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)

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 30, Number 3

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

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2015

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: It’s a real privilege and a pleasure for me to rise and introduce an award-winning Canadian journalist, Mohamed Fahmy, and his wife, Marwa Omara, who are with us today in the gallery.

Members of this House will be aware that Mohamed was recently pardoned after he and two other journalists were arrested in 2013 in Egypt by Egyptian authorities and unjustly jailed for 438 days. Courageously, Mohamed has made his way to British Columbia. Motivated by his experiences behind bars in Egypt, Mohamed and Marwa have established the Fahmy Foundation to provide financial assistance and advocacy for reporters and photographers unjustly imprisoned worldwide — a tremendous and, again, a courageous undertaking by Mohamed and his supporters.

He has recently arrived in British Columbia to take up his role as the global reporting journalist at the University of British Columbia’s journalism school and to be a fellow at UBC’s Centre for Applied Ethics — a role, of course, that was started before he was imprisoned.

[1005]

I’m also pleased to introduce Mohamed’s legal counsel and fellow Fahmy Foundation board members Gary Caroline and Joanna Gislason, who are also joining him in the gallery today.

It is a real pleasure and a privilege that the Fahmys have chosen British Columbia to be their home and to continue their work of advocacy for justice and ethics, internationally and starting right here at the University of British Columbia. Would the House please make them both very welcome.

Hon. S. Anton: It’s my pleasure to introduce to the House Monique Steensma, CEO of Mediate British Columbia. Mediate B.C. is a key partner in providing increased access to justice for all British Columbians. Last week was Conflict Resolution Week, and I know Monique and her staff were busy in communities across B.C., helping people understand how mediation works and the services available to them. Welcome, Monique.

She is joined by our staff Jamie Deitch and Lisa Nakamura. Lisa is the senior policy analyst in the dispute resolution office, and Jamie, of course, is the supervisor of that office and was introduced here last week.

Would the House please make them welcome and thank them for the work that they do.

C. James: I have seven guests to introduce this morning. A busy morning. I’ll be quick.

The first are regular guests to this gallery. This is their semi-annual visit. The first person is a role model to many in our community, including me, and my biggest supporter for the last 57 years — my mom, Mavis DeGirolamo. With her is her partner, a respected veteran and a well-loved and well-welcomed member of our family — Bill Corbin, who is with her today.

October is Small Business Month, as we’ve all heard, and I have the pleasure today of having lunch with one of those amazing entrepreneurs in our community. Senwood Soaps is the name of her business. It’s a Victoria-based, small-batch soapmaker. I’d like the House to please welcome owner, Rosalyn Lee, and her friend Melinda Hollefreund, who are here today to enjoy our lunch in the gallery. Welcome.

Last but not least, I have a number of guests who are here from Open Space Gallery. Helen Marzolf is the director of Open Space, which is an artist-run centre in Victoria. Hunter Boucher is the chair of the board of directors of Open Space, and Mary-Lynn Ogilvie is one of Open Space’s board members. Would the House please make them very welcome as well.

Hon. T. Lake: Many times when I’m slinging my backpack over one shoulder filled with all of the many briefing notes that I’m provided with on a daily basis, I think of the B.C. Chiropractic Association’s message to wear my backpack correctly. “Pack it light and wear it right.” We also think of “Think twice and lift once” and “Straighten up,” as the B.C. Chiropractic Association tries to raise public awareness of maintaining our musculoskeletal health.

In the gallery this morning, we have the president of the B.C. Chiropractic Association, Dr. Jay Robinson, as well as the executive director, Rick Nickelchok. Later today, I’ll be meeting with them and look forward to that. Would the House please make our guests very welcome.

R. Lee: In the gallery today, we have two visitors from Burnaby, Terry Beech and his wife, Ravi Bansal Beech. They are in Victoria seeing their relatives and just dropping by to attend question period today. Terry is no stranger to public services. He was 18 when he won a city council position in Nanaimo — the youngest city councillor in Canada. Would the House please join me in welcoming the Member of Parliament–elect for Burnaby North–Seymour.

G. Holman: I have a number of very special guests visiting the precinct today — 23 students from Pender Islands School and their teacher, Mr. Claude Kennedy, and parents. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

[1010]

Hon. A. Virk: A few weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to visit Camosun College and see some of the work done by their mechanical engineering students. The approach these students and their professors have taken to work with industry to try to fix real world problems as part of the curriculum adds another level to their education. Not only are they being schooled in theory and in practice, they are all learning valuable customer relation skills.

Visiting from Camosun College today for question period are mechanical engineering students Paul Swalwell, Wesley Block. We have Tyler Lee-Jarvis, Lisa Bethel, Keith Jacobsen and Bruce Watson. Also visiting with them today are their professors, who are very dedicated to their education — Will Spaulding and Jeffrey Stephen. Will the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Yap: On behalf of the Minister of International Trade, I have the honour to introduce some constituents of hers. In the precincts today are Ms. Tai Lai Ying, Mr. Cheng Kam San, Mr. Tai Wai Kit and Ms. Wang Ye Rur. They are in the House today with a guest from Shanghai, Mr. Luo Ming Xun. I hope that Mr. Luo will have a pleasant and memorable visit to British Columbia. Would the House please welcome these visitors.

G. Kyllo: It’s a pleasure today to welcome to the House a constituent from Salmon Arm, Ms. Gabriele Klein. Gabriele is joined today by her brother Wally Klein. Gabriele is quite simply a pillar of our community in Salmon Arm.

She’s a volunteer extraordinaire, having been a driving force for the past 20 years behind organizations including the Salmon Arm Art Gallery and the Shuswap Community Foundation. Gabriele has also given many hours of volunteer service to the Salmon Arm–Kamloops symphony committee, the Shuswap Music Festival, the rotary club and Ducks Unlimited.

Somehow she’s found time to be with us here today in the House. I’d like all members of the House to please make Gabriele and her brother Wally feel very welcome.

S. Sullivan: I am very pleased to introduce to the House an outstanding citizen. I know him as the partner in Katami Designs. They provide studio space for local artists on Broadway and Main in Vancouver. I’ve known him as the owner of the Delta Ice Hawks hockey team. He’s a quiet supporter of many community groups through his company, Proactive Building Maintenance. Please welcome Darrin Pezer.

J. Sturdy: Today it is my pleasure to introduce Graham Henderson, president of Music Canada, an association that promotes the interests of the Canadian music community. Graham has been instrumental in improving the protection of creators’ rights. Graham has also been working with artists for more than 25 years — first, as one of Canada’s leading entertainment lawyers and, later, as senior vice-president, business affairs and e-commerce, at Universal Music Canada, where he was instrumental in the launch of Puretracks, Canada’s first legal digital download music service.

Graham contributes his time to the boards of directors at the corporation of Massey Hall, Roy Thomson Hall and Re:Sound music licensing company and is vice-chair of the board of Ontario Chamber of Commerce. Will the House please join me in making him feel welcome.

Tributes

FRANKLIN WHITE

N. Simons: Frank White, pioneer, raconteur and author of best-selling books, died October 18 at his home in Garden Bay. White claimed to be British Columbia’s oldest active author when he published his memoir, That Went By Fast, at the age of 100 in 2014.

A working man and small business man who didn’t retire until age 80 and wrote about his long life in a colloquial, unvarnished way, White’s trademark was his self-deprecating humour. “I got used to thinking my life hadn’t amounted to much,” he wrote, “and it seemed most people agreed with me on that. Now it’s ‘Oh, you rode in a horse and buggy. You worked on a steam donkey show. Your girlfriend was a flapper. You should write a book.’ By hanging around so long, it seems I’ve become an object of historical interest.”

His was a typical life for a British Columbian of his time, comprised mostly of endless hard work, although on the evidence of his stories, it was seldom dull. He grew up in Abbotsford, the son of the butcher, and at age eight began serving customers in his father’s shop by standing on a butter box so he could see over the counter.

His father bought the first Model-T delivery truck in Abbotsford but couldn’t get the hang of the horseless carriage, so young Frankie taught himself to operate it, lying about his age to get his driver’s licence at age 13. “By the age of 13, I already had two professions: butcher and truck driver,” he wrote.

[1015]

He built on his early start to follow the trucking boom that hit B.C. in the ’30s and ’40s, pioneering highway freighting and then truck logging. In the 1950s, he became a small-scale gyppo logger before moving to the coastal fishing village of Pender Harbour, where he operated an excavating business, a gas station and a municipal water system.

Along the way, he endured shipwrecks, topped 200-foot spar trees, fought forest fires, got physical with log rustlers, built houses, built boats, raised a family, dabbled in politics, built early computers, buried a beloved wife and daughter, travelled the world and wrote books.

