunder, who did not make much noise this year.

But this is a non-partisan moment. And it truly is…. When I was first elected ten years ago, it was the last time a team from the west won the Mann Cup. And of course, it was our Victoria Shamrocks. So it is a real thrill that after a decade of waiting, I have the opportunity again to thank Jim Hartshorne; Bob Heyes; Chris Welch; Dave Lowdon; Jordan Sundher; and, of course, Rhys Duch, who is one of the best players in Canada, a tribute to his family. I played with his dad who kept the goal, and Rhys just puts them in. It’s a wonderful day.

Also joining us here, after a great distance between visits, is superfan Jody Rice, who was last here to shake hands with Premier Bill Bennett and is here today to support his Victoria Shamrocks. Would the House please make them all welcome. [Applause.]

[1010]

Introductions by Members

S. Fraser: I see Grand Chief Doug Kelly is visiting us in the gallery today, someone well known to this House. He wears many hats, including helping with the inception of the aboriginal health authority here in B.C. Would the House please join me in welcoming him and his guests.

G. Hogg: I was apparently negligent yesterday in not recognizing my nephew. My nephew Robert Dewinetz is here participating in the B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. I know all of you introduced people, and he pointed out to me that I failed.

He’s a thoughtful, passionate, engaged and engaging — hopefully, you’ll like this, Robert — contributor — he wrote this himself — to the education and the future of our youth. Please join me in welcoming my nephew and apologizing to him for me having been so negligent as his uncle.

A. Weaver: I just would like the House to welcome two visitors from Vancouver who are here to watch question period — Jared and Linda Hazzard.

Hon. T. Lake: I would like to join my colleagues on the other side of the House in welcoming here Grand Chief Doug Kelly, of the First Nations Health Council. Doug has played an enormous role in groundbreaking transition from the federal government to First Nations, in partnership with the British Columbia government, looking after the health and designing the health system for First Nations in our province.

It is a model for other jurisdictions across Canada, and I want to welcome and, again, thank Grand Chief Kelly for the tremendous role that he has played in that achievement.

Tributes

HENRY BLOCK

G. Hogg: On October 7, our community lost a resident, a leader and an inspiration with the passing of Henry Block. He was an entrepreneur, and he loved to wheel and deal. He often said that he had nothing but nerve. At age 19, he was selling real estate; at 23, managing a car lot; and, at 29, he and his brother started Block Bros. Realty. It became one of the largest and most successful real estate firms in Canada.

In his 80s, his priorities changed, through the sharing of his faith and supporting many projects and people.
[ Page 9664 ]
Through that, he changed our community. His generous spirit, faith and commitment to family and friends will be missed. His impact and memory will endure.

Ministerial Statements

ANNIVERSARY OF OTTAWA SHOOTING
AND DEATHS OF
NATHAN CIRILLO AND PATRICE VINCENT

Hon. M. de Jong: We live in a large, diverse country, and sometimes it’s easy to become preoccupied with the things that divide us or take us apart from one another. We’ve just had an exercise in democracy that is one of the defining features of the freedoms that we enjoy in this great country.

Last year, a year ago today, Canadians came together, and very much did come together, to mourn two heroes. An image that I think will sustain itself in the annals of Canadian history is of a young man standing guard at the war memorial in Ottawa. Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, performing that tremendously symbolic duty, was shot and was gunned down.

Two days earlier, Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent was purposely run down in Quebec. Both men lost their lives. Two families were devastated forever.

[1015]

There are, sadly, a few people who will perpetrate this kind of violence, and they have a goal. It is to sow fear, divide us, to try as best they can through their nefarious activities to change our national character. They failed then and, I daresay, will always fail.

But in asserting that, I am mindful that today in Ottawa, in the nation’s capital, Nathan and Patrice were being honoured for their sacrifice. Even though they’re no longer with us, our memories of them, their service to this country and what they represent will continue undiminished.

On behalf of the government of British Columbia and all members of the House — we’ll hear from the opposition leader in a moment — we want to stand with our fellow Canadians and mourn the loss of these brave men.

J. Horgan: I thank the Government House Leader for his remarks. It was only a year ago, and we were in session at that time. We were all, as legislators, shocked and horrified at the events that were unfolding in Ottawa — so far away, yet so close to all of our hearts.

Cpl. Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent gave their lives, not without thought but certainly with consideration to their role in the Canadian Armed Forces and, as the House leader said, the symbolic role that Cpl. Nathan Cirillo was fulfilling so close to Remembrance Day.

These are difficult, difficult images to scour from our minds. Perhaps that’s why we should not scour them from our minds and, instead, remember and let them endure as we come towards November 11 and the sacrifices of 1939-1945 and 1950-1953. Peacekeepers throughout the time between wars are not the only ones that are standing on guard for us as Canadians.

It is with great sadness that I think of the families that are grieving today, but it’s with great hope that I think of how we as a nation and we as a people came together on October 22 last year and said: “This shall not tear down our hope for the future and our commitment to each other as a nation.”

With that memory in mind, I want to add my and all members of the opposition’s words to those of the Government House Leader, sending our deepest regrets to the families and also reminding each of us that the vigilance that we saw last year will remain for the years ahead.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 43 — LOCAL ELECTIONS
CAMPAIGN FINANCING (EXPENSE LIMITS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. P. Fassbender presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Local Elections Campaign Financing (Expense Limits) Amendment Act, 2015.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I move that Bill 43 be read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I am honoured to present this bill. As the members of this House know, last year, British Columbia updated the local election campaign financing rules to bring greater transparency and accountability to local elections. The focus now has moved to enhancing accessibility and fairness in local elections by implementing expense limits.

In October of 2014, the Legislative Assembly convened a Special Committee on Local Election Expense Limits. In June of 2015, the special committee made recommendations on those expense limits.

The special committee undertook considerable public and stakeholder consultation, and I want to thank them for their very hard work. The committee heard abundant input from individuals, candidates, elector organizations and other stakeholders. The special committee observed that the level of spending in local elections is generally reasonable, though there are some notable exceptions.

[1020]

Based on the recommendations of the special committee, Bill 43 will amend the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act to enable the establishment of expense
[ Page 9665 ]
limits for candidates for mayor, council, regional district, electoral area directors, school board and certain special purpose bodies.

I want to again say that the committee did great work. The bill is being introduced today, and it’s the government’s intention not to seek passage during the present sitting. Perhaps we will begin the process of canvassing members who, as interested officials, should have the opportunity to provide comment.

With that said, Madame Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day after today.

Bill 43, Local Elections Campaign Financing (Expense Limits) Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

SMALL BUSINESS IN NEW WESTMINSTER

J. Darcy: October is Small Business Month, but in my community, every day and every month is small business month. If you add the home-based businesses to those with a visible presence, we have literally thousands of small businesses in New Westminster.

Our community supports them big-time, most importantly by purchasing local goods and services and by eating out in local restaurants all year round. We also recognize them through our chamber of commerce’s annual Platinum Awards dinner and through the Readers Choice Awards sponsored by the Royal City Record.

I really enjoyed visiting some of our small businesses recently, to deliver certificates of appreciation to the award winners: businesses like the New West Cobbler shop, a traditional owner-operated, bursting-at-the-seams shoe repair business that provided high quality service to its customers for over 25 years; businesses like the iconic Coming Home Café, renowned for its wonderful breakfasts and warm welcomes in a venue that was the original home of New Westminster Pride; or April Nail Spa on Carnarvon, where Mary, the manager, always asks: “Do you want your toenails painted orange again, Judy?”

Last month I visited one of the few manufacturers left in New West after a long string of mill and industrial closures. Pacific Bolt employs 50 people, including Jasmine, a young aboriginal woman apprentice who — with the support of her co-workers, her employer and a strong equity hiring program — is thriving and loving her job. The occasion was Steel Day, and the owner was passionate about the need for this government’s support to grow manufacturing in B.C., something that we have not heard very much about in this place, even though this is, in fact, also Manufacturing Month.

Today I want to thank the small businesses that are the backbone of our local economy in New Westminster and who give back to our community in so many ways every single day.

SMALL BUSINESS AND
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE

J. Sturdy: As was mentioned by the member for New Westminster, October is Small Business Month, a time for all British Columbians to celebrate the success of our small business community and to recognize the role it plays in creating jobs and building a strong economy.

Small businesses are the economic engine of our province. They account for 98 percent of all businesses here in British Columbia, provide more than half of all private sector jobs and create more than 30 percent of our GDP.

As we approach the end of the month, I’d like to take this opportunity to recognize B.C.’s chambers of commerce and all that they do to support, promote and advocate on behalf of small business. A chamber of commerce helps entrepreneurs to create a positive business environment in their community and provides an avenue for promoting their region to the rest of the world through tourism and investment.

Chambers are often the first point of contact with visitors and new residents, helping them to get settled and find their way. Chambers also provide business owners with opportunities to work together with government and the public, to create jobs, drive the local economy and build better, safer, more prosperous communities.

Businesses in West Vancouver and the Sea to Sky are well served by their chambers of commerce. Some of the regional chamber initiatives include training and mentoring small businesses and staff, lunch-and-learn sessions, excellence awards and the ever-popular Taste of the Bay, Taste of Bowen and taste of Dundarave.

[1025]

Not only do chambers provide a voice for business, facilitate networking between owners and foster a friendly environment for investment, but they ultimately make our community a better place to live. Belonging to a chamber of commerce is beneficial to the community, and it’s good business. I want to thank all of the chambers in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky and throughout the province for the work that they do and their commitment to community.

AQUAPONICS

B. Routley: What kind of business could you start if you love fresh garden vegetables and fish and yet you hate weeding and don’t have time to fish? Well, that’s what inspired Adrian Southern to start an aquaponics farm in the Cowichan Valley. It had a lot to do with his extreme dislike for weeding.
[ Page 9666 ]

The aquaponics farm is based on an ancient technique of rotating fish and vegetable crops, combining aquaculture and hydroponics. The fish are grown in culture tanks that are connected to a hydroponic vegetable-growing system. The wastewater leaving the fish tanks is circulated through the hydroponic system, where a variety of bacteria and even crayfish work on neutralizing the fish wastes by converting them into minerals and plant nutrients. The plants in the hydroponic system then absorb the nutrients, effectively cleaning the water, which is then recycled back into the fish tanks.

Raincoast Aquaponics holds around 50,000 litres of water in the system but only consumes about 200 litres per day. That’s less than the average Cowichan Valley resident, which is about 300 litres a day. This is to replace water that’s lost to evaporation and cleaning filters. With this amount of water, Raincoast has the capacity to produce a maximum of about 1,000 kilograms of rainbow trout and 60,000 heads of lettuce or other produce every year in its 3,000-square-foot greenhouse.

We in the Cowichan Valley are very pleased and thankful that Adrian chose to build his weed-free aquaponic dream farm small business in the Cowichan Valley, and we wish Adrian and all of B.C.’s small businesses much success as we celebrate B.C. Small Business Month.

TOURISM RICHMOND AND
VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

J. Yap: Constructive partnerships bring about great outcomes for any community, and in Richmond that’s the case with Tourism Richmond and YVR, Vancouver International Airport. Tourism Richmond provides top-quality visitor and member services, as well as sales and marketing initiatives to attract travellers. They recently brought some very positive numbers to my attention and yours, which I believe reflect the success that it’s had in attracting these visitors.

According to the 2014 year-end PKF national report, Richmond led Canada with the highest occupancy of 75.4 percent, and as of July year-to-date figures, Richmond continues to have the highest occupancy rate at 77.7 percent. The average for British Columbia was 65.9 percent, and Greater Vancouver was at 75.3 percent.

Not one to take all of the credit, Tourism Richmond also lauds YVR, just one of its important partners. Richmond is an airport city, a gateway to all of our beautiful B.C. communities. Tourism Richmond reports that every time a daily international flight lands at YVR, there is a direct economic benefit to our community. Each daily international flight generates between 125 and 175 airport jobs; supports another 200 to 300 jobs in our hotels, restaurants, tour companies and attractions; connects B.C. Businesses to global markets; and generates about $10 million in incremental tax revenue.

In 2016, Tourism Richmond and the YVR airport will host the Smart Airports and Regions Conference in Richmond. This conference will bring great insight into how airports worldwide are realizing the strength of their transportation infrastructure assets and the economic multiplier impact for trade and investment opportunities.

For their great example of constructive partnerships, please join me in expressing kudos to Tourism Richmond’s CEO, Tracy Lakeman, and the YVR airport CEO, Craig Richmond, and their respective teams.

[1030]

GABRIOLA ARTS COUNCIL AND
ANTONY HOLLAND

D. Routley: I rise today to speak to the members about the Gabriola arts community and artists therein. Gabriola ranks as sixth across Canada with respect to concentration of artists in the local workforce — 5.8 percent, compared to the national average of 0.8 percent. Every day is a celebration of the arts on this isle of the arts. I will mention two things.

The Gabriola Arts Council was established in 1997 as the Festival Gabriola Society and became the Gabriola Arts Council in 2006. It is an organization which fosters the development of the arts and supports artists in all mediums at all levels in the community.

Community and individual development, both social and economic, has been well documented as a contributing factor from the arts. The arts stimulate economic growth and improve the quality of life. The Arts Council encourages and mentors artists at all levels. It broadens the base of public and private support for the arts. It is the primary local resource for information about the arts. And it encourages cooperation among arts and other community organizations. It runs several festivals. It is a fantastic organization.

This is a two-minute statement. It would take me ten minutes to list the artists on Gabriola, but I feel obliged to mention one, Mr. Antony Holland, who recently passed away in July of this year. Mr. Holland was an actor who studied drama in London before World War II. He put on plays during the war and travelled with those plays throughout the theatres of war, including the North Africa Campaign. In 1946, Sir Laurence Olivier founded the Bristol Old Vic Theatre School, where Mr. Holland was vice-principal for nearly a decade. Mr. Holland moved to Vancouver in 1957 and remained in the province until his death this past July.

I’d like the House to recognize the great contributions of Antony Holland and the Gabriola Arts Council.