At age 92, he married the New Yorker writer Edith
[ Page 9781 ]
Iglauer, 89, and they continued to live in their small, waterfront cottage in Pender Harbour. He died peacefully, with his family and caregivers around him and his sense of humour intact. In his final hours, when a nurse asked him how he was, he whispered, between gasps: “100 percent.”

White was bemused by his longevity and the celebrity that came with it. “When I was 50 and still had most of my marbles,” he wrote, “all people wanted me to tell them was why their car stalled at the intersection. Now that everything is starting to get hazy, they’re not satisfied unless I can tell them the meaning of life.” On that score, he wasn’t venturing any great pronouncements. “Life is life. It’s not under our control, and it doesn’t follow any script. It just is.” He might have added: “Life goes a lot easier if you’ve got a good sense of humour.”

Franklin Wetmore White was born May 9, 1914, in Sumas, Washington. He leaves his wife, Edith Iglauer; a daughter, Marilyn; two sons, Howard and Donald; six grandchildren; and eight great-grandchildren.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

SMALL BUSINESS

M. Hunt: Madame Speaker, 98 percent of all businesses in British Columbia are small businesses. As a matter of fact, there are 380,000 small businesses currently operating in B.C. They employ more than a million British Columbians and account for more than a third of the provincial economy.

Because they make a giant impact on our economic prosperity, we celebrate Small Business Month here in October. This is more than just a month of recognition. It’s an opportunity for government, both provincial and local, to ensure that we are the most business-friendly jurisdictions in the world. That means cutting unnecessary red tape or placing too heavy a regulatory burden on small business so that they can no longer be competitive. We want to ensure that small businesses have access to all the information, tools and resources to thrive in British Columbia.

One such business that started off with humble beginnings is the Emterra Group. Founded in 1976, Emterra began with cardboard and paper recycling and has quickly grown into one of the most state-of-the-art waste stream companies in North America.

In her own words, Emterra’s founder, Emmie Leung, says it this way. “I have a strong personal belief that there is value in everything and in everyone. That belief, coupled with an entrepreneurial spirit, compels me to view challenges not as barriers but as opportunities, and it enabled me to build Emterra from a small, local curbside collection of cardboard into what it is today, one of the largest integrated resource management companies serving Canadians.”

I therefore ask this House to join me in recognizing the significant contribution that companies like Emterra make to British Columbia and the strong province that we live in today.

MOHAMED FAHMY

J. Darcy: What a powerful moment it is to look up in the gallery today and see Mohamed Fahmy and his courageous wife, Marwa Omara. This province, this country and the world now know their story. Mohamed Fahmy, an award-winning Canadian journalist, spent 430 days in an infamous Cairo prison for simply doing his job, doing what we, in this place, take for granted — 438 days of not knowing his fate, locked up with convicted extremists, all the time with a serious injury for which he did not receive critical care.

Mohamed was jailed after a mock trial that was denounced as a travesty of justice around the world. Throughout it all his fiancée, Marwa, now his wife, stood by his side and became the public spokesperson for a global campaign to free him that eventually brought them to this place.

[1020]

What is also so moving about this story is that at the same time that Mohamed was fighting for his own freedom, he created the Fahmy Foundation for a Free Press to bring the plight of other imprisoned journalists to public attention and to campaign for their freedom.

This has indeed been a family affair for Mohamed and Marwa. They’ve come through it all together, and they are now building a wonderful new life together here in B.C., relishing their new-found freedom, exploring the parks and beaches and streets of Vancouver, the city they now call home. Mohamed is sharing his experiences as a journalist-in-residence and visiting fellow at UBC’s Global Reporting Centre, and he’ll also be doing that here today.

Mohamed’s and Marwa’s story is one of incredible courage. It reminds us how central press freedom is to a free, democratic and open society. I know we all join together and are deeply honoured to welcome them to this Legislature today.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND MEDIATION

L. Throness: This morning I want to talk about Conflict Resolution Week, which was held from October 17 to 24. The week’s theme was “Let’s talk it out,” promoting the benefits of mediation as an affordable and effective alternative to going to court.

We want to improve access to mediation for British Columbians. Our civil resolution tribunal will soon provide on-line dispute resolution tools as an alternative to the courts. We established the Family Law Act to encourage out-of-court resolution, and today B.C.’s 21 family justice centres and three justice access centres are help-
[ Page 9782 ]
ing families in the midst of separation and divorce find beneficial and respectful ways forward.

Mediate B.C. is a partner in this effort. As part of Conflict Resolution Week, Mediate B.C. arranged free events in communities across the province, including in Chilliwack, to help individuals connect with services and understand how mediation works.

In recognition of Conflict Resolution Week, we want to welcome Monique Steensma, CEO of Mediate B.C., to this House today. We thank Mediate B.C. for its work and are proud to recognize it, along with this newly proclaimed week, in B.C. I would also like to thank the community of professionals in both the private and public sectors who work to minimize the stress and financial burden of conflict and help British Columbians find a path forward.

Conflict seems to come easily to us. It is harder to make peace. But mediation can prevent, manage and resolve conflict, and that’s what we’re determined to do.

OPEN SPACE ARTS CENTRE

C. James: From soundscapes to performance pieces, imaginative bright shapes to stark industrial lines, multimedia installations to transformative architectural designs, the world of contemporary art is invigorating and adventurous.

For more than 40 years, Open Space has been a leader in fostering the amazing diversity of contemporary art in this city, across Canada and beyond. Open Space is an exhibition and performance centre where artists work across disciplines, media, cultures and communities.

They are artists like France Trépanier, the second aboriginal artist-in-residence at Open Space. One of her projects’ offerings is an installation that will be augmented by contributions from three regional artists, connecting Open Space’s work directly to First Nations communities. Previous installations include one by the celebrated sound sculptor and composer Trimpin. His project gave new life to an array of abandoned pianos, creating an enormous musical instrument and culminating in a concert.

Open Space recently hosted Tahltan artist Peter Morin. Drawing on recordings of traditional songs from 1910, Morin has performed around the world, looking at the power of traditional songs and their eventual repatriation to the land that inspired their creation. It’s all part of Open Space’s dedication to be a space where artists can investigate new ideas and challenge us. That’s something that artists certainly do best.

As a social enterprise, Open Space now covers nearly a third of its own costs. Private donations and government grants also help considerably. As a not-for-profit artist-run centre, Open Space strives to make contemporary art accessible and affordable. Citizens can become members for a very small fee, and there are plenty of volunteer and student opportunities.

I would encourage all British Columbians to visit Open Space in person on the second floor at 510 Fort Street and at their website at openspace.ca — an opportunity to expand your mind, engage your senses and support artists who take risks.

[1025]

WORKPLACE SAFETY

G. Kyllo: Workplace safety is one of our government’s highest priorities. Employees deserve to work in a safe environment. For employers, it’s just good business. The FIOSA-MIOSA Safety Alliance is a not-for-profit organization that helps B.C. companies deal with their challenges and opportunities specific to manufacturing in the food and beverage industries and sets industry standards for health and safety.

FIOSA-MIOSA is home to the occupational safety standard of excellence accreditation program. The OSSE certification rewards organizations that have created a culture of safety in their operations. It also takes a best-practices approach to health, safety, injury management and return-to-work management systems.

Starting today, in Burnaby, FIOSA-MIOSA is hosting its annual Make It Safe Conference. The two-day Make It Safe Conference provides an opportunity for health and safety professionals to catch up and discuss the most pressing and challenging issues in health and safety management. The conference brings together occupational safety experts to share and discuss safe workplace measures. Speakers and delegates will discuss topics such as people, processes and economics of health and safety and the most urgent and challenging issues in health and safety management.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the House to join me in thanking FIOSA-MIOSA for the work it does every day to make our province’s workplaces safer for all B.C. families.

BURNABY NON-PROFIT RESOURCE CENTRE
AND CITY DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM

K. Corrigan: Last Friday was the official opening of Burnaby’s new Pioneer Community Resource Centre, which provides space to local non-profits at reduced rents. The beautiful centre is located within the new Sovereign development in Metrotown. This Bosa Properties development includes a 45-storey mixed-use highrise tower above a 14-storey commercial podium and includes both the Element hotel and the new headquarters for COPE Local 378.

I want to recognize the partnership between the city of Burnaby and Bosa Properties, which allowed the city to provide community space in exchange for additional density. The Bosa family business has operated in Burnaby for 50 years and has a strong commitment to the
[ Page 9783 ]
community. I want to thank Dale, Colin and Sylvia, also, for attending the opening.

The two organizations that now call the 6,000-square-foot resource centre home are Burnaby Family Life, which offers a variety of family and individual counselling, parenting and child care services, and the Burnaby Hospice Society.

Through working in partnership with developers in the community benefit bonus program, the city has been very successful in providing numerous facilities that have made a substantial contribution to community life in our city. As community develops, the city closes gaps in social services and steps up to make sure that communities are complete.