MISSION HOSPICE SOCIETY

M. Dalton: On behalf of my constituents of Maple Ridge–Mission, I would like to congratulate both the Mission Hospice Society for 30 years of service and the
[ Page 9667 ]
Christine Morrison Hospice for ten years of care in our community.

Mission’s hospice is a ten-bed end-of-life care facility on the third floor of the Mission Memorial Hospital. It’s a beautiful facility with a soothing atmosphere and a wonderful, caring staff.

As for the Mission Hospice Society, it has provided end-of-life compassionate care since 1985 through bereavement programs and volunteer support that are free of charge. The Mission Hospice Society is here for one’s time of need. For those living with a terminal illness, if someone that you love is dying, if you are grieving the loss of a loved one, Mission Hospice Society can help.

I want to acknowledge President Mike Scudder, Vice-President Chris Stenerson, as well as directors Sean Melia, David Goodier, Karen Petty, Kim Kokoszka, Annie Charker, Sandra Pughe and Bill Else.

As a non-profit, volunteer-based organization, the Mission Hospice Society relies on the hard work of dedicated volunteers to offer their many programs and services. Last year alone, 150 active volunteers provided 14,000 hours of service. The hard work of Executive Director Angel Elias and Co-ordinators Christine Boyes and Nathalie Millar ensures that the organization runs smoothly. Successful fundraising events held throughout the year have allowed the society to expand its support and see an increase in those using its services.

Thank you to all the staff and volunteers who work so hard to provide generous and compassionate care to our community, both at the Christine Morrison Hospice and with the society. Mission is a better place because of them.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING
AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

J. Horgan: When the Premier took office some four years ago, she promised families would be first. We’ve been asking questions of the Minister of Children and Family Development for weeks and weeks now, and it’s quite clear that families with children in care certainly don’t come first.

We also heard from the Premier that she would run the most open and transparent government in Canada, yet today we have a report from the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner that says that we have probably the least open and least transparent government in Canada.

[1035]

In fact, her report says the following: “In the course of this investigation, we uncovered negligent searches for records, a failure to keep adequate e-mail records, a failure to document searches and the willful destruction of records responsive to an access request. Taken together, these practices threaten the integrity of access to information in British Columbia.” I don’t think you can be more scathing than that.

When the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner began her three investigations — one into the Minister of Transportation’s office, one into the very office of the minister responsible for freedom of information, and then lastly, into the heart of government, the Premier’s office — the response from the Premier was: “Violations will not be tolerated.”

Well, we have violations in the Premier’s office, violations in the Minister of Transportation’s office and violations right under the nose of the minister responsible for the act.

My question, absent anyone else who can answer it, is to the minister responsible: what are you going to do about it?

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Members.

Hon. A. Virk: Commissioner Denham’s report is indeed comprehensive. First of all, she makes a number of findings. Commissioner Denham also makes a number of recommendations. Government is committed to take action on all of her recommendations. In fact, on a number of those recommendations, action has already been taken.

In fact, just this morning I spoke to the previous Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia, a well-respected individual in the privacy circles all across Canada. David Loukidelis will provide advice and advise government on two factors. He will advise government on how to take action on the recommendations, and secondly, Mr. Loukidelis will provide advice on how to strengthen freedom of information and privacy in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I know that British Columbians will be heartened to hear that the minister responsible for freedom of information has grave concerns about what’s going on in his own office. I hope he has the same concerns about what’s going on across government because that’s the scathing indictment we got from Ms. Denham today. A scathing indictment. A culture of deception, a culture of deceit and a culture of delete, delete, delete.

Tim Duncan worked briefly in the Minister of Transportation’s office. After that, he was working directly for the Liberal research team, and he said that there was a culture within the B.C. Liberal Party of not giving out information. He made reference to a popular television program that said to just win. It’s all about winning.

I think most people on this side of the House and the independents on this side of the House felt that we came here to do public service, not to cover up for misdeeds in the government of British Columbia, but that’s clearly what the minister is doing.

Now, with respect to the Premier’s office, her deputy
[ Page 9668 ]
chief of staff, Michele Cadario, broke fundamental rules with respect to destroying government documents. In fact, the commissioner said the following: “From my investigator’s review of her account, we can confirm that she has not personally retained a single e-mail she has ever sent from her government e-mail address.”

I know it’s not Back to the Future. I know it is really 2015, and everyone in the known universe sends e-mails all the time. In fact, it’s the foundation of transmitting information quickly back and forth within government, outside of government. How is it possible that the deputy to the Premier has not retained one single record — not one single record in her time working for the Premier of British Columbia? It seems to me, again, a pattern.

The last deputy chief of staff to the Premier was fired because she blended the B.C. Liberal Party and the government of British Columbia. Again, a pattern of deceit, a pattern of deception.

Is there anyone over there that’s prepared to be accountable today for the most appalling government in the history of British Columbia?

[1040]

Hon. A. Virk: As I said before, the report is comprehensive. The recommendations that the commissioner makes are in administrative areas, operational areas, technical areas, policy and legislation.

With the assistance of Mr. Loukidelis, the specific areas will be actioned. I’ve already written a letter to the Chair of the special committee that’s comprised of both sides of the House here and that’s studying the freedom-of-information legislation. I have made recommendations in those areas that…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Virk: …require suggestions for legislative change that have been referred to that committee. I further asked that committee to look at the practices and policies, as to how those particular areas are also done across Canada, and I’ll look forward to those findings.

Madame Speaker: Leader of the Opposition on a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: For those who are new to this chamber and new to these proceedings, you’re going to hear the words “the report was comprehensive” for the next 20 minutes because that’s all — the only fig leaf, I guess — the minister can find here.

It’s also interesting that oftentimes when I hear members on that side speak, it’s as if they just arrived yesterday and they’re not responsible for the past 15 years of deceit and deception.

I’ll read further from the commissioner’s report. “It’s difficult to overstate the seriousness of the problems that my office discovered in the course of this investigation.” These problems include either wilfully or negligently failing to produce records; failing to keep any sent e-mails, irrespective of the topic; and failing to tell the truth to an officer under oath.

Now, I appreciate that that may well be administrative and technical to the former member of the RCMP. But I would suggest that if that minister was still an officer of the RCMP, he wouldn’t accept that as technical and administrative. It’s a lie, a lie. That’s what it is. There’s no getting around it.

Madame Speaker: I will caution all members on the use of parliamentary language.

J. Horgan: Thank you, Hon. Speaker, but I’m just referring to someone who failed to tell the truth under oath. That’s the words coming from the commissioner. I don’t know how to call that anything other than what it is.

Madame Speaker: Mr. Leader, it’s never appropriate to do indirectly what you’re not permitted to do directly.

J. Horgan: I’m not impugning the motives of the minister. I’m telling the House what the officer of the Legislature said she heard when she talked not to administrative and technical staff but political staff in the Premier’s office and in the minister’s office.

Again, my question to the minister responsible for the integrity — the integrity — of freedom of information and privacy in this province. Certainly to goodness, you can do better than you’ve done so far. Try to be comprehensive with accountability.

Madame Speaker: I will caution all members that commentary is directed through the Chair.

Hon. A. Virk: While the commissioner’s report indeed puts a spotlight on a number of issues, my expectations and government’s expectations are very clear. Government’s expectations are that all….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair will hear the answer.

Hon. A. Virk: The government’s expectations are very clear that all employees at all levels throughout government abide by all applicable legislation. That cannot be stressed more. That one particular individual, as the member opposite refers to, has tendered his resignation, and that resignation has been accepted. My expectations are clear that everyone follows the legislation.
[ Page 9669 ]

D. Routley: This is about credibility and integrity, of which this government has none, apparently. Time and time again, this minister and ministers before him have stood up in this House and promised this House, promised British Columbians, of what they expect.

[1045]

They expect employees of government to follow the law. I think that British Columbians expect their government to follow the law. I can hear them revving up the bus outside to throw people under, rather than face the accountability themselves.

Last May, Tim Duncan, the former executive assistant to the Minister of Transportation and former B.C. Liberal caucus research officer made troubling allegations about how the B.C. Liberals’ flagrant disregard for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act functioned. Mr. Duncan said that ministerial staff, political staff, routinely delete records contrary to the act if they feel those records would be embarrassing to government.

This morning, the Information and Privacy Commissioner confirmed that Mr. Duncan’s allegations were true. In fact, it confirmed something he said about this government’s culture of avoiding rules they don’t like. They do what it takes to win.

In fact, the commissioner found that Mr. Gretes lied to the commissioner, and as a result, this case has been referred to the RCMP. Lest we miss the gravity of these findings, let me repeat that.

Madame Speaker: Question.

D. Routley: The ministerial assistant to the Minister of Transportation deleted government records, lied to the commissioner…

Madame Speaker: Does the member have a question?

D. Routley: …and his conduct is now being referred to the police. When we asked the Premier about this in May….

Madame Speaker: I would ask the member to pose the question.

D. Routley: Thank you.

She said: “If that rule isn’t being observed by staff who are currently here or who are no longer in the employ of government, they have not abided by the regulations and rules.”

My question is to the minister responsible for freedom of information. Your staff are breaking the rules, the law and the public trust. What are you going to do about it?

Madame Speaker: All members know to pose their questions through the Chair.

Hon. A. Virk: The commissioner’s report did make a number of findings and did make a number of recommendations. My expectations and government’s expectations stay the same: that all members, all employees at all levels follow all applicable legislation. If there are incidences where that has not occurred, that individual has tendered his resignation, and that resignation has been accepted.

This government has received over 43,000 freedom-of-information requests in the last five years, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pages of information have been put out and are available for the public to see in an open and transparent way. We are committed to continue that.

D. Routley: It’s not about one individual. It’s not about two individuals. It’s not about any number of individuals this government could throw under their bus. It’s about the integrity of this government again and again. And again and again they fail. The commissioner took testimony from Mr. Facey about his rather cavalier approach to his legal duties under the act that his office is mandated to enforce.

She said: “It is difficult to understand how the chief of staff would have thought he had no responsive records in these circumstances. The request covered all e-mails he would have sent to his minister during the period ending…one week before he received the request” — one week. It is pretty clear that the reason Mr. Facey didn’t find any records is because he didn’t want to find any records.

The Premier said that she would not tolerate staff who broke the rules. What is this minister responsible for open government, responsible for freedom of information, going to do about Mr. Facey and all of the others who have broken the rules under this government’s watch?

[1050]

Hon. A. Virk: Two of the recommendations made by Commissioner Denham request the release of e-mails as they refer to two different individuals and two different ministries. Work has progressed immediately to provide not only the e-mails from the Ministry of Transportation but the Ministry of Advanced Education to be provided forthwith, and those will be provided forthwith.

M. Karagianis: The commissioner made a damning observation regarding the culture among government’s political staff. Let’s remind the minister that this goes right into the Premier’s office. This is not about two individuals in other ministries. This goes to the very heart of government, the highest office, the Premier’s office.

I quote from the commissioner’s report: “The majority of problems witnessed in this investigation occurred in offices that are inherently political in nature. While this investigation is not broad enough to be truly be systemic, it does raise concerns for me that ministerial offices are
[ Page 9670 ]
more likely to suffer from some of the problems illustrated in this report than other offices within government.”

Again, to the minister responsible for freedom of information. How is it possible that this government has been in power for 14 years and yet right under the nose of the Premier, we are seeing flagrant disregard for the Freedom of Information Act? And how is it that this government is incapable of ensuring that their own political staff do follow the rules and obligations under the very act that this minister is trying to defend?

Hon. A. Virk: While this report certainly highlights some issues, it also provides remedies — remedies in the form of a number of recommendations. And I have said we are committed to act on those recommendations and have started the process to act on those recommendations immediately.

In fact, the responsibility of the administrative area of freedom of information — tracking those requests in the Premier’s office — has immediately been assigned to the deputy minister’s office. We are committed to take action on each and every one of those recommendations and have started that process immediately.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

HIGHWAY 16 BUS SERVICE
IMPLEMENTATION AND GOVERNMENT
CONSULTATION RECORDS

M. Karagianis: You know, this report today is explosive on what it tells us about the internal cynical workings of this government. We need to ask a bigger question: how deep does this go? How wide does this go? I’m sure in the coming days, those questions will be asked.

Let me just say that one of the things that really upsets me is the really cynical attitude this government has around the sort of genesis of this, which was questions asked on the Highway of Tears. You know, the event that triggered this was someone within the Ministry of Transportation coming clean and revealing to us this systemic culture of deleting e-mails and getting rid of information that may be embarrassing to government.

Every time we’ve raised this question about a bus on the Highway of Tears, the minister has laughed us off and treated it like a joke. Now we know that what was happening inside that office, the time and energy and effort that went into recklessly deleting e-mails, could have been put to better use protecting women along the Highway of Tears and putting a bus in place. So instead of doing the right thing….

I’d like the Minister of Transportation to explain why the kind of effort that went into deleting e-mails was not used to put a bus along that highway.

[1055]

Hon. T. Stone: I will reiterate a number of comments that the minister responsible for FOI has said this morning. I certainly expect, as I know everyone in government does, that staff within our offices and staff more broadly within the bureaucracy adhere 100 percent to the act, both in spirit and in the law. Now, the….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Stone: The original request, the 36 pages of records…. As the minister responsible mentioned a moment ago, those records will be provided. It also is worth noting that back in March, a number of other memos and records were proactively provided to the requesters, records that were deemed by staff in the ministry to be very relevant to the requests that came in.

At the end of the day, I also want to make sure that we don’t lose sight of the fact that this government is working extremely hard to engage with communities, stakeholders, First Nations up and down Highway 16 to ensure that all options are being explored to make that corridor as safe as it possibly can be.

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUEST ON
KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

D. Eby: On several occasions in this House, I rose to ask the former Minister of Advanced Education and current minister responsible for freedom of information about his involvement in a scheme to overpay senior executives at Kwantlen University. He called the questions outrageous and outlandish — outrageous until leaked records, including his own e-mails, showed his direct involvement.

In level on level of cover-up, we find out today from the commissioner that his chief of staff was hiding key records on the scandal through gross negligence. First, the minister forgot about his own e-mails. Then his chief of staff helped, through negligence, to hide records about the scandal. This goes all the way into the Premier’s office.