This is the fifth such city-owned non-profit space housing dozens of non-profit community service agencies. In addition, the city’s density bonus program has resulted in three child care centres, affordable and special needs housing, park enhancements, four civic facilities and a number of environmental and urban design improvements.

Congratulations to Burnaby city council, to Bosa Properties and the Bosa family and Burnaby Family Life and the hospice society, who worked together to bring this initiative to completion.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING
AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

J. Horgan: Last week the Privacy Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, issued what could only be described as a scathing report into the evasive and deceptive activities of the B.C. Liberal government. The Premier’s office was at the centre of that investigation, as was the office of the Minister of Transportation and the minister responsible for the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

The evasions just weren’t confined to those outlined in the report. We now know that the Attorney General’s ministry — I assume directed by the Premier’s office — tried to delay and defer Ms. Denham’s report until after this House rose so the government could again avoid scrutiny.

What’s truly reprehensible — beyond the obvious of the government believing that they own information of British Columbia, not the people of British Columbia — and what’s truly despicable is the character assassination that was undertaken by the B.C. Liberal Party, by the B.C. Liberal caucus and by the B.C. Liberal Premier with respect to Mr. Tim Duncan.

Mr. Duncan came forward with allegations that have been proven to be correct. What was the Liberal response at that time to anyone who would listen? “He was a disgruntled employee. He wasn’t very good. We had to let him go.”

[1030]

Well, it turns out he was the only honourable person in this sorry affair. He was the only one that was prepared to stand up to bullies — surrounded by bullies telling him to delete information that didn’t belong to the minister but belonged to the people of British Columbia.

My question to the present Premier is: has she got the jam to apologize to Mr. Duncan on the behalf of her government?

Hon. C. Clark: Ms. Denham’s report is a comprehensive report. She has, in the report, found that there was not a common application of transitory documents across government, that there was different treatment of documents across government under the act. That’s good advice. We appreciate and accept that advice and the recommendations.

Further to that, what I’ve done is I’ve asked David Loukidelis, who is a former Information and Privacy Commissioner and also a former Deputy Attorney General, to come in and assist in making sure that there is indeed that common application of the rules under the act, that there is complete training for all political staff and ministers and people across government who are dealing with transitory documents and any other suggestions and recommendations that he might have to ensure that we’re keeping up to date with what is an era of new forms of communication, an exploding number of documents that are available that are being spent, and making sure that all of that work is modernized and up to date — and not just that but looking forward, as well, as technology changes, to make sure that we continue to be up to date.

Her report will be very helpful in helping us do that, and having Mr. Loukidelis to advise us is also, again, I think, going to be a vital part of that process.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: I would ask all members to ensure that the Chair hears the answer and the question.

The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I suppose Windows 95 is an update on Post-it Notes, so we’re making some progress. But technology isn’t the issue if you’re not keeping the records. If you’re not keeping the records, it doesn’t matter what platform you’re using, what operating system you’re using, whether you’re using yellow Post-it Notes or blue Post-it Notes. If you’re not keeping records, there are no records.

Now, the worst part of this whole thing, aside from the character assassination of Mr. Duncan, is that the genesis of this was a simple request of the Minister of Transportation, who had allegedly conducted a consultation along the Highway of Tears. The opposition asked for e-mails, correspondence and memorandums and got back: “No records.” We know the result of that is direction from the minister’s office to delete those records.
[ Page 9784 ]

Under oath, we had a ministerial assistant, hired by the Premier’s office, who lied to an officer of the Legislature. He has now been removed. We have two other individuals involved in this. The MA to the minister responsible for the act, Mr. Facey — again, no records found, although when we FOI’d the minister, plenty of Mr. Facey’s records appeared. So he deliberately ignored and circumvented the law. And, critically, when it comes to the Premier’s own office….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: A bit sensitive, hon. Speaker, and it’s a pattern, also, with this government. If the Auditor General finds fault, there’s something wrong with the Auditor General. When the children’s representative finds fault, there’s something wrong with the children’s representative. And now that the Privacy Commissioner has found fault, well, we’ll bring someone else in because there’s something wrong with her too. Why don’t you listen to what you’re being told?

Madame Speaker: Question.

J. Horgan: The third strike, after the Minister of Transportation, after the Minister of Citizens’ Services, was directly in the Premier’s office. When I asked the Premier last May what she would do if she found staff in contravention of the law, she said she would not tolerate it. Right in her midst, the second deputy chief of staff to violate the rules of operation in British Columbia has been found wanting. Will the Premier stick to her word in this House and outside of this House and remove Ms. Cadario post-haste?

[1035]

Hon. C. Clark: I want to start by…. I think it’s really important to correct the record on this. No one in government has done anything but express acceptance in welcoming the report from the Privacy Commissioner — absolutely. It’s important work that she’s done, and it’s work that will guide us.

In order to make sure that we implement the changes that she’s recommended in the report to make sure that staff are properly trained across government to make sure that there’s a common application of the act — particularly, with respect to transitory documents but other documents as well — we have retained David Loukidelis, a former commissioner, to make sure that all of the recommendations she’s made are properly, thoroughly and professionally acted upon, right across government.

One of the things that she says in her report is that the routine destruction of transitory documents is necessary to reduce the volume of government records and manage the cost of those managing those records. “Transitory records are routinely destroyed when they are no longer required for a business purpose.” That is an accurate understanding of the act. We need to make sure that is applied commonly all across government.

In core government, we produce something like 220 million e-mails a year. We need to make sure that there is a common understanding. In the meantime, I’ve directed all political staff and all ministers to cease deleting any e-mail that they may have sent so that we can ensure that while Mr. Loukidelis does his work, all of those e-mails — whether or not they are transitory and should have properly been disposed of under the act — are preserved.

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

J. Horgan: Again, it always amazes me that when we come in here, it’s as if the Liberal government was just born yesterday. There is a sucker born every minute, but it’s not the people of British Columbia. They smell a rat. They know something’s amiss here, and they’re not going to be satisfied with the Premier taking one line about transitory documents out of a 60-page report and claiming that that’s the reason we delete everything that comes through our office. Not acceptable.

Let’s go through the greatest hits of openness and transparency on the Premier’s watch. Mr. Dyble, her handpicked deputy minister, oversaw the investigation of a guy named Ken Boessenkool, who was removed from government — a human resources matter. I think anyone who’s worked in the public sector or the private sector understands that when you dismiss someone, you usually come up with something more than a Post-it Note. But when we asked for information about Mr. Boessenkool’s departure? No records found.

Marcia McNeil reviewed the despicable treatment of health care researchers in this province, and when we asked for Mr. Dyble’s records on that, we had: “No records found.” In fact, in Ms. McNeil’s report, she was unable to come to a conclusion on accountability because of the dearth of documents.

It may well be that the Premier is transitory, and I’m hopeful that that’s the case, but the documents that belong to British Columbians should be available when they’re asked for, and that has not been the case on her watch. The most open and transparent government in British Columbia’s history is not overseen by her.

My question to the Premier is again with respect to her own office and her own staff. If Ms. Cadario has no records, is that not inconsistent with what the Premier just said a few months ago? I know it’s way back there. You’ve got to get in the way-back machine to go to May. But in May, she said it wasn’t tolerable. Why is it tolerable today?

Hon. C. Clark: As I’ve said in answer to the member’s question already, the Privacy Commissioner has found that there is not a consistent application in the way we
[ Page 9785 ]
treat transitory documents across government. There is no obligation under the act to make sure that all documents — duplicates and transitory documents — are preserved. In fact, the act specifically allows for them to be disposed of because of the cost — and other reasons — of saving them. But we are making sure that no documents that anyone sends are being deleted while Mr. Loukidelis does his work.

Even if the opposition leader doesn’t, I certainly welcome Mr. Loukidelis back to British Columbia. He’s an expert in this area. He will make sure that we have the guidance and the training that we need for the consistent application all across government as the Privacy Commissioner has told us we need to. We look forward to doing that work, making sure that it is done as quickly, consistently and professionally as possible, and I have every confidence that Mr. Loukidelis is going to help us get there.

[1040]

D. Routley: The Information Commissioner found that the executive branch of the Premier’s office broke the law. She notes that the very person responsible for coordinating access to information for the office is also the director of issues management. Despite being in charge of managing the freedom-of-information process and despite claims by the minister and the Premier that training would be provided over years and years, he has received a total of one hour of training. That shows you exactly how much respect this Premier has for the public’s right to information.

Can the Premier explain why the person she assigned to keep a lid on embarrassing information about the Premier is also charged with ensuring the public has legal access to those records?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member is wrong, inaccurate, incorrect on a number of counts — in particular, the finding that the Privacy Commissioner has accused people in my office of breaking the law. She simply didn’t do that in her report.