To the minister. How can anyone believe that he is the guy to hold this Premier accountable to the freedom-of-information rules in this province?

Hon. A. Virk: There are some 200 million e-mails yearly in our government. In the last five years alone, over 43,000 freedom-of-information requests have been processed. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pages of information have been released and posted publicly for all British Columbians to see.

The Privacy Commissioner has made recommendations that a number of e-mails that were not provided be released immediately, and those e-mails are being released as expeditiously as possible.
[ Page 9671 ]

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: Two hundred million e-mails. The minister’s chief of staff can’t find one, and the Premier’s chief of staff can’t find one. In fact, she doesn’t even have any.

The minister covered up his own involvement in the scandal at KPU. He forgot about his own e-mails until somebody leaked them. He brought in a chief of staff who was grossly negligent, helping hide from the public important records about the scandal. Now, as head of freedom of information for the entire province, he has overseen conduct that has been referred to the police for investigation.

The commissioner writes — and this is very true: “It is difficult to overstate the seriousness of the problems that my office discovered in the course of this investigation and the resulting effect on the integrity of the access-to-information process in our province.”

Again, to the minister. How can anyone in the public believe that he is the guy that is going to hold this Premier to account to her office’s legal duties to British Columbians?

Hon. A. Virk: As I’ve said — and wait for it — the commissioner’s report is comprehensive. It is comprehensive. It does make…. While it highlights some issues, it suggests a number of areas and recommendations where we can strengthen the legislation and we can strengthen our responses.

As I’ve said before, I’ve spoken to Mr. David Loukidelis. We’re going to find ways to strengthen not only the manner in which we act on the recommendations but the training that is going to be provided, and is being provided, to staff all across core government.

[1100]

We are committed to strengthening freedom of information across British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING
AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

S. Simpson: This isn’t about an isolated incident. It isn’t about a one-off. It’s three investigations, including the Premier’s office, and three findings of destruction of documents, an investigation that speaks of deceit, that speaks of cover-up, that speaks of lying under oath.

This is about a culture in this government that will do anything to win. This is a culture that starts right at the top. It starts in the Premier’s office, and it starts with people sitting on the front bench of that government — a culture where political staff reflect their political masters. Many in the public are already cynical about politics, and this government has validated that cynicism.

Will the minister first apologize for the conduct of his government, and then will he ask the Information and Privacy Commissioner to investigate the rest of the ministerial offices where this is going on?

Hon. A. Virk: The Privacy Commissioner has done this report. The Privacy Commissioner has a role. As citizens across British Columbia request information, that information is processed by trusted and well-respected and well-trained public servants. In those rare circumstances — and we’re talking tens and tens of thousands of FOI requests — where one does not agree with the manner in which an FOI request is processed, they can certainly lodge that inquiry with the Privacy Commissioner, who has a role to ensure that she can look into it and make recommendations.

The Privacy Commissioner has made 11 recommendations, and we are committed to act on those recommendations.

HIGHWAY 16 BUS SERVICE
IMPLEMENTATION AND GOVERNMENT
CONSULTATION RECORDS

M. Mungall: What is absolutely clear here is that we have a culture of contempt from this government, and it comes from the top. This culture is to deny, to delete, to cover-up and to wilfully ignore their legal obligations.

In all of this, we have a bus that is desperately needed on the Highway of Tears, but this government is too busy covering up its misdeeds that they can’t even be bothered to do the right thing and get that bus up there for the northern communities that need it.

This is why what they’re doing…. Denham is very clear: the wilful destruction of records responsive to an access request. That’s the legacy of this government.

British Columbians want to know: when is this government going to apologize for this utter lack of integrity, and just what more are they hiding? How deep does this go in this government?

Hon. A. Virk: The commissioner, within her authority in the legislation, conducted interviews, did examination across government and made findings and recommendations. Those recommendations, as I said, are operational, administrative, technical, policy and legislative. We are committed to take action on each and every one of those recommendations that the commissioner has provided in this report.

[End of question period.]

Hon. M. de Jong: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: One of the departments of government that does very, very important work is the….
[ Page 9672 ]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, please come to order.

Please continue.

[1105]

Hon. M. de Jong: Representatives from a department of government, the treasury branch, are here today. They, of course, for governments through the years, have performed important services that relate to the preparation of budgetary documents and the updates that take place through the year.

We’re joined today by Ms. Emma Restall and Katrina Bystedt. They have taken time out of their busy schedule — for the first time, I’m told — to witness proceedings in this chamber. I’m glad they’re here. I hope they enjoyed their time here. We certainly benefit, all of us, from the work that they do in the treasury branch. I hope the House will make them feel welcome.

Petitions

J. Sturdy: I rise this morning to table two petitions expressing concern and opposition with regard to the Woodfibre LNG project. The first is from an organization called My Sea to Sky; the second, from an organization called Propeller Strategy.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m calling Motion 26, which stands in my name on the order paper.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 26 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION REPORT PROPOSALS

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll, just firstly, remind members by reading it. It’s not a lengthy motion. I’ll read it into the record.

[Be it resolved that in accordance with section 14 of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 107, the proposals contained in the Final Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission tabled in the Legislative Assembly on September 28, 2015 be approved.]

In speaking to the motion…. And I should say at the outset that in the event that the House, as I hope it will, endorses the motion, it will be followed by the tabling of legislation breathing statutory life into the recommendations.

But my first order of business is to, on behalf of all members, pass along thanks to the commissioners who have laboured as the Electoral Boundaries Commission. The 2015 commission was comprised of the Hon. Mr. Justice Thomas Melnick, justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia; Beverly Busson, former commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and Dr. Keith Archer, who in addition to being a commissioner, of course serves as Chief Electoral Officer for the province of British Columbia.

The role of a commissioner on the Boundaries Commission is not an easy one. It’s a challenging task, and I believe all members would agree — I hope they would — that these commissioners have gone about their duties with diligence, professionalism, competence and care.

They have produced a final report that was submitted via you to the chamber, Madame Speaker. I know that all members will want to join me in thanking them for their deliberations and thoughtful reports, both the interim report and the final report, which is the subject of the motion before the House today.

The mandate of the commission is set out in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. It is guided by the principle of representation by population, taking into account geographical and demographic realities that exist within the province and the need to balance the community interests of the people of British Columbia. The commission is permitted to deviate from population equality by plus or minus 25 percent and, in rare circumstances, called “special circumstances,” to exceed that level of deviation.

Instructions to this commission, under amendments to the act that were passed in the act, were as follows. And these were specific instructions to this commission. They were the subject of some commentary in this House at the time they were introduced and perhaps will be again today.

[1110]

Those specific instructions were to retain the existing number of districts in specified northern and rural regions of the province and to propose an electoral map that included between 85 and 87 electoral districts.

As required by the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, the commission did travel widely. They received a large number of submissions from British Columbians. I am advised that they held 29 public hearings leading up to the release of the preliminary report and that they held a further 15 hearings following the release of the preliminary report and prior to the finalization of the final report that is the subject of this motion. I’m further advised that they received upwards of 600 written submissions.