Having said that, though, her report is one that I certainly welcome. We look forward to being able to make sure that we deliver on the recommendations that she has made. The way to do that is to make sure that we bring in one of the most respected professionals in this area anywhere in Canada — a former Privacy Commissioner in British Columbia, a former Deputy Attorney General.

He is going to make sure that we are consistently applying the act right across government; make sure that we are also looking forward into the future as new technologies, as the growth in the number of e-mails continues — we send something like 220 million e-mails a year, just in core government alone; make sure that we find ways to ensure that the public access to information is honoured, that our duty in that respect is absolutely met at the same time that we meet all of the other obligations that are given to us and bestowed upon us by the act.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.

D. Routley: It seems to me that the way the Premier would do it would be to adopt a culture of openness in her own office and set the example rather than develop a culture of concealment.

The issues manager or FOI coordinator for the Premier’s office painted a vivid picture of how he goes about collecting FOI records. Once he receives a request, he personally speaks with each individual — nine separate people within the executive branch — to ask whether or not they have responsive records. He doesn’t correspond by e-mail or telephone. He records their answers on Post-it notes and then gets rid of the note after dealing with the request. He does not keep any other record.

Can the Premier explain why, given her government’s massive investment in computer technology — laptops, desktops, iPads and smartphones, the evolving technology that she boasted about last week and here today — her FOI coordinator conducts important government record searches via Post-it notes?

Hon. C. Clark: In his effort to make political points today, the member ignores the fact that the government now posts hundreds of thousands of documents proactively, without request, and makes public on the Internet. We’ve done that not because we were asked to or required to, not because people even requested the documents, but because we believe that that information should be accessible to the public.

That has been part of the commitment that we’ve followed through on. In 2013-14, we fulfilled more freedom-of-information requests than all of the prairie provinces combined in that same year. We produce 40,000 boxes of information to join the million boxes of information that are being stored on paper and that we are preserving securely across government.

We are working to make sure that we both protect the public’s right to privacy as well as ensure the public’s access to information. We have a duty to do so under the act. Mr. Loukidelis will be a welcome…. His advice will certainly be a welcome addition to that, as is the report from the commissioner herself.

[1045]

We want to make sure that we improve this process, that there’s a consistent application across government. The public is depending on us to do that, and that is what we are in the process of doing right now.

GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING AND
ROLE OF JOHN DYBLE

K. Conroy: The Premier isn’t prepared to ask the commissioner to investigate, but she is prepared to let John Dyble fix her office’s e-mail problems. I’m guessing that his
[ Page 9786 ]
first task is going to be to order much more Post-it notes.

John Dyble’s record in this government is well known, and transparency is not a word most people would associate with him. In fact, we submitted an FOI for all e-mails, memos, briefing notes, correspondence, reports…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

K. Conroy: …or other documentation regarding the firing of health researchers that Mr. Dyble sent or received over a two-year period. Guess what the response was. No records.

To the Minister of Citizen Services’ or the Premier: this is a man you’re entrusting to improve records retention in the Premier’s office?

Hon. C. Clark: Further evidence today that members should probably update the question that was written for them before they come into question period. Based on the information that has already been provided in question period, I’d like to correct her on a couple of points.

The Privacy Commissioner has issued a report. It is subsequent to the work and the investigatory and review work that she did. That report is out. David Loukidelis, not John Dyble, is going to be making sure that we implement the recommendations of that report properly across government. There are many details that are going to need to be worked through, including exactly how the training will be conducted and the nature of that training as well, based on the advice of the commissioner. We look forward to the results of that report.

The member stands up, though, and she — as other members of the opposition have — talks about people in the civil service — not political staff but people like John Dyble — who have served this province for over two decades, including serving when they were in government — governments of all stripes. I think to impugn his reputation today is really completely unnecessary.

I think that the member should stand up today, withdraw the comments that she has made about him. It’s unfair. It’s uncalled for. He has a long record of public service, and we are proud, over the many decades he has served our province, of the contribution that he has made to British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The member for Kootenay West on a supplemental.

K. Conroy: I’m sure the Premier has much more issues to apologize for in this House than anybody on this side.

The head of the public service didn’t have a single record over two years about the biggest human resources scandal in B.C. history. Forgive us if we find that a bit hard to swallow. Perhaps it was an anomaly.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

K. Conroy: We FOI’d any correspondence he shared with the former head of the Public Service Agency about developing the terms of reference for the McNeil report on the health firings — the report that found “a dearth of documents.” Guess what we got back. No records.

To the Premier. How exactly is a man who produces no records, while working in the Premier’s office, going to ensure that that same office starts keeping records?

Hon. C. Clark: I think I have addressed adequately, or at least certainly a number of times, the questions with respect to freedom of information that have been raised in this House.

[1050]

I do want to speak just for a second, again, to the issues with respect to my deputy, who is a longtime civil servant. John Dyble has an exemplary record in our civil service, including as the deputy minister who helped build the Port Mann Bridge, which they opposed; the South Fraser Perimeter Road, which they opposed; the deputy minister who helped make sure that we could bring Site C forward and get that started, which they opposed.

He was the deputy minister that helped us make sure that we could plan and put together the McKenzie Avenue interchange, which they would have cancelled; the Joe and Rosalie family health centre, which they would have cancelled; the Penticton Regional Hospital, which they would have cancelled.

John Dyble has an exemplary record in our public service of helping make sure that we build the projects that are going to ensure a legacy for our province and are going to create thousands of jobs for working British Columbians. We support working British Columbians. We want to make sure that there are jobs for men and women all across our province.

Whatever they want to say about this dedicated civil servant, they’re wrong. He’s made a tremendous contribution, and we all have so much to be proud of when it comes to the work he’s done.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND
RECONCILIATION WITH FIRST NATIONS

S. Fraser: The Premier likes to think that this is just a debate about which e-mails should be kept and which should be deleted, but it’s much broader than that. It’s about a government that’s so bereft in basic decency that it’s alienated the very people that it’s trying to reconcile with.

Yesterday Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs described the Premier’s action in this way. “Such deliberate and systemic violations of the
[ Page 9787 ]
Freedom of Information Act by employees of the province, including the Premier’s senior advisers and ministers, point to a culture of obstruction, secrecy and deceit,” and the Premier’s behaviour reflects contempt for the law “that is reminiscent of Stephen Harper’s Conservative government.”

Madame Speaker: Member.

S. Fraser: Hon. Speaker, that’s the end of the quote.

Does the Premier believe that the path to reconciliation involves obstruction, secrecy and deceit?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, in politics, there are optimists, and there are pessimists. There are those who are negative and those who are positive. There are those who look to the future and feel fear and despair, and there are those who look to the future and welcome change.

On this side of the House, we believe in looking forward to the future with hope, in building a British Columbia that is going to be one that creates jobs for people all across the province. Every day what we hear from the opposition is the exact opposite.

If the member wants to make comparisons about who’s like who, I think what British Columbians can do any day is turn on the television, look at this House and see who it is who has an optimistic, positive vision for the future — a British Columbia that is inclusive, one that is wealthy and one that is focused on making sure that our children have a better future. It isn’t on that side of the House. It’s right over here.

GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING
AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

M. Farnworth: Well, the people of British Columbia look to the Premier and the government to follow the law. That’s what they want.

Four times the Privacy Commissioner has found fault with this Premier and her government. Four times: on the Boessenkool affair, the quick-wins affair, the health firings affair and Highway of Tears affair. Four times finding fault with this government when it comes to following the law of this land, of this province, regarding freedom of information and privacy.

Each time the Premier gets caught, each time the Privacy Commissioner nails the Premier, she stands with the crocodile tears and says: “Oh, I’ll do better. I want everybody to do well. I’m putting my foot down this time.”

Well, guess what. The fourth time now, a report has come out, and the report’s really clear. It says in the findings: “I find that the Office of the Premier contravened its duty under section 6(1) of FIPPA to make every reasonable effort to respond without delay.” That’s the finding of the commissioner.

[1055]

Why is it that this Premier makes a mockery of openness and transparency and has the unbelievable inability to follow the law?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as I’ve said a number of times already, I do expect every single member of the political staff, ministers and members of government to be following all of the requirements of the act. Certainly, that’s been my response to the commissioner’s report, and we welcome the recommendations she’s brought in.

In order, though, to make sure that we give life to those recommendations, we make sure that there is a common application all across government. We are going to be supported by David Loukidelis in doing that. Mr. Loukidelis is going to ensure, I hope, that we are able to have all of the training that staff need and make sure that we are also living up to all of the obligations under the act.

It’s really important that British Columbians know that they have access to the information to which they have a right, and we want to make sure that that continues and is enhanced. British Columbians are depending on our government to build a better future for themselves and for their children. We remain focused on that — growing our economy, making sure that we have resources and benefits to share among us so that we can build a fair and a just society in British Columbia that is the envy of the world.

DENMAN ISLAND CABLE FERRY

C. Trevena: B.C. Ferries has spent $15 million on the Denman Island cable ferry experiment. It’s to replace the newest ferry serving the minor routes, and so far, it’s not very good news.

Start-ups are delayed. There are reports of rusting cables, worse fuel consumption than the present ferry, and Transport Canada sea trials — supposed to begin in the summer — have still not started. There are also questions about the ability of the ferry to stop and then regain speed and the ability to avoid the southeasters that blow down Baynes Sound. Promised savings from crew numbers aren’t likely to come, because there are reports that B.C. Ferries’ plan to have no master on board, no captain of the vessel, has been rejected.

To the Minister of Transportation, what’s he going to do if this experiment fails?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, here we go again — negative, negative, negative from members of the opposition.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Stone: When we see that fares at B.C. Ferries are now in line with inflation, about four years ahead
[ Page 9788 ]
of schedule, do we hear any positive acknowledgment of that from members opposite? Absolutely not. When we see that the government is continuing to invest a record $180 million plus in B.C. Ferries, do we hear anything positive from the members opposite? Absolutely not. When we see that passenger volumes are up about 5 percent here today, across the system, are they positive about that? No.

With respect to the Denman Island ferry, the tests are going well. The ferry is performing well. We’re confident that this ferry is going to serve the people of the island very, very well. It’s going to be as safe as the previous vessel, and it’s going to save millions of dollars in the process. Good news, members opposite. Good news.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, the ongoing debate on Motion 26.

[1100]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 26 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION REPORT PROPOSALS

(continued)

A. Dix: I rise to speak to Motion 26, which is, for effect, to accept the report and the proposals contained in the final report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

As members will know and people who participated in that debate will know, the commission was led…. It was a three-person commission under the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act in British Columbia led by Mr. Justice Melnick, Beverley Busson, who is a former superintendent of the RCMP, and Keith Archer, the province’s Chief Electoral Officer.

The independent commission process — which I’ll return to because it is, at least in British Columbia’s history, something of a modern invention in terms of its independence and role — participates and travels the province. It did in two phases in this process — the first phase with 29 communities, 128 presenters and 295 written submissions and then a subsequent phase, after the original report was put out, with 144 presenters, 15 community hearings and 426 written submissions.

Like other members of the House have noted, I’d like to thank the commission for its work, which is extraordinarily important.

With respect to the constituency I represent, Vancouver-Kingsway, the commission has recommended that, essentially, nothing change. Actually, nothing changed. They are precisely the same boundaries. Indeed, in the city of Vancouver — aside from a small change between the ridings of the member for Vancouver–False Creek and the member for Vancouver–West End — the boundaries have remained the same in this process.

What that has meant — and we should understand what that means — is that in Vancouver-Kingsway, which is one of British Columbia’s most diverse ridings, I’d argue…. In fact, the evidence shows that pretty clearly. A majority of our residents were not born in British Columbia or in Canada. We speak a diverse array of languages. In fact, it is, I think, a remarkable community that is in some respects, the way it acts within itself, an example to the world.

Our constituency also has the second-highest population of any constituency in the province. In other words, the 62,459 people in the constituency is greater than 83 other constituencies. In fact, within the city of Vancouver, we have two of those constituencies. The Attorney General, or the Minister of Justice, spoke yesterday, I believe. That constituency, Vancouver-Fraserview, also in the southeast corner of Vancouver, had the highest.

Both constituencies, I would note, are facing very significant increases in density within the constituencies. In other words, they’re not only the two largest constituencies now but two of the fastest-growing constituencies in British Columbia. If this electoral boundaries process — which, should we maintain the current electoral system, would be the boundaries in place for the 2017 and ’21 election…. By the 2021 election, the situation, where Vancouver-Kingsway is dramatically greater, 18 percent greater than the provincial average with respect to constituencies, is likely to be significantly higher.

[1105]

Now, two of the key questions…. If we look back at Electoral Boundaries Commission processes in the past in British Columbia, what we will see is a dramatic difference between how it’s done now and how it’s been done, really, in previous times.

In fact, there has been a systematic process of political intervention in these processes in British Columbia over our history, a history that is in some respects, with respect to electoral boundaries — even though the subject seems somewhat dry to some — also the subject of novels.

We think of rotten boroughs in the United Kingdom, where, essentially, individuals represented one or five or very few people for historical reasons. They were there and existed to protect privilege. From novels such as Vanity Fair and Our Mutual Friend from Dickens, and others, this became the subject of literary discussion in the United Kingdom right up to the Reform Act of 1832, when such rotten boroughs were fundamentally changed.

In the United States, we’ve seen similar circumstances, and in British Columbia we’ve seen circumstances right up to the modern era — and we’ll get to the Eckardt report in a moment — where the government’s predeces-
[ Page 9789 ]
sor government, under Mr. Bennett, tried to change, in the most elaborate and remarkable way, the boundary of one district to save one government MLA.

One example of how this work was done in the past…. Many people on the eastside of Vancouver know John Oliver high school. They will know that John Oliver was a famous Premier of British Columbia. This describes the process that he did, which is in some ways only different from the current process in that he was a politician and had considerable interest, as did his caucus, in the result.

I’m quoting from his biography by James Morton.

“Oliver set to work with voters lists, maps and brushes and paint. The latter were John’s own selected tools. He took a big map of the province, divested himself of coat and waistcoat and went at it. He spread maps on the floor and remolded them to his heart’s desire.

“With one colour, he marked the boundaries of the districts that should stand as they were. With another, he depicted those that should be enlarged and with another, those that should be reduced according to fluctuations in the number of votes, as carefully worked out from the lists. By the time he got through his map, his map looked like a jagged Joseph’s coat, but it suited his purpose, and he was proud of his handicraft.”

I presume what we’re talking about there would be described by the present Premier as a transitory document. But nonetheless, it showed what was happening in that time and the political nature of redistribution, really, right up to the NDP government of the 1970s, when things began to change for the better.

Two of the vital questions that are faced by electoral boundaries commissions and by countries that are trying to deal with this issue of electoral boundaries — especially countries of the size of Canada, where constituencies can represent massive areas, where a community of interest can include dozens and dozens of individual communities and where a community of interests is sometimes hard to find….

Two really important questions are reflected in this report. One is the need for an independent commission to resolve these questions without government tinkering. Really, such a commission has only occurred, without tinkering and political intervention, once in our history — the commission in 1999 headed by Justice Josiah Wood. Other than that, there has been systematic small or larger intervention by government in the independent commissions that have been set up. So the role of the independent commission is a central question.

Secondly, what constitutes representation by population? In other words, when you have a report such as this one…. It says that the voters in my constituency are significantly over, at 62,459, when in other constituencies, it’s 20,000. So the voice of each individual elector in that circumstance is worth three times more. Is that acceptable under a democracy, or does it violate the notion of representation by population?

[1110]

Interestingly, the United States and Canada have taken two different routes on both of these questions. If you look at the United States, you’ll see a jurisdiction with 50 states but only seven independent commissions. In other words, on the issue of independent commissions, the difference is stark and dramatic, and it shows the importance, I would argue, of independent commissions in the process.

You see in the United States, even though there is equality within districts, the importance of winning elections just in front of redistricting at the state level which set out who gets to be represented, the nature of seats and some of the oddest carving of boundaries you’ve ever seen — sort of a Gracie’s finger by policy, as opposed to a serious process of fair distribution, which understands that there’s more than one party and that the purpose of democracy is not simply the re-election of incumbents.

On that question, Canada clearly has an advantage, and we have an advantage in British Columbia, notwithstanding the consistent and continuing intervention by Social Credit, Liberal, Conservative governments over the years to intervene in those processes for their own interests.

In spite of that, the existence of independent commissions is important, and that’s why, in this House, this report produced by an independent commission has such support. Even though the details of it — and I heard the words of the member for Chilliwack-Hope, for example — are not necessarily unanimous, the process is broadly accepted in this House.

That’s the first set of things — independent commissions. The second critical question, it seems to me, is the question of representation by population. In the United States, after the decisions of the 1960s and of the Warren court in the 1960s, a very famous Chief Justice of the American Supreme Court — the justice who led the court through the Brown v. Board of Education decision, many of the desegregation decisions in the United States — famously, at the time….

He’s what doesn’t exist anymore in the United States. He was the governor of California and a liberal Republican. He argued in speeches and in decisions made by the courts about both legislative, at state level, boundaries and congressional boundaries, that “legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.” He argued, and the American court system argued, that essentially, every district should be the same in terms of population.

In fact, of course, should that be the case? This district map — had that been the case by courts in Canada, our map today that we would be dealing with would be dramatically different. In fact, the majority of ridings in this report are over a plus-10 or minus-10 percent variation. And in the United States, probably a 1 percent variation would not be not be allowed. So you’re seeing a dramatic thing. They have decided that every vote should weigh the same, regardless of whether you live in Boise or New York or whether you live in rural South Carolina or urban California.
[ Page 9790 ]

That’s the American approach. We were faced, and our courts and our system were faced, with a similar challenge when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect. Our justices took a different approach — one that I think around which there is a consensus that that notion of equal voting is fundamental to representation by population. But there are other factors that need to be considered.