With respect to the specific instructions that I referred to a moment ago that were the subject of amendments debated in this House last year — and there was fairly thorough debate — let me merely say this and restate the rationale for those amendments. Their purpose was to ensure that no region of the province would have its effective representation in the Legislature reduced through the elimination of districts. I think it bears emphasis that this is not just a hypothetical concern. The
[ Page 9673 ]
last commission process, in 2008, showed that in certain northern and rural regions, there was a real risk of losing electoral districts.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

In our view, that would have resulted, in a very practical way, in the loss of effective representation in the Legislature for those areas. We are, in virtually all cases — most cases, at least — talking about electoral districts that are greater than 20,000 square kilometres and some over 100,000 square kilometres, with populations typically located in smaller communities separated by great distances.

That lay at the heart of the rationale for the specific amendments and instructions. Some have characterized them as limiting. I suppose they are, to the extent that instructions and mandates are limiting. Others, unfortunately, have endeavoured to cast doubt on the motivation behind the amendments and the instructions. I have, again, endeavoured to restate for the House the government’s rationale for proposing and ultimately passing those amendments.

The 2014 amendments also permitted the commission to add up to two new districts, where needed, to address population growth. Again, I recall commentary on whether or not it was appropriate to limit the number of seats that the commission could recommend adding. I will not restate the arguments advanced by the government at the time for providing a limitation on the growth in the number of MLAs that the commission could consider.

I would say this. I think the commission has done an exemplary job in carrying out its mandate. It has proposed adding two new districts, in Surrey and Richmond–New Westminster. By the analysis that I have seen and been provided with, the commission’s proposals would bring all urban areas well within the plus-25-percent threshold. In fact, no district, I am told, is more than 18 percent above the average. That’s an improvement on the last commission process, where several districts were more than 20 percent above the average.

[1115]

The number of districts more than 25 percent below the average hasn’t changed, I’m advised. It remains at ten. In most cases, the populations of these districts have not changed significantly from the last commission process.

I can further advise the House, on the basis of an analysis that was, to be clear, provided to me, that the commission has recommended changes to 48 of the province’s electoral districts. Most are fairly minor. There are slightly more substantial changes recommended in certain areas of the Fraser Valley — Hope-Princeton — and mid–Vancouver Island.

In all cases, I believe, the commission was careful to note that in its view, adjustments were necessary in order to balance population or to respect community interests. The commission did issue a caution that the work of drawing boundaries in this province continues to be a difficult one.

This is not a new concern, as past commissions have commented along the same lines and, in fairness, I think, have pointed to the unique circumstances that I alluded to a moment ago involving vast stretches of geographic area with very small and geographically disconnected population centres.

I suppose that one could say there’s never a perfect solution. I’ve done this long enough to know that for each person, there is a different idea of what the ideal electoral map should look like or where the boundaries should be drawn.

I think it’s also clear that those of us who have the privilege to sit in this chamber have a fairly unique vantage point when it comes to advancing a certain suggestion — and some would say correctly, I think, that it’s probably a vested interest of sorts — and tend to become a little bit proprietary and defensive when suggestions are made to alter what we see as our constituency. Of course, it is not our constituency. We are the temporary occupants of a position and given the temporary honour to represent people from those constituencies.

I would say this in closing. The hallmark of this process, I would say, in the same way that when we go to the polls…. We live in a country where we are allowed to have the confidence, we enjoy the confidence, of knowing when we mark our ballot in secret circumstances, it will be counted. It will be counted accurately, and our franchise matters. There is integrity in that process. In a similar way, I would say that the hallmark of this process is the non-partisan and the independent lens that the Boundaries Commission applies to the task of drawing electoral boundaries.

I believe that non-partisanship and independence is reflected in the results of their work, in the report that this motion refers to, and commends to the House. I hope that over the course of the discussion that will follow that all members will accept — in thanking the commission for their work — at a minimum, the proposition I make that they have conducted their work and advanced their recommendations in a truly independent and non-partisan manner.

With that, I’ll await further comments from other members of the House.

Hon. S. Anton: Mr. Speaker, leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Anton: I’d like to introduce two people from my riding, Jared and Linda Hazzard, who are here with
[ Page 9674 ]
us in the gallery today. They are caregivers, which means they must be saints, because that’s a selfless job that we all rely on people in our society to be able to do to help us out and to help those who need care. They are from the lovely South Vancouver riding of Vancouver-Fraserview. I’d ask the House to make them welcome.

[1120]

Debate Continued

G. Holman: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t had an opportunity yet to congratulate you on your appointment. It’s a well-deserved one.

I’m pleased to speak to this report as spokesperson for democratic reform for the official opposition. In a nutshell, we basically support the recommendations of the report. We find that the commission, under the circumstances — given the context, given the legislative changes that it had to deal with, given the legal requirements that it had to deal with — has done a fair job, a good job. It certainly has done a good job of seeking public input. In general, we find that we will be supporting the report, and we thank the commission for doing its work.

Just to summarize a little bit the purpose and the mandate of the commission. Three commissioners. The legislation actually prescribes how these commissioners are to be appointed in order to ensure that there’s an independence and a fairness, which is absolutely crucial for this kind of issue — electoral boundaries within the province. There can’t be a more important issue in British Columbia.

The Electoral Boundaries Commission Act does require the establishment of a commission every two terms in British Columbia. That commission must be comprised of a judge or a retired judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, who is nominated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — in other words, cabinet. The commission must include a person who is not a member of the Legislative Assembly or an employee of government and who is nominated by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly after consultation with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. The commission must also include the Chief Electoral Officer, who is appointed under the Election Act.

As a result of these guidelines, three members were appointed to the commission on May 19, 2014: Mr. Justice Thomas Melnick, a justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia; Beverley Busson, a former commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and Keith Archer, of course, who is our Chief Electoral Officer of British Columbia.

The mandate of the commission is to ensure, essentially, that in accordance with the principle of representation by population, each MLA in British Columbia should represent, to the degree possible, a similar number of constituents. Recognizing that population growth isn’t uniform throughout the province, periodic reviews of the boundaries have to be undertaken to ensure that representation of constituents by MLAs remains equitable and effective in all areas of the province.

As I indicated before, and as members of the House who have been here much longer than I have understand, this commission is appointed after every second general election in British Columbia to take into account population growth and the differential in population growth in various areas of British Columbia — essentially rural versus urban.

[1125]

The commission set about its duties by educating themselves about the nature and the process of assessing and setting electoral boundaries and also informing and educating themselves on the history of electoral boundary commissions in the province. They felt it was important not to form early opinions about where any of the boundaries should be and wanted to keep an open mind and first hear from British Columbians about their opinions regarding current electoral districts and what changes, if any, they would suggest.

As noted, there were changes to the legislation and direction in terms of what the mandate for the commission had to be, and there was reference earlier by the Finance Minister to the requirement that for three regions in British Columbia, essentially, their representation be frozen.

Now, aside from the merits of that decision and the rationale for that decision, certainly for the commission, that created another complicating variable that they had to take into account. It’s already a complicated enough process, changing electoral boundaries in British Columbia, and the changes in the legislation essentially freezing representation in three broad areas of British Columbia made that task even more complicated.

It’s very clear from the report — and, again, as mentioned by the Finance Minister — that this commission has done a very good job of reaching out to the public and seeking public input on this matter. Between September and November of 2014, they visited 29 communities in British Columbia and heard from 128 presenters. As a former member of the Finance Committee, I understand how time-consuming and sometimes difficult it can be to get to various areas of the province, so I commend the commission on that extensive outreach — 29 communities. And this was just in the preliminary phase of their work.

They received an additional 295, almost 300, written submissions, largely through the website during the same period. All of this input helped them formulate their preliminary recommendations. They provided a preliminary report. Then the commission went out and sought additional input from the public and, as a result of that, adjusted their recommendations.

All of this is to indicate and to say that this commission has really listened to the people of British Columbia,
[ Page 9675 ]
which is their most important job. Aside from the fact that they’re experts in their fields and truly are the kind of people that we need to be helping this Legislature make these kinds of decisions, clearly, this commission has listened to the people of British Columbia.

After that initial report, the commission actually adjusted its recommendations. My understanding is that approximately 16 changes were made after the preliminary report. I won’t bother to read out specifically what those changes were that were made. But again, there is an indication here that the commission has done its work in terms of talking to the people of British Columbia. When they issued their preliminary report, they adjusted their recommendations based on that even to a greater degree — so 16 changes after they made their preliminary recommendations.

[1130]

They submitted the preliminary report on March 26, 2015, and then in April and May, again went out to British Columbians to seek their views on their proposals and, again, heard from 144 presenters in 15 communities and received an additional 426 recommendations. Based on that, the commission had adjusted their preliminary proposals. And again, it really highlights the excellent work that this commission has done in listening to the people of British Columbia.

Now, I just want to speak briefly about the context and the guidepost under which the commission had to evaluate boundary changes and make its recommendations. The key one, of course, was the changes to their mandate, which froze those areas. And, of course, the other requirements they have to think about are the constitutional requirements to try and ensure that representation does not fall out of boundaries. Plus or minus 25 percent is the guideline for that, but there are extenuating circumstances.

The nature of the constituency, the extent of it, the road network, the availability of telecommunications — all of those things the commission can take into account when it makes its recommendations. But the guidepost, the guideline, is to try and achieve representation that falls within plus or minus 25 percent in terms of the number of constituents that each MLA represents.

Basically, the proposals…. There were three substantial boundary adjustments. Many of the other adjustments were more minor in nature, and in many constituencies the recommendations weren’t to change the boundaries at all. That would include my constituency of Saanich North and the Islands. But the major changes in boundaries were in Hope and the Fraser Canyon, Fleetwood Park and Fleetwood Park Secondary School in Surrey-Fleetwood, and making Cumberland an anchor community of the Mid Island–Pacific Rim electoral district.

In addition to that, there were a number of more minor changes. In all, there were 48 of the existing 85 electoral boundaries that the commission recommended changing. In addition to that, in the Lower Mainland there was the addition of two seats. So if the Legislature approves this report, the number of MLAs in this august place will increase from 85 to 87.

Just a couple of comments as well about some additional considerations that the commission recommended that this Legislature consider. One of the recommendations is to allow Elections B.C. to permanently take over the administrative support for future commissions.

[1135]

Prior to this commission, the practice in British Columbia was to create a separate administrative entity to provide all administrative support for the Electoral Boundaries Commission during its existence. This included support such as separate office space, staffing, financial management, information management, information technology, communication services and similar operational support services.

The difficulty with this is…. Well, I guess there are two concerns there, obviously related. Setting up a separate administrative structure for the Electoral Boundaries Commission is more costly. It doesn’t take advantage of economies of scale.

It’s come up before in this House, the notion of sharing services. The Finance Committee itself has recommended to independent offices of the Legislature that they consider sharing services. We’ve had recent changes to the School Act that, in fact, mandate school districts to consider sharing services. They were already, but…. It’s come up in this House before with respect to the Auditor General for Local Government, where a separate entity has been established as opposed to establishing the AGLG within, for example, the Auditor General of British Columbia.

This theme has come up repeatedly in this House around administrative efficiency and trying to achieve economies of scale, particularly around overhead administrative functions that could apply to a whole number of functions. This theme is coming up again in the commission’s report, where they’re suggesting that a more appropriate, more cost-effective and more effective way of supporting the Boundaries Commission would be to establish those functions within the Elections B.C. offices.

That seems to us to be a very reasonable proposal that this House should seriously consider. The commission has recommended that the Legislative Assembly consider including in the act a requirement for Elections B.C. to provide the support for future commissions — in other words, putting it in the legislation. Not making it a discretionary thing, from time to time, but actually putting it in the legislation. That is something that should reduce costs and actually provide more effective support for the Electoral Boundaries Commission as it’s struck from time to time.

The other consideration, of course, raised by the commission is this one around the changes in the act that froze regions within British Columbia. The commission
[ Page 9676 ]
is asking the Legislature to seriously think about those kinds of restrictions making a difficult task even more difficult. There were concerns….

As I’ve said, this side of the House feels that, all things considered, these recommendations are supportable, and we will be supporting them. But there is concern here about the changes made to the act that essentially freeze these regions within British Columbia and make it more difficult for future Boundaries Commissions to address population shifts within British Columbia.

Just to read a little bit here from their report:

“The May 2014 amendments to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act prohibit a reduction in the number of electoral districts in the north, Cariboo-Thompson and Columbia-Kootenay regions. These regions contain electoral districts whose populations generally are much smaller than the provincial average and, furthermore, contain areas of the province whose population is growing more slowly than the provincial average.

“Effectively freezing the number of electoral districts in regions with slower or negative growth has led to more electoral districts further from the provincial average in the rest of the province. This effect is more prominent in areas of rapid growth.”

[1140]

My understanding is that in order to deal with this context, the commission is proposing ten seats now with populations that are below the 25 percent threshold, and there are two that are more than 50 percent under the threshold, although this was similar to 2008 recommendations.

This issue of how to deal with population redistribution within British Columbia, essentially faster-growing urban areas and slower-growing rural areas, has come up time and time and time again. The freezing of these areas within British Columbia, areas that could not be adjusted, has made this problem even more difficult for commissions.

The commission has indicated that under the current legislative framework — i.e., the freezing of these regions within British Columbia — it’s becoming increasingly difficult to begin from the premise that deviations can be kept to a minimum. Indeed, while keeping ever mindful of the need for relative population equality, we were drawn inexorably to recommend electoral districts with growing population inequality.

This makes it even more difficult for commissions to achieve that, to strike that balance. Now, in this particular case, again, this side of the House feels that the commission has done the best job that they could, given the circumstances, given the constitutional requirements, given the changes to the Electoral Boundaries Act. We will be supporting the recommendation, but we should make very clear that the commission itself is asking this Legislature to consider changes like that that make their job even more difficult.

I think I’ve indicated fairly clearly that this side of the House will be supporting these recommendations. We do believe the commission has done an exemplary job of reaching out to British Columbians. They have come back with a balanced set of recommendations. As the Finance Minister indicated, there are folks that aren’t going to be particularly pleased with this, folks who are pleased, folks who don’t care a whole lot one way or the other.