The great Madam Justice McLachlin said this in a court decision — in the famous what’s called the Saskatchewan reference, which essentially set the standard for this discussion. She said: “What are the conditions of effective representation? The first is relative parity of voting power. A system which dilutes one citizen’s vote unduly as compared with another citizen’s vote runs the risk of providing inadequate representation to the citizen whose vote is diluted. The result will be uneven and unfair representation.”

She also said, given the size of Canada and its makeup, that “factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic.”

[1115]

Coming out of the court case came the established idea that while as little variation as possible was desirable, there could be a 25 percent variation in the composition of electoral districts to reflect this change. Since this came into effect, sometimes, for a whole variety of reasons, people have tried to push the boundaries even of this. One can imagine what would happen if the court had ruled that our Charter of Rights had similar application to the American charter of rights. They didn’t.

What this meant was that in constituencies such as Vancouver-Kingsway, the individual voting power of the people who live in Vancouver-Kingsway is very significantly less than it is in other areas. Interestingly, I believe that people in Vancouver-Kingsway are remarkably accepting of this fact. Contrary to, sometimes, the insults that are thrown around, including in this House, about how people view the situation, this map, where that occurs, would be broadly supported in Vancouver-Kingsway.

This has been a long, concerted…. We recall that the Angus commission, which was the first independent commission in British Columbia, talked about the concerns about urban vote and described: “The extraordinary belief seemed to exist that the people of the Lower Mainland were economic parasites, producing little wealth themselves and intent on exploiting the people who live in ‘underdeveloped’ areas.” Indeed, this view, I think, is just profoundly unfair.

This is not to make the argument — which I think is an absolutely legitimate argument — that we have to have districts and representation that are possible. That means ensuring an overrepresentation in rural areas, consistent with the courts. That’s been accepted.

At the same time as we accept that, we also get to attack residents — for example, the residents of my community, as the member for Prince George–Mackenzie did. He suggested that people in urban areas, “when they get up in the morning in their cozy apartment in downtown Vancouver or Victoria or Surrey or Burnaby or some of these other major urban centres, turn their thermostat up on the wall, and the heat comes on in their gas-fired fireplace or in their furnace. Their apartment gets nice and warm” — which, by the way, it does in Kamloops and in Prince George as well.

“Then they turn on the lights so they can go into the washroom and shave and shower and get ready for the day before they jump in their car and drive across one of the many steel-concrete bridges that we have in the province to get to their workplace.”

The minimization and the description of life are fanciful and disrespectful, I’d argue. The member for Prince George–Mackenzie goes on to talk about immigrants — who represent a majority of my constituency. He says, quoting a report, that “immigrants comprised 26.1 percent of the provincial population in 2001, and their share increased to 27.3 percent in 2011. We need immigrants in this province to look after the work, to contribute to the economy….” Well, we also need Canadian citizens to participate in our democracy, and people should be allowed to, without having their views diminished.

I haven’t ever heard any new immigrant or new Canadian citizen ever suggest or attack anyone from any other region. I have not, in my time as an MLA, heard them suggest anything about life anywhere else in the province. They are entirely respectful, as they should be, as all citizens should be. Let’s respect one another.

As a representative for Vancouver-Kingsway, I support the ruling of the court, which suggests that people in Vancouver-Kingsway might get less representation than they would deserve under a stricter representation-by-population model. People in the constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway respect that.

Yet we have them, nonetheless, being criticized and attacked as if they don’t have a voice in the democracy, as if their role shouldn’t count in the democracy. It is extraordinary. It is an extraordinary view that we respond to concerns and that people want to divide anyway, when what’s happening in fact is that those concerns are being respected.

In particular, we have a map which, by representation by population, over-represents certain areas, for very good reasons — reasons of geography and community of interest. But you can’t have that. You can’t have people in the community responding positively and respecting other people and then getting attacked for it from the government benches. That is entirely disrespectful.

[1120]

When we know for a fact that power has gone away from communities and towards both international cor-
[ Page 9791 ]
porations and powerful interests that are largely located in cities, I don’t know why members on the government side want to attack immigrants and suggest that they don’t respect it. It’s not people who have just immigrated to Canada who don’t respect it; it’s everyone else.

The issues of globalization are important and a struggle. Those are ones that affect people in every part of British Columbia and ones we have to get together and collectively make decisions about.

When you look at the constituency that we have in Vancouver-Kingsway, what we have and how we’ve evolved through this process, it seems to me we need to reflect on a couple of things. One is that it is an extraordinary thing when you have a constituency centred, often, around its community centres and neighbourhood houses, such as Trout Lake and Renfrew and Collingwood Neighbourhood House, created not because of direct funding but because people in the community got together to have a place where they could join and achieve certain things that the community needed to achieve.

In the most diverse community in the province, where they often speak different languages as first languages, people have come together to respect one another and to create a neighbourhood house that does this. This is an extraordinary thing. It runs contrary to these ideas of division — communities coming together and respecting one another, respecting difference. I think that’s something that people in Vancouver-Kingsway exemplify.

I don’t think there are many places in the world as diverse as Vancouver-Kingsway and as the eastside of Vancouver and the southeast side of Vancouver, represented by my colleague the Minister of Justice and myself — not many places in the world where such diversity works so well on the ground in a daily way, where people come together in that sense.

That’s why this map and this large constituency, which is a result of this map in terms of population, is something they understand. People understand differences and the need to engage in give and take and to be generous with one another, understand that it is crucial in British Columbia that voices from every part of the province are heard and that in some places we need constituencies that work. They understand that because they live that.

They would have no objection to what’s been said by members on both sides of the House about the centrality of rural representation in a province of this size and the need to address that. They would have no objection to that.

What they would say and what we need to continue to say is that it has to be done fairly, that we have to have independent commissions, that we shouldn’t be directing those commissions. We should be allowing the commissions to respect the law and the tradition of British Columbia and of Canada, which respects representation and ensures that we have electoral districts that can work for everybody and that we have what is, I think, centrally important in that, which is this notion of effective representation.

That’s the challenge, therefore, that we face when we look at these reports and why we on the opposition, in spite of our concern about the government’s intervention previously in this process…. There was intervention, as we know, in 2008. There was intervention in 1989. There was intervention in 1982. There was intervention in 1978. There was intervention in 1966. A systematic effort on the part, in all those cases….

Then prior to 1966, it was kind of the Wild West where Liberals, Conservatives and Social Credit governments manipulated the map for very partisan reasons. This isn’t a partisan statement; it’s a subject of historical fact. We need a fair process, and that is what I think everybody is seeking. Even though sometimes when you come through those processes…. It should be said that after the 2008 process, Vancouver-Kingsway wasn’t the second-biggest seat in the province. It was probably 13 or 14. This time it’s second.

Why, if the process is fair and people were listened to and it was determined in this circumstance that deviation from the norm was acceptable…. People in Vancouver-Kingsway, even though this time it was laid out this way for them, are more than willing and should be more than willing to accept it, as we are and as I am, by voting for the report of this commission.

[1125]

I think I would say, in conclusion, that the report and these processes have consequences. Our democracy is important. What I find heartening in this process, what I find heartening when people go and vote as they did in great numbers in Vancouver-Kingsway last week, is that these are fundamental questions. They’re not small questions.

In those periods, in the early days, when electoral districts were founded on mining districts in British Columbia, it was also true that women couldn’t vote, that Chinese Canadians couldn’t vote, that South Asian Canadians couldn’t vote, that we had a system of power over our democracy that not only saw the gerrymandering of electoral districts but the denial of full citizenship to a majority of citizens in our province.

It is why we have to be, I think, vigilant in asserting the central and important democratic voice of elections and that those elections need to be conducted in a fair, just and democratic manner.

That is what I think this process, overall, has done. It has respected the uniqueness of Canada and of Canadian democracy. It has respected constituents from throughout our province. It has allowed a vast majority of voices to participate in the discussion. Ultimately, we have a map which will lead and give the people of British Columbia an opportunity to express their views on their individual MLAs and on their government at the time of the 2017 election.
[ Page 9792 ]

I think all of those things are worthy of support. It’s why members on the opposition side have been supportive and speaking in support of this report, notwithstanding individual concerns that people might have about its details.

With that, I take my seat. I think we will see, as the debate carries on, other members talking about the uniqueness of their communities, of their constituencies, on both the government and the opposition side. These are very personal issues.

I do remember, when boundaries reports came out in the past, talking to the MLAs losing city blocks, who were extremely upset about that process. There are weaknesses and flaws in this system, but one of the strengths of this system is the connection that representatives, I hope, feel between themselves and the citizens they represent of all political stripes. Certainly, I feel it.

As we go through the next electoral cycle, hopefully, we’ll have a map and the electoral boundaries, and I believe we do, which will be fair to all — to voters and to our broader society, which deserves and which has embraced representative democracy.

S. Gibson: On behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford-Mission, I’m pleased to rise today and speak in favour of the motion. We’ve been discussing in the House the changes to the electoral boundaries of our province.

Representing Abbotsford-Mission, generally regarded as one of British Columbia’s finest constituencies, I’m pleased with the relatively minor configurations that have taken place, which really makes my riding a lot easier to describe to people outside and within the community. I think it will be helpful to voters, who will be looking to consider, in the election coming up….

The members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission were appointed in May of 2014 and were tasked with recommending provincial electoral boundaries before the next election in 2017. During the last boundaries commission process, it became clear that three regions in B.C. were most at risk of losing representation in the Legislature. Of course, they’re the large, sparsely populated regions in the more remote part of our province.

Because ours is a province with dense and growing urban areas, with rural regions, we must ensure that all British Columbians are represented appropriately. We have introduced legislation to adopt all of the commission’s recommendations. This will ensure that all British Columbians are effectively represented in both urban and rural areas.

[1130]

We wanted to make sure that the current districts in the north, Cariboo-Thompson and Columbia-Kootenay, are preserved. This ensures that citizens in these less densely populated yet geographically large districts can be effectively represented by their MLAs.

While we work to ensure that the rural areas of our province are effectively represented, we also need to consider the urban areas as well. That B.C. is an attractive place to live and work is evident by our growing population. Thus, we are increasing the number of electoral districts by two, from 85 to 87. The new ridings will be located in Surrey and Richmond–New Westminster.

Along with the two new ridings, there will be boundary changes to 48 districts across the province. Substantial changes are recommended in the Fraser Valley, Hope-Princeton, Comox Valley and mid–Vancouver Island regions. I represent the riding of Abbotsford-Mission, as mentioned, in the beautiful Fraser Valley. These adjustments, I think, will be appreciated by residents. The proposal set to be adopted will be in place for the scheduled 2017 and 2021 general provincial elections.

Politics was never a consideration for government when preparing this legislation to accept all the proposals from the commission. The bottom line is that we need fair and effective representation for all our citizens. Every province grapples with how best to manage the urban-rural divide, given population density and disparity.

Most provinces, especially larger ones, have rules for exceptional circumstances. In B.C., we have rural districts that are below the 25 percent population deviation rule. However, this is not a new situation, as following the last commission eight years ago, there were also ten districts that were outside the threshold. As well, there are no proposed districts that come close to the plus-25-percent threshold. This indicates that the commission did a good job of balancing population and also taking community interests into account.

It is generally easier for an MLA to represent and serve constituents in urban and suburban districts, even though, on average, they have more people to represent than the rural areas. This is because population is concentrated in a much smaller geographic area.

I want to thank the members of the commission for their diligence and thorough job in evaluating how best to configure B.C. electoral districts. In a democracy, it’s important for constituents to realize that they have easy and convenient access to their representative. It’s my belief these recommendations allow that to take place, and I’m pleased to report that today. It’s a difficult job to manage geographic disparities in our province to ensure that all citizens are effectively represented. But thanks to the hard work of the commission, they have found that balance and were successful.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to the motion before us, the motion which is: “Be it resolved that in accordance with section 14 of the Electoral
[ Page 9793 ]
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.”

Now, to remind those riveted to their television sets across British Columbia, section 14 of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act states the following: “If the Legislative Assembly, by resolution, approves or approves with alterations the proposals of the commission, the government must, at the same session, introduce a Bill to establish new electoral districts in accordance with the resolution.”

I rise, along with every other member in this House, to speak in support of the resolution before us and, specifically, to thank, at the onset, the work done by the Electoral Boundaries Commission and, in particular, Hon. Mr. Justice Thomas J. Melnick, the commission chair; Beverley Busson, the commissioner; and Keith Archer, Chief Electoral Officer and commissioner.

[1135]

Now, this report was done, obviously, in a non-partisan manner. It is one that reflected the values of British Columbians in terms of trying best to put their needs and interests first and foremost in the setting of electoral boundary limits.

I represent the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, a riding that, under these proposed changes, would expand ever so slightly to an area of 330 square kilometres with a 4.8 percent deviation above the provincial average in terms of population, and the population would be 55,689.

Oak Bay–Gordon Head is 330 square kilometres because it contains quite a number of islands off the shore, and I must confess to being remiss to visiting these islands frequently. Trial Island, the Chatham Islands, Discovery Island, Griffin Island, Great Chain Island…. There’s a number of these islands which are within the electoral boundary, and they carry over from before.

Very sparsely populated. Trial Island has a lighthouse keeper. Chatham Islands — a First Nations reserve — the last longtime resident recently moved off that. Discovery Island is largely a marine park. Nevertheless, I do represent these ridings as well as the entire district of Oak Bay contained within the boundary and a substantial component of Saanich.

Now, in the capital region, the proposed changes for my riding are subtle. They’re subtle, and they come at the expense, with respect, of my colleague in Victoria–Beacon Hill. The Electoral Boundaries Commission, in reflecting upon the boundary changes, really had one of two changes that it could make consistently in order to actually bring our population number up, which I recognize has gone down a little bit.

One was near Mount Doug, where, along Cedar Hill Road, there’s a small subdivision towards the north side that could have been brought in. Historically, this was part of the riding when the hon. Ida Chong was the MLA representing the region, but in previous reports it got taken out. The other, which, frankly, I think, is more supported, is to continue the natural divide between Victoria–Beacon Hill and Oak Bay–Gordon Head along Richmond Road.

The reason why I say it’s a natural divide is because there was this very odd little corner by Jubilee Hospital that, frankly, confused the voters, because this little corner in Oak Bay–Gordon Head was shared by the member for Victoria–Swan Lake, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill and my riding. In fact, it was not uncommon for constituents in Oak Bay–Gordon Head to get electoral information from constituents in Victoria–Beacon Hill and vice versa, because it was this little odd corner in the riding that has been corrected in this.

Oak Bay–Gordon Head is very proud to bring the Royal Jubilee Hospital back into our riding. It’s a natural home for the riding because so many constituents live nearby it and work nearby it. We get to continue down Richmond Road. We now bring the Victoria College of Art — another natural home for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the Victoria College of Art — and another high school, making us, in Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I would reckon, probably the most high-school-rich, university-rich, college-rich riding in the province.

With the inclusion now of the senior school of Glenlyon Norfolk…. We now have, in Oak Bay–Gordon Head, three public high schools — the brand-new Oak Bay; Lambrick Park, the school my daughter graduated from; and Mount Doug — St. Michaels University School and now Glenlyon as well — five high schools.

On top of that, we also have Camosun College, which is right on the boundary there of Richmond Road, and the University of Victoria. And we have a diversity of other colleges, including the Victoria College of Art and the Canadian College of the Performing Arts. We have a number of elementary schools, some of them private, some of them not.

[1140]

We have Maria Montessori, an additional high school that actually, this year, is graduating its first grade 12 class. It used to just be K to 7, but now it is…. So that would make us three private schools, three public schools, a college and a university, and we’re very proud to bring the hospital into our riding as well.

The changes as outlined in the report here…. As noted here, the proposed changes were only really in the capital region, to the boundary of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, where we get a few blocks along Richmond. And part of Vic West is brought back into its traditional home of the Victoria–Beacon Hill riding. Pretty much everything else stayed the same.

Again, coming along that Richmond Road, that very important corner which was brought into the jurisdiction of Oak Bay–Gordon Head…. It’s actually quite a fascinating area of the riding, in that there are a number of homes along Foul Bay — which is just south of Richmond, which is where the boundary used to be — where part of the home is in the municipality of Oak Bay and the other part of the home is in the city of Victoria.

It’s a bizarre situation where there are people along Foul Bay Road who actually have to pay two sets of property taxes — property taxes to the municipality of Oak
[ Page 9794 ]
Bay and property taxes to the city of Victoria — because part of their garden straddles the boundary. Very odd. And bringing them now all into my jurisdiction…. Well, they were initially, but this is something that, also, I think we should be thinking about fixing in the months ahead — not through the electoral process but through the municipal boundary process.

Now, we’ve debated in this Legislature a number of things this session. We’ve debated, as we’ve moved to this, the Red Tape Reduction Day Act. We’ve debated what I’ve called the spell-check and comma-replacement act. We’ve had discussions as to whether or not we should introduce legislation to bring back two spaces after a period. We’ve had other pieces of debate on a motion for Site C dam, which would have been useful ten months ago. Now we’re debating — this will be the third day — for perhaps four days, the resolution with respect to accepting the electoral commission’s act.

I wholeheartedly support this. The opposition wholeheartedly supports this. But surely, in this Legislature, there are other things we could be spending our time debating that are important in determining the values of the actual constituents who we are here to represent.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Peace River South points out that there is an element of irony, maybe hypocrisy, and I recognize that. I recognize, as I talk about the things that we’re not talking about….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Vancouver-Kingsway points out I’m being hard on myself. I would suggest I am walking down a dangerous territory of not practising what I’m preaching. But the dangerous territory here, I think, needs to be said, because we’re talking about the electoral process, the foundation of our democracy. We’re talking about jigging boundaries. We all support this.

But what we’re not talking about are the issues that matter to the people in our electoral boundaries. I did not get a single e-mail from any constituent at any time over any aspect of this report. My constituents did not care.

Now, I recognize it’s a much more important issue for other jurisdictions, perhaps rural areas where there are rather large changes in the area. But my constituents said nothing. I didn’t get a phone call. I didn’t get an e-mail. I didn’t get a “hey, stop” in the grocery store. “What do you think about the electoral boundary? It’s really important to us to discuss that shift from Foul Bay to Richmond. This is an issue that keeps us awake at night.”

No, what they wanted to talk about is why this government promised 100,000 jobs, a $100 billion prosperity fund, a $1 trillion hit to the GDP. They wanted to know where this so-called Petronas deal…. They wanted to know why this government is not standing up and apologizing to British Columbians for misleading them — yes, hon. Speaker, misleading them — in the lead up to the last election with promises of an LNG industry that was nothing but a pipedream.

[1145]

That is what the constituents wanted to talk about, not this electoral boundary issue.

Hon. T. Lake: Speak to the motion.

A. Weaver: There were many other things that they raised, which I could discuss here. I recognize that the Minister of Health is trying to keep me on the motion. But this is relevant to the motion, because the boundaries that we are discussing — the boundaries here today, in this riding — are changing.

We will spend four days — we’ve spent three so far — discussing this. And each and every one of us has agreed to this.

We haven’t discussed the failed attempts of this government to deliver on its promises. We’ve discussed this resolution here. We haven’t discussed the desperate attempt of the government to try to rebrand itself now as the party of small business. No, we’re discussing the boundaries here of the electoral ridings around the province of British Columbia. We haven’t discussed the issue of education and underfunding of education. No.

We’ve discussed shifting Foul Bay to Richmond, an important change for those people between Foul Bay and Richmond who are now joining Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I recognize that they will be happy. Well, maybe they’re not. Some will be happy; some will be not.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

But what they would be far more happy about is actually discussing, talking about, the LNG industry that did not manage to get established here in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Member, I’m going to ask you to align your remarks to the motion under debate.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Coming back to the motion before us. Reminding those, again, riveted at home that the motion before us is, “Be it resolved that in accordance with section 14 of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act” we approve this report.

As I’ve outlined, the constituents of my riding never raised this as an issue at all. So I assume…. Like other members here, if there is an issue, typically you hear a lot about it — the issues that I raised earlier. This one I did not, which would suggest to me, quite clearly, that this is not a pressing issue in the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Again, I thank the commissioners very much for their
[ Page 9795 ]
report. I appreciate that. I do wonder whether it’s — noting the hour here….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Well, I’m happy to not note the hour. I’m happy to take my place and let somebody on the opposite side continue this debate on a topic that is so very dear to the hearts of not a single one of my constituents. But other issues which we are not discussing are.

I look forward to the opportunity to discuss issues of relevance to British Columbians, on a daily basis, that affect their economy, their health and their education.

Hon. T. Lake: I choose to rise to speak in support of this motion and considering the comments made by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, thought he might be interested to know that, in fact, in many areas of the province, constituents are really concerned about who is representing them and how they’re representing them and their interests here in this Legislature in British Columbia.

The commission did some very good work. I know in my constituency, delegations, particularly from the North Thompson — the Clearwater area, Vavenby and Barriere — made their views known to the commission that it was important to have the linkages with the regional centre of Kamloops in their representation in the Legislature.

I did receive e-mails. Unlike the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who dismisses the way constituents are represented in the Legislature in an effort to make some partisan political comments — using the time to talk about democracy to make comments about political motivations. It was important for my constituents to ensure that they were connected to the regional centre of Kamloops and continue to have the same MLA as the people of North Kamloops and, in fact, made representation to the electoral commission, something that is extremely important to them.

[1150]

The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head discounts their concern about being represented in this chamber. I take exception, personally, because my constituents were very concerned about how they are represented in this House. It is the cornerstone, the foundation, of democracy to ensure that you are adequately represented in the Legislature.

Despite what the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head says, people actually do care about this. I’ve heard many members in this Legislature discuss how important our foundation of democracy is — the flexibility that we have to ensure that we balance representation by population along with the enormous challenge of connecting people in a very large and diverse province with topographical challenges, geographical challenges and transportation challenges.

I’m happy to speak to this motion and make sure that we send our thanks to the Electoral Boundaries Commission for taking into consideration the many representations that were made, particularly by my constituents in Kamloops–North Thompson.

C. James: I believe the minister heard a completely different speech than the rest of us heard in the legislative chamber. Those are certainly not the comments that I understood and that I heard listening to the same speech that was given by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

But I think it points to some of the sensitivity — the member for Vancouver-Kingsway spoke to it as well — around the rural-urban split. I’ll speak to that a little bit more as I go through my remarks on the Electoral Boundaries Commission report proposals, Motion 26.

I think it’s interesting to take a look at the fact that this will be a motion, members’ comments aside, that I expect we will see full support in this House for, which, as we know, is not necessarily a common occurrence in this Legislature. It certainly hasn’t always been that way in the history of boundary commissions. We certainly haven’t seen that come forward and be discussed and debated in the kind of unanimity that I expect we’re going to see as we continue debate on this bill.

I know other members have taken some time. I want to, as well, take a bit of my time to look at the history of how we’ve set commissions and how we’ve set boundaries and electoral areas in our province. The reason that I think it’s important to do that is that when we look at the broad support that we’re now seeing for the Boundaries Commission, that didn’t just happen by itself.

Broad support doesn’t just occur. It usually occurs because there have been challenges in previous times and those challenges have brought about changes that have made it more positive, changes that have meant that we could get to a place — as we are through this discussion — where most members are rising and agreeing with the direction and with the commission and with the report that’s here.

I think it’s important that we look at the history in order to look at the components that we now use to set boundaries and to look at why they’re important. To do that, I took a little bit of time to go back and take a look at papers that have been written around electoral boundaries. I think it will be a name that’s familiar to anyone, certainly in this chamber, and probably to most people who follow politics in B.C.

There was a very good paper written by Norman Ruff. As I said, I think most people would recognize that name through his work at the university, his work here at the Legislature, his commentary — good and bad, people will say, depending on which side you were on when Norman Ruff was commenting, but always thoughtful, whether you agreed or disagreed with it. I certainly found that in his paper as well.
[ Page 9796 ]

His paper is called “The Cat and Mouse Politics of Redistribution: Fair and Effective Representation in British Columbia”. Certainly, for those members who are interested in taking a look at history and taking a look at boundaries, it’s worth picking it up. It really points out the challenges, as I said earlier, of setting electoral boundaries, not the least of which is the issue of politics, the issue of interference, the issue of the lack of — or a perception of the lack of — independence and fairness through this process.

I think it would be no surprise to anybody in a place that is full of politics, and full of often-partisan politics, that there would be a concern as boundaries are set.

Interjection.

[1155]

C. James: Say it isn’t so, the member across says. I know it’s shocking to some of those members who have joined us that this is a place where we actually become partisan once in a while. But I think it would be no surprise that, in setting the boundaries for elections, there would be the opportunity for politics to raise its head, for politics to interfere with this process. And I think that’s, certainly, if you look at the history — and I’ll talk a little bit more about it as well — that’s certainly a theme that has run through where we have not had the kind of unanimity we’re talking about, but we’ve seen the kinds of challenges that we’ve seen previously.

The other thing that’s always interesting to take a look at in British Columbia is the issue of our geographic challenges. Certainly, if you take a look at the urban settings, that’s a different issue, and I’ll come back to that. But if you look at the geographical challenges of mountains and rivers and divides, that certainly causes some real challenges when you’re taking a look at setting electoral boundaries. It certainly causes some difficulties in trying to set those and match that with the distribution of population — again, not unique to British Columbia. You are seeing it in a number of other provinces. It has to do with urban and rural, has to do with where people are settling, has to do with the distribution of that population. Matching that with the geographical challenges certainly causes a great deal of difficulties that we see coming up.

Now, I notice we’re getting close on time. I see a nodding of the head. With that, noting the hour, I will take my place and reserve my right to come back after the break.

C. James moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake 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 11:57 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