We feel, on this side of the House, that the commission has done the best job it can. It certainly listened to British Columbians. It has reached out extensively to British Columbians. It has adjusted its recommendations based on the feedback they received from British Columbians. We think they’ve done an excellent job, and we will be supporting its recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, if you don’t mind, just for a moment I’d like to speak about my constituency, Saanich North and the Islands. The commission did not recommend any changes to the boundary for Saanich North and the Islands, and, when you look at a map of Saanich North and the Islands, you can understand that. It has also been an area where growth has been relatively slow, say, for example, compared to some urban areas within British Columbia — maybe on the order of 1 percent a year. So over the past ten years, under 10 percent growth within Saanich North and the Islands.

The commission’s recommendations with respect to my constituency make sense, and I’m not aware of any significant public outcry to change boundaries within Saanich North and the Islands. It’s a fairly complicated constituency. There are three municipalities — Sidney, North Saanich and Central Saanich on the Saanich Peninsula. Essentially, the southern boundary of Central Saanich forms the southern boundary of the constituency.

[1145]

There is no change made to that, and that makes sense. Where an electoral boundary is consistent with a municipal boundary, I think it makes it clearer. It simplifies it for constituents. They understand which constituency they are in. They understand who their elected representatives are, both locally and provincially. So that boundary makes a lot of sense — to have the Saanich North and the Islands boundary consistent the southern boundary of Central Saanich.

In addition, of course, we’ve got the southern Gulf Islands: Saltspring, which is my permanent home, as well as five other southern Gulf Islands — North and South Pender, Galiano, Saturna and Mayne Island — in addition to the three municipalities on the peninsula. All of those together comprise Saanich North and the Islands.

Again, at least in part because of the trust mandate, growth has been slow — it’s been measured — in the trust area. There isn’t a need, and the commission understood and recognized this. And certainly, there didn’t seem to be any public outcry within my constituency to change boundaries.

That relatively slow growth…. It’s a relatively well-defined area geographically and administratively. From our perspective — and I believe I speak for the vast majority of my constituents — there were no significant changes required in my constituency.
[ Page 9677 ]

I could go on about how very special Saanich North and the Islands is, but other folks here want to speak to this report. Again, I just want to repeat that from this side of the House, we feel the commission has done an exemplary job. They’ve done the very best they could given the context within which they were working, the legal framework within which they were working and the legislative changes that they’ve had to deal with.

We feel they’ve done a good job. We feel they’ve came up with a balanced report, and this side of the House will be supporting those recommendations.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know we are moving close to the lunch-hour, so I’m going to keep my comments short and to the point.

We live in a very diverse and challenging province when it comes to electoral boundaries and ensuring that all of the citizens in this province are represented. That’s why we made the changes to the act in 2014 and established the commission and asked them to look at proposed changes.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I come from a riding in the fastest-growing community in the province of British Columbia: Surrey. My riding of Surrey-Fleetwood was one of those ridings in the initial report of the commission that was affected in terms of its nature in how homogenous it was for the citizens in that community. I know many people from the community made representation to the Boundaries Commission, and their final report reflected some of those comments.

I have to say that some of the constituents in my riding did indicate to me that they were still concerned that portions of the community, of the riding, were now attached to the Cloverdale riding. For them, they didn’t feel, necessarily, that same connection as they did to Surrey-Fleetwood.

But I want to say that I know that the commission worked very, very hard to balance all of the issues they had to look at, not only in the fast-growing urban areas but also in the rural districts.

One of the keys, as I saw it, was to ensure, as I said at the beginning of my comments, that every single citizen in this province feels that they have equal and adequate representation in this Legislature. That is why the final Boundaries Commission recommendations try to find that balance in some of the changes that have been made in 48 different electoral districts in the province. Some are more significant than others.

[1150]

But the bottom line is…. I know that when I had the honour to be able to make representation for my riding to the commission, I recognized how difficult their job is, to try and balance all of those challenging and competing priorities that they see. But it is important that rural representation and the independence of the commission in looking at that was at the heart of this particular process that we just went through.

It also ensures that we look at areas like Surrey, where the growth is significant and will continue to grow. The new riding that has been established — while its numbers are not at the same level as other parts of Surrey, we know, with the plans that the city of Surrey has for growth and densification, that that riding is going to continue to grow. It’s important that they have the appropriate representation.

When I looked at the commission report and some of the other recommendations, which the member opposite has talked about…. The beauty of an independent commission is that they look at all of the aspects. Their report recognizes the work they had to do, the support they needed in order to do it. Their recommendations, I know, are going to be seriously considered by this House so that we can ensure that we are as efficient and that they, in the future, are able to do their job with the level of support that they need.

I really do want to say that coming from a large urban area, I’ve had many opportunities to talk to other members of this House about the challenge of large rural districts and the strain that it puts on MLAs to be able to travel throughout their ridings. I know the commission heard those submissions as well.

In some cases, some of the changes have actually made that more challenging for a few of the members because of what’s been added to their riding. But the reality is that the commission looked at it. They heard those submissions, they heard from citizens, and their recommendations reflect the kind of perspective that they’ve heard and also ensure that for the future and the next cycle, there will be adequate representation and that MLAs will be able to serve the needs of their constituents.

I also echo what everyone else has said, that the commission did an exemplary job of doing their work and analyzing all of the data.

As we look at electoral boundaries, one of the things that I think we recognize is that the people of British Columbia…. Because of the diversity and the unique nature of our geography in this province, it is important for them to feel that their voice is heard in this House. I know that the changes that have been proposed don’t have a political bias. They truly have a bias of representation for the people of British Columbia, and I think that is very important.

The change to 87 districts has an impact, as well, in terms of the fiscal implications of that to the Legislative Assembly. I know that the commission and this government were very sensitive to the fact that the people of British Columbia want us to ensure fiscal responsibility in every area. This reflects that by the increase of two where they are deserved because of population but also recognizes the fiscal implications.
[ Page 9678 ]

The cost, Madame Speaker, as I’m sure you know better than anyone, in terms of your responsibilities, can range anywhere from $324,000 to $512,000 for every additional seat that comes into this House. That is an investment in that representation. While that is a significant amount of money, it reflects the importance of investing in the representation for the people of the province.

I also know that the commission did hear some opposition as they went out. The beauty of an independent commission is that they are able to hear both sides and the arguments from citizens and other stakeholders in terms of their process.

[1155]

The commission really worked very hard. I had the chance to talk to the commissioners before I made my submission, just to ask them how they felt about the process.

I know that Beverley Busson — who I knew when she was the commissioner for the RCMP and, prior to that, had been the superintendent in Surrey — said it was an amazing opportunity to get to see and know this province and the people who populate it. She talked about the diversity of the population, how this province has changed over the years. She was thrilled to be a part of a process that gave her the opportunity to have a window into the heart of this province and the people who make it up.

I thanked her at the time, as I did the other commissioners, for the hard work and the time they took away from their own personal lives to do that.

I want to stand here saying that I support the recommendations. Challenges are still within them, as we know, but the bottom line is the commission did a great job.

With that said and noting the hour, I move that we adjourn debate.

Hon. P. Fassbender moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Thomson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

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.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada