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)

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 30, Number 5

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

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Fassbender: Today I have the real pleasure to introduce some 30-plus participants of the Democracy in Action Conference joining us for question period. The Democracy in Action Conference is a program that was launched last year by Minister Oakes, the former Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. The 33 youths, aged 16 to 18, from across the province come to Victoria for this three-day learning program.

Yesterday, the Lieutenant-Governor, Judith Guichon, and I had the opportunity to welcome the students to the province’s capital at a welcome luncheon. The province is well represented with students from every corner of this province, including students from as far north as Lax Kw’alaams First Nations, as far south as Osoyoos, as east as Creston and as west as Sooke.

It should be mentioned that this conference would not be possible without the partnership and generous support of B.C. Rotary Clubsco across the province. Democracy in Action is designed to help participants better understand British Columbia’s democratic processes and institutions as well as the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship.

[1335]

I know that tonight members from both sides of the House will have an opportunity to attend a dinner where they can engage and get to know these students better. I would ask every member of the House to make them feel very welcome.

J. Horgan: I have two introductions to make today of constituents of mine, but I want to follow on the minister’s comments because I had my own question period just the other day. I had, from Edward Milne Community School, Matthew Miller, who is here for the presentation of Democracy in Action Youth Conference. Matthew came to my office and grilled me for a good 45 minutes on what my roles and responsibilities were, not just as a member of the Legislature but as Leader of the Official Opposition. I had — for a brief moment, in any event — a little bit of a sense of what the Premier goes through when we’re asking her questions.

I want the House to make Matthew Miller from Edward Milne Community School very, very, welcome.

My second introduction. I have two friends from my constituency. One is Jane Parkinson, who is the mother of Elizabeth Parkinson, a legislative assistant of ours in the NDP caucus. She’s joined by her friend Kay Prosser. They are here enjoying their retirement, learning new things about democracy and what the Legislative Assembly does on any given day, as well as other pursuits.

On a sadder note, I want to also acknowledge that Jane lost her husband, Kevin, just recently and is, sadly, enjoying her retirement without her life partner. I know that the House will certainly pass on our condolences to her, as I have already, and wish her the very, very best in the days and weeks and months ahead.

J. Thornthwaite: Madame Speaker, I’d like to recognize a very special birthday of somebody that many of you here in the House will know and remember — my esteemed predecessor Mr. Daniel Jarvis, who was the MLA at the same time that you were, since 1991, for North Vancouver–Seymour. Would the House please wish Daniel a happy 80th birthday for November 1. Happy birthday, Daniel.

M. Farnworth: It’s not often that I get visitors from Port Coquitlam here to the buildings, but today I’d like to take the opportunity to introduce a very special guest. She’s active in our community. She works at the Prostate Centre as a researcher. She has been touring the building. She got to see the library, including — I think, for a researcher — an 1877 edition of Scientific American. Would the House please welcome Dr. Amy Lubik to Victoria and wish her a really great day here in the Legislature.

Hon. A. Virk: It’s my pleasure to make two introductions today. In the precinct is my constituent Steven Purewal of the Indus Media Foundation. Members of the House will recall displays in the halls of the Legislative Assembly celebrating World War I and the contribution of South Asians in that.

My second introduction. In the House today is a group of young leaders, a young group of individuals in uniform, the 3300 British Columbia Regiment of the Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps based in Surrey, also known as the Bhai Kanhaiya Cadet Corps.

These 40 cadets participated in a ceremony earlier today to remember the sacrifice by members of the South Asian battalions who fought bravely shoulder to shoulder with Canadian troops in World War I. They are being led today by Major Taylor and Captain Nagra. Apparently, I gave him a field promotion today. I don’t know if that stands or not. His commanding officer will know that.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

S. Simpson: I have a group of people here to introduce that I’m very, very pleased to be able to bring to the attention of the Legislature. Joining us today is Eileen Greene, a leader from the University of Victoria School of
[ Page 9838 ]
Nursing. She’s joined here by 18 of her fourth-year nursing students, who in six months’ time will be joining the profession, after they complete their time here.

[1340]

They include Carlee Anderson, Taylor Arkles, Sharon Blackmore, Nichele Boas, Brianne Campbell, Rabina Dodd, Christine Doyle, Hicham El-Boualaye, Rebecca Feddema, Kim Ferguson, Gurinder Hari, Bryce Kniert, Carlee Lawless, Ashley McNaughton, Holly Prince, Amber Smith, Brianna Willett and Julia Wilson. I apologize for any pronunciation problems.

I particularly, though…. Eileen is a special person, not just for the leadership she provides at the school of nursing, but for the work she has done internationally. She is the founder of the Home of Good Hope in Namibia eight years ago. This is a facility that provides basic health care support and that feeds 500 people a day in Namibia. Eileen was recognized this July with an international award for human rights for her work in Namibia and the work she’s done there and the work that she’s done here. I’m also pleased to introduce her because she is the mother of my sister-in-law here in Victoria.

I hope everybody will welcome Ms. Greene and these nursing students to the House.

L. Larson: Hon. Speaker, it is my pleasure to welcome to British Columbia and to our House a visiting delegation from the Senate Standing Committee on Health and the Senate Standing Committee on Implementation of the Parliament of Kenya.

The committee is interested in learning about best practices, health financing and planning for serious health epidemics. The members of the committee joining us in the gallery this afternoon are Senator Lesan, Senator Ali and Senator Kanainza.

Accompanying the members are the following officials and staff: Mr. George, Honorary Consul, Consulate of The Republic of Kenya; Mr. McMillan, assistant to the Honorary Consul; Ms. Madjibodou, committee secretariat; and Ms. Mudibo, committee secretariat.

The delegation met with the Select Standing Committee on Health at lunch and will meet later today with staff from the Ministry of Health.

Would the House please make our guests welcome.

H. Bains: It is a pleasure, and actually it was a very honouring moment, for me to be present at a ceremony where over 40 cadets made up of South Asian young men and women of the 3300 B.C. Regiment….

The ceremony. What was so moving is the glimpse of history that Steven Periwal gave us and reminded us of our history — what we went through as British Columbians — when South Asians first came to Canada in 1897, and then 1914, when, although the Komagata Maru was denied entry and those passengers were not allowed to land, some of them went on to fight for the Crown in the First World War.

They never gave up on Canada, and I’ve said this before. I think they continue to turn Canada into a better place and British Columbia into a place that we all proudly say today is the best place to raise our children and work.

Along with them was a good community worker, Dr. Amer Shergill, and his wife, Furminder Shergill. They were here. And also Raj Periwal from the gurdwara from Victoria.

Thank you to Steven Periwal for doing such a great job and reminding us where we came from and where we are today so we never forget the history going forward, so that people coming after us can also relate to us — that we also play a little role in their lives, that their lives are even better than what we have today.

Please help me to send them a very warm welcome to this beautiful House.

Hon. M. Polak: The Democracy in Action conference in Victoria has already been referenced. Four of those students are from Langley, two of whom I have had the opportunity to meet with in my constituency office. I will tell you that these are absolutely amazing young people. From Langley we have William Karpan, Roxanne Kondos, Caiden Sue and Erin Maloney.

Would the House make them welcome.

[1345]

J. Darcy: I’d like to join with the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Health in welcoming our Kenyan delegation today, who met with us at noon. I know that they are here, they say, to learn about best practices in health care, but I think that it was very, very clear to our committee — to the members from both sides of the House on our committee….

We had sort of a bipartisan, common reaction to what we learned about their Implementation Committee. They have an Implementation Committee that is struck in their Senate — an elected Senate, by the way, that includes representation from youth. There’s a 26-year-old woman in the galleries today who is a senator in Kenya.

Their Implementation Committee takes the motions from parliament, reviews them every three months to see whether or not they’re implemented, and, indeed, they report back to parliament with very, very clear directions about what needs to be done, if it hasn’t been done. I think we were all inspired by that. So while they’ve come here to learn from us, we certainly have an awful lot to learn from them as well.

Thank you so much, and welcome.

Hon. T. Stone: I’m sure I speak for all members of the House when I say it’s always a special treat when our family is here with us. I have been thrilled to have my mother in town all week. I’ve been trying to mind my p’s and q’s. She’s here in the gallery today.
[ Page 9839 ]

Her dad, who is my grandfather, is a large part of the reason — a large part of the credit — for my love of politics and my desire to get involved in public life. He was a lifelong CCF-NDP’er till the day he passed away. He used to always say that my political attachments must have been because I was dropped on my head at childbirth. At lunch today, I was able to once again get a firm assessment of that day from my mother, who confirms, yet again, that that was not the case.

Please join me in welcoming my mother to the chamber today.

J. Rice: From Democracy in Action today I have a guest visiting from Lax Kw’alaams, known to some here, perhaps, as Port Simpson. Cayden White is a 16-year-old grade 11 student. He’s an exceptional student and community leader in Lax Kw’alaams. He’s a student mentor, tutor, athlete and basketball coach. He especially loves sports, especially basketball.

He has received awards for sportsmanship and athleticism — highest achievement — and he’s also received the Andy Spence Memorial Award. This award is given out to a student who has given back and helped the community significantly. He’s an active participant in his culture and community, participating in traditional food harvesting, regalia making, and speaks the Sm’algyax language, which is the language of the Tsimshian people on the north coast.

Would the House please make Cayden feel welcome.

Hon. C. Oakes: I have three constituents in the House today. I have Brittany Grob, Alexandra Hamm and Cameron Sytsma.

Would the House please help make them welcome.

G. Holman: I have a number of constituents in the House today that I’d like to introduce. First is a classroom from Brentwood Elementary of 30 grade 5 students and ten parents, led by their teacher Ms. Blackie.

Secondly, a councillor from Central Saanich, Niall Paltiel, who I believe is one of the youngest councillors in British Columbia today.

Third, also a student who lives in my constituency, Daniella Ledet of Saanichton, who is participating in the Democracy in Action events here today.

Would the House please make them all feel welcome.

L. Reimer: It’s my pleasure today to introduce to you two wonderful students who are here for the Democracy in Action program and who both interviewed me in my office. Ms. August Sarar is a student at Port Moody Secondary School, in grade 12, and Mr. Dylan Buckmaster is a constituent in Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and comes to us from the Rotary Club of Coquitlam Sunrise and attends Pinetree Secondary.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1350]

C. Trevena: I, too, would like to recognize a student who is here for the Democracy in Action conference. Joanna Morrison from Campbell River is a student at Carihi — very engaged in community and in issues and is hoping, once she graduates high school, to study international relations.

I hope that people will make her very welcome here and for her very active future.

Tributes

BRAD AND FLORIAN CHAPMAN

G. Kyllo: It’s with a heavy heart that I pay tribute to two fine gentlemen from the North Okanagan who lost their lives recently in a plane crash in northeastern B.C. Brad Chapman was a Vernon-based businessman and community leader in the North Okanagan who, along with his eldest son, Florian, died tragically when his small plane crashed near Taylor, B.C. Brad was 56 years old and Florian only 26. They were the principals in the Chapman Group of companies that included L.B. Chapman Construction and related companies.

Brad was a larger-than-life character who commanded the respect of people in every room that he entered. He had a passion for flying once he acquired his pilot licence in his late 40s. Flying allowed Brad to pursue his other passions for big-game hunting and fishing, and he would often fly to remote locations in order to pursue it. Whether it was for business or pleasure, Brad never passed up the opportunity to go wheels up.

Brad raised five children with his wife, Michaela, his partner in business and in life. He was also very community-minded, supporting numerous charities and community-based initiatives in and around the North Okanagan. If money was needed to support a worthy cause, Brad Chapman could always be counted on to step up and to contribute.

I considered Brad a friend. He was very supportive of me in my desire to become an MLA. Brad and Florian will be profoundly missed by their family and their friends, the community they lived and worked in and by their many business colleagues around the province.

Introductions by Members

S. Robinson: I, too, would like to welcome a student to the chamber today. She interviewed me — or, rather, grilled me — just as some of my other colleagues were this last couple of weeks. Kimberly Venn is here from Coquitlam. She’s a first-year business and economics student at SFU. She also had the benefit of receiving a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Coquitlam. I’m very proud to have her here in the House today, and I hope everyone will help make her feel welcome.
[ Page 9840 ]

J. Sturdy: Today I have the pleasure to introduce to the House Don Evans. Don is president emeritus of the West Coast Railway Association, a B.C. non-profit society whose work is the preservation of British Columbia’s railway heritage. The society has built and operates the West Coast Railway Heritage Park in Squamish, British Columbia, which is western Canada’s largest railway heritage facility, where it hosts some 60,000 visitors annually. The heritage park is home to the province of British Columbia’s world-famous Royal Hudson locomotive, as well, and the CN Roundhouse and Conference Centre.

Don is also the incoming governor of the Rotary District 5040 and is here to speak to the youth of Democracy in Action. Will the House please join me in making him feel welcome.

A. Weaver: I, too, would like to welcome a student, Silvia Albu, who’s in the gallery tonight with the Democracy in Action students. Silvia is a grade 12 student at Mount Douglas Secondary in my riding. I found out during the interview that she was in the grade 4 French immersion class that my son was in at Campus View as well. Would the House please make her feel very welcome.

S. Hamilton: Following the same theme, I had a delightful and enchanting young lady by the name of Kennedy Dawes take the opportunity to come to my office. She’s here representing my constituency of Delta North with Democracy in Action. She’s very inspiring, and she took more time to ask me questions about how she could get involved in community, as opposed to just simply questions about politics. So I have a lot of faith that she has a very bright future. Would you please help me welcome her to the chamber.

M. Hunt: Also with Democracy in Action from the Surrey-Panorama is Harvay Sidhu, who is here to join that as well. I’d like the House to welcome him as well.

L. Larson: I would like to welcome the one person from the Boundary-Similkameen riding, Teagen Aspell.

S. Fraser: I may be in a little bit late, but I’d like us to recognize Freya Knapp from Port Alberni. She’s a bright student who interviewed me and didn’t give any quarter. She is a very astute student, and she’s going to go far. I’m proud to recognize her today, along with the other students.

[1355]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s a great pleasure to introduce to the House today a man in the gallery, Mr. Josef Beck, who is the new consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, stationed in Vancouver. Two notable things to remember about Germany. It’s tied for second place as the largest exporting economy in the world, and it’s the homeland of the member for Surrey-Fleetwood. Please welcome Mr. Beck.

D. Donaldson: I have a member of the constituency, from Smithers, participating in the Democracy in Action Youth Conference. Her name is Chan Tran. She’s a student at the University of British Columbia, and I think that she’s vying for the student who’s come the furthest of any from the north. I would ask the House to please welcome her to the Legislature today.

Ministerial Statements

BOAT ACCIDENT IN TOFINO AND
COMMUNITY ROLE IN OCEAN SAFETY

Hon. C. Clark: Earlier this week — Sunday night, to be exact — the entire province and people around the world were heartbroken to learn of what happened in Tofino. Yesterday I was there.

My grandfather was born on the shores of Clayoquot island. As a daughter of the coast, a great-granddaughter of the coast, I know that accidents at sea are a constant danger for all of us. It’s something that we’re raised with. It’s something that we just know in our bones. In my life, my father, my grandfather and my great-grandfather were all fishermen. My father and my sister were rescued at sea — they would have otherwise perished — by a neighbour who just happened to see them — a situation not that dissimilar from the ones that many British Columbians can tell you about.

Yesterday when I was up in Tofino, I had an opportunity to see and talk to the people who rose to the occasion, who, in the midst of a crisis, stepped up in a really, truly incredible way.

We’re still learning about what happened. There are many more details to come out. The Transportation Safety Board has more work to do. We know that. But in the meantime, we need to do a few things.

The first one is that Minister Yamamoto, our minister responsible for emergency response, is going to make sure that we work with the Ahousaht and other First Nations, who have lived on that coast and have fished that region for millennia, who know it better than anyone else, are as prepared as they can possibly be for events like this.

Today I’m calling on the federal government to ensure that First Nations are more formally integrated into Coast Guard response for sea rescue and other kinds of immediate responses required all up and down our coast. They know it better than anybody else, and they should be part of that response.

We need to improve cell service in the region.

We also need to recognize those individuals who really did something extraordinary. The people on the Leviathan, the crew and the passengers, all have stories of incredible heroism to tell. They were brave, and they were
[ Page 9841 ]
selfless. One woman refused to be rescued, with a broken leg, because there was a pregnant woman she felt needed help more than her. The Ahousaht, who responded immediately. They did not hesitate for a moment to put themselves in harm’s way. The Coast Guard, which responded immediately and got there in the absolute fastest time that they possibly could. Also, the people of Tofino, who have opened their hearts and their homes to support the victims and those who are suffering.

I am going to nominate Chief Councillor Greg Louie and Mayor Josie Osborne to receive some of the first Medals of Good Citizenship on behalf of their communities.

There is a long road ahead for Tofino and for people who live on the coast, but the greatest test of character is how we respond as individuals in the face of crisis. The people of Tofino and the people of the Ahousaht First Nation have passed that test with flying colours.

S. Fraser: I would have dearly loved to have had the opportunity to join the Premier yesterday. I thank her for her thoughtful words and her timely commitments and acknowledgement and support of the communities in Clayoquot Sound.

[1400]

It’s still early days. The loss of life is still palpable, and it’s raw. We now know the identities of those that have lost their lives. We know something about their lives, their aspirations and hopes, something about their families. That makes it somehow more difficult. Our deepest condolences from all of us in this House go out.

We also know more about those who were involved in the rescue, those who were involved on the ground — the hardship and the trauma that they have gone through and that they will continue to go through and relive.

It’s those on the water, those from Ahousaht, who were the first on the scene and remained searching for days, never giving up.

It’s those in Tofino who opened their homes and their hearts.

It’s those involved in the industry, the whale-watching companies, those women and men whose hearts have also been broken by this tragedy. It’s the emergency services personnel, the Tofino Coast Guard and hospital staff at Tofino General that did so much.

We thank you all. Please know that all people in B.C. share in your grief, and we thank you.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

BCHL HOCKEY SHOWCASE IN CHILLIWACK

J. Martin: This afternoon I would like to recognize Prospera Centre and the Chilliwack Chiefs for their efforts in hosting the annual Bauer British Columbia Hockey League Showcase for the past four years.

For four days each year, all 17 BCHL teams come to Chilliwack to compete in a pair of regular season games. Teams and players get optimum exposure to scouts from the college and professional ranks. Since the first showcase was held, the BCHL has had over a dozen players selected in the NHL entry draft. The economic spinoffs have been recognized in my community. I want to thank all those involved in promoting sports tourism and those in our local hospitality industry for working alongside the Chilliwack Chiefs business personnel to host such an exceptional showcase each and every year for the past four seasons.

I would ask that the House please join me in thanking Glen Ringdal, Barry Douglas, Andrea Laycock and all of the other Prospera Centre staff and community volunteers for hosting this incredible event. And especially to the Chilliwack Chiefs themselves — who managed to come off with one of only two shutouts during the showcase, as they downed the Victoria Grizzlies 4-0 — thank you so much.

TAHLTAN NATION
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

D. Donaldson: As you head north of Treaty Creek on the Stewart-Cassiar Highway, you enter a vast, sparsely populated, remote area of the province, dominated by mountains, glaciers, extensive alpine plateaus, pristine waters and a diversity of wildlife and fish populations.

This is Tahltan traditional territory and is home to an award-winning First Nations business. The Tahltan Nation Development Corporation received the B.C. Aboriginal Business Award in the category of Community-Owned Business of the Year at a gala ceremony in Vancouver earlier this month. The TNDC was recognized for its efforts to ensure community members benefit from responsible economic and resource development in their territories. This award is a timely tribute. The TNDC is celebrating its 30th year.

Over those three decades, the company has grown to a multi-million-dollar corporation. With its start in the mining and construction sector, they’ve expanded into energy, communications and transportation. In 2014-15, the TNDC paid out more than $13.4 million in wages, employing 250 workers. Approximately 75 percent were Tahltan, and 90 percent were First Nations. It’s really a staggering achievement when you consider that most of the basic infrastructure needs for business development, like cell phone service or a well-maintained airport, don’t exist in the area.

The Tahltan purposely separate their political arm, the Tahltan Central Council, from their business branch, the TNDC. Sometimes this presents challenges. For instance, when the provincial government authorized more than 100 development permits on the traditional territory,
[ Page 9842 ]
it can run counter to the Tahltan values of responsible economic development and the exercising of Tahltan title and rights. But the fundamental strategy of Tahltan Central Council setting the governance framework through legal and negotiating approaches with the province and the TNDC conducting business under the rules and regulations set by that framework is a key to success.

I congratulate former TNDC CEO, Bill Adsit, current CEO president Garry Merkel and board chair Calvin Carlick for their vision, hard work and for the award. When it comes down to it, it’s all about sustaining the people, while taking care of the traditional territories.

BUSINESS START-UPS IN PENTICTON

D. Ashton: It gives me no end of pleasure in this House to rise, as I do on occasion, to inform of the many wonderful virtues of the area surrounding Penticton, Summerland and Naramata.

[1405]

This time I’m thrilled shared to share the news with everyone that my hometown of Penticton has received yet another accolade. Last week the Canadian Federation of Independent Business released its rankings of the best places in Canada to start and grow a business. It should now come as no surprise to the members that Penticton fared very well in those rankings — so well, in fact, that I’m proud to say that Penticton is ranked as the best place in British Columbia to start and grow a business.

What makes this ranking even sweeter is that among B.C. cities, Penticton finished one spot ahead of our larger rival to the north, Kelowna. In fact, the only place in Canada that ranked ahead of Penticton is the Calgary periphery, the group of municipalities that surround the Alberta metropolis, which scored only three-tenths of a point ahead of Penticton. Therefore I have the pleasure to announce that Penticton is the best small city in Canada to start and grow a business.

As the MLA for Penticton and the former mayor of that incredibly fine city, this honour fills me with incredible pride. These rankings by the CFIB are based on the strong concentration of entrepreneurs, the high business start-up rate, the optimism and success of business owners and — what I think is incredibly important — the continuation of good public policy.

In addition to being an amazing place to live, Penticton has created a business-friendly environment that inspires and rewards entrepreneurship. The message to all entrepreneurs in this is: Penticton is ready to accommodate you. We’ll see you there soon.

HOME CARE

S. Chandra Herbert: Imagine this: not being able to prepare your meals or take medication, stuck with dirty clothes and soiled bedding, left at home alone, no family able to help and real concerns that there’s no one who cares. For too many British Columbians and, especially, seniors dealing with illness and disability, this can be their reality. They get sicker, their housing becomes unsafe, and eventually they have to go into the emergency room — expensive long-term care for the rest of their lives.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We know what we need to do, but we need to do it better. Home care is the solution. Don’t we all want to spend our health care dollars wisely, cut down on emergency room visits? Don’t we all want good lives for our fellow citizens as they age, regardless of their wealth? With the increasing age of British Columbians, we will need to rely on home care and preventative health care even more.

Home care works. Constituents tell me that in some cases they’re afraid of being able to do their laundry because they’re afraid they’re going to fall down and injure themselves. Constituents tell me of the 89 Saint Elizabeth home care workers who’ve recently been laid off, and they ask me: “What happens next? Why?” Constituents speak gratefully about what a difference having a home care visit makes for their lives. It changes their lives for the better. But some constituents aren’t able to get that help.

Home care workers do better, and so must we. We need to honour our home care workers, thank them. They are our eyes, our ears, our voices, our arms, our hearts in helping the most vulnerable in our communities. They are asking for our help in this House so that they can succeed. When they succeed, our communities succeed. When they succeed, our economies succeed. When they succeed, our health care system succeeds.

I ask all of us to thank a home care worker and look at what we can do to help them succeed.

DESERT HILLS RANCH

J. Tegart: Early in the 20th century, settlers in the area around Ashcroft found that the rich volcanic soil there produced some of the best produce in the world. They found that as long as you added water to the fertile soil, almost anything would grow.

More than 100 years later, Desert Hills Ranch is committed to bringing its customers the finest produce available. From the careful selection of only the best seed to the gentle harvesting and packing, Desert Hills monitors its products every step of the way to ensure that its customers receive the best product on the market.

Desert Hills Ranch Farm Market in Ashcroft has been owned and operated by the Porter family since 1983. They grow more than 40 products, including the finest watermelon, cantaloupes and honeydew melons, field and Roma tomatoes, onions, potatoes, carrots, peppers, beets and much more. They supply several retail outlets in British Columbia, including Superstore and the Overwaitea Food Group and Co-op. Of course, their
[ Page 9843 ]
products can be purchased right at the farm gate in Ashcroft.

[1410]

Business has been so strong that production has tripled in the past three years, and the number of employees has increased to 200 from just 20 three years ago.

Food and safety and the environment are a top priority for David Porter and the staff at Desert Hills Ranch. They strive to protect the land they cultivate by following the most rigid environmental stewardship practices.

For the best-tasting, freshest B.C.-grown produce, I recommend a visit to Desert Hills Ranch whenever you’re in the Ashcroft area, and please look for their brand in your local supermarket.

FOOD CULTURE AND CAMOSUN COLLEGE
CULINARY ARTS PROGRAM

L. Popham: For as long as I remember, I’ve been fascinated and captivated by the world of food. From growing it to preparing it, I’m interested in every step and in every role there is to be played. This fascination has led me to believe that every farmer needs a chef, and every chef needs a farmer.

If you want to be a great farmer, you have to work with great farmers, and if you want to become a great chef, you have to work with great chefs. If you want a great meal, you make sure you’re friends with both.

The strength and growth of the local food movement has brought together farmers, chefs and eaters like never before. The passion for good food is one that drives many of us, and in British Columbia, we are surrounded by people with this passion. The calibre of our chefs is extraordinary, and as eaters, we get to reap the benefits of this talent at our local restaurants.

You can be born with the passion for food, but to embrace it professionally, training is a must. Saanich South is home to one of the best and most successful Red Seal–designated professional cook-training programs in Canada at the Camosun College Culinary Arts Centre. Led by five amazing chefs — chef Gilbert Noussitou, chef Clemens Dober, chef Nikolaas Sillem, chef Steve Walker-Duncan and chef Michael Weaver — this culinary program is world-class, and it is one to support.

The public is invited to do just that by making a reservation at the ClassRoom Restaurant. The ClassRoom Restaurant offers gourmet dinners prepared and served by senior students. Dinner at the ClassRoom Restaurant is more than a meal; it’s a unique dining experience. Besides enjoying a fabulous four-course meal at a great price, only $32.95, guests have an opportunity to contribute to an exceptional learning experience for tomorrow’s chefs and cooks.

To the Camosun culinary arts program: thank you for all you do. The world tastes better because of you.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING
AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

J. Horgan: For months, we’ve been asking the B.C. Liberal government why it is that when we ask for documents, when we ask for information about policy decisions, when we ask for information about basic consultations, we continue to get “no records” responses.

Last week the Information And Privacy Commissioner issued a report entitled Access Denied: Record Retention and Disposal Practices of the Government of British Columbia. The minister responsible tried to characterize it as an administrative report on purely technical matters. But the heart of the issue, as we now know, goes right into the heart of the Premier’s office.

Yesterday I asked the Premier if she would apologize to Tim Duncan, the courageous whistle-blower who came forward when he was bullied by an official in the Minister of Transportation’s office and directed to delete e-mails that he felt needed to be retained to respond to an access-to-information investigation. She refused to offer an explanation or an apology to Mr. Duncan.

We asked her why it was that the person responsible for freedom of information in her office used a tracking system consisting of Post-it Notes, and she didn’t answer. We asked the Premier why she had said in May, and then again as recently as this fall, that she wouldn’t tolerate anyone working in the government that wasn’t abiding by the rules and yet Ms. Cadario and Mr. Facey, identified by the commissioner, continue to be in the employ of the province of British Columbia.

My question again, given 24 hours, is to the Premier. Will she do the right thing, apologize to Mr. Duncan and also follow through on her commitment to ensure that people working under her are not breaking the law?

[1415]

Hon. C. Clark: We certainly do, as I’ve said a number of times, take the report that the commissioner has provided us very seriously. We’re thankful for the direction she’s given us. We are acting on that direction, hiring David Loukidelis, a former Information and Privacy Commissioner, to make sure that we give life to her recommendations throughout government.

That means ensuring that training is properly and adequately done throughout staff. It means helping make sure that what are defined as transitory documents is consistent across government and making sure that we’re up to date on technological change. There is work to do there, and we’ve certainly begun work on it.

So in answer to the member’s question: yes, we are very busy making sure that happens. Mr. Loukidelis has been retained. In the meantime, all political staff and all ministers have been directed not to delete any e-mails, even
[ Page 9844 ]
those that are transitory, until we get further direction from Mr. Loukidelis and further clarification and training across government.

That, I think, will go a long way to ensuring that we are able to not just answer the member’s questions but, much more importantly, to make sure that we’re speaking to the citizens of British Columbia, who have a just and fair expectation that documents that government has a duty to retain are properly retained and available to them under FOI.

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

J. Horgan: It’s a shame that the Premier doesn’t take what she says seriously. It’s a shame that the Premier doesn’t give life to her own comments around this issue.

In May, she said that she would not tolerate…. I interpret that…. Maybe it’s an interpretation issue. Not tolerating something usually means that you’re going to address it in a meaningful way, not by saying: “We brought in an individual from the past who’s going to make sure that we don’t do it again.”

Well, they said they wouldn’t do it again in 2012. They said they wouldn’t do it again in 2013. Now here we are, two years later, and we’re still not going to do it again.

But it’s not just Ms. Cadario who has an absence of records. It’s not just the Premier who has an absence of records. We contacted, as I said yesterday and we raised here yesterday, the Premier’s office and asked if Mr. Dyble, her deputy minister, had any records, any documentation around litigation, around internal investigations, around the botched firing of seven health care workers. Now, one would think, with all of the activity around that file, that someone in the Premier’s office would have kept a scrap of paper, but that is not the case.

We then asked for another series of information from the Premier’s communications director, Ben Chin. We asked if he had kept any records or documents over a period of time. You can well imagine the response we got, even though, at the time, the Premier’s flagship legislation with respect to oppressing municipalities, the Auditor General for Local Government, was a fiasco in the making and we were just about to not hire her former colleague George Abbott. But the communications director, the guy responsible for making some sense of the incoherence in the Premier’s office, did not keep one scrap of paper.

So my question, again, to the Premier is: if the Premier’s director of communications doesn’t write anything down — he doesn’t send any e-mails — how is it that he communicates her inexplicable vision to the people of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as I’ve pointed out in the House previously, transitory records, which include unnecessary duplicates, are, under the act, allowed to be disposed of, as they properly are. Individuals who originate documents should be keeping them and making sure that those are available for freedom of information. In fact, many documents related to the issue that the member has raised — all of the documents that were identified — have been passed on to the Ombudsman’s office, and they will all be released publicly. We don’t…. When the Ombudsman is finished his work, those will be released.

So it’s certainly not true for the member or other members to suggest that there are no documents. There are, and they have been passed on to the Ombudsman’s office as part of that review. We’re looking forward to the results of that review as well. I hope that the member will stand up and ensure that he corrects the record with respect to documents, because those documents do exist.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. C. Clark: I will just finish by saying this. The vision of this government doesn’t need to be communicated by the press secretary or anybody else. The vision of this government is clear to every member of this government and, I think, to most British Columbians. The vision of this government is to make sure that we grow the economy, that we lift thousands of people in First Nations communities out of poverty, that we make sure that we pay off our debt so that our children will not be living under that burden when we are done here.

[1420]

That is our vision for British Columbia. I’m happy to have the opportunity to talk about it today, but again, I don’t need a communications director to do that. I’m very happy to do it myself.

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

J. Horgan: It’s interesting. The Premier’s confession that not one original idea or document comes out of her office is quite extraordinary — quite extraordinary after four years. “We don’t originate anything here. We just get up and say whatever is in our head.” That’s leadership.

I know the people of British Columbia will take enormous comfort — enormous comfort — knowing that not a single person making six figures working in the Premier’s office ever creates a single idea. It all comes full blown out of her forehead. That’s extraordinary. Zeus has arrived here in the Legislature, and we don’t write a darned thing down.

It’s not just….

Interjections.
[ Page 9845 ]

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Please continue.

J. Horgan: It’s not just the director of communications, it’s not just the deputy to the Premier, it’s not just the Premier and it’s not just the deputy chief of staff that don’t create anything. We did a freedom-of-information request to the chief of staff, a 25-year veteran of this place. In fact, he was working for the government of British Columbia before the NDP brought in the Freedom of Information Act. I would think that he has had a quarter of a century to understand interpretation.

We asked him if he had any records at all about a pretty busy month for the Premier. It would be the month of June, when she was planning, announcing and cancelling Om the Bridge. That was a pretty busy time for political operatives. I recall reading a good deal of comment on that in the public press. I would have thought that the chief political fixer in the Premier’s office would have maybe dispatched an e-mail or two to some subordinate saying: “We should fix this.” But apparently not.

We have the Premier, the deputy to the Premier, the chief of staff to the Premier, the deputy chief of staff to the Premier, the communications director to the Premier and, of course, the guy with the Post-it Notes. He’s the only one writing things down, but he doesn’t keep them.

My question to the Premier is: why should anyone in British Columbia have any confidence in her and her office?

Hon. C. Clark: I can give the member a couple of answers to that question.

Look at how well British Columbia is doing compared to North America, compared to Canada. Look at the $11½ billion, a record amount in the history of our province, that we have budgeted for constructing infrastructure, including Site C.

Look at the number of jobs that we’re creating. We’ve seen the biggest decrease in unemployment, since the jobs plan was introduced, of any province in Canada.

We have balanced three budgets. We will balance a fourth. We are running a surplus, and that surplus represents a dividend for the people of British Columbia that we can begin to share in a society that is founded on a wealthy, a highly functioning, a job-creating private sector that puts people in every corner of our province to work.

If he wants to know why people should have confidence in this government, it’s because I and this great team that I work with have done everything we can to make sure that British Columbia is truly the best-performing province in Canada.

[1425]

K. Conroy: Well, the people of British Columbia would think it would be a dividend if the government actually was open and transparent, as they say they are.

On Thursday, government issued a statement in which the Premier’s office announced that, effective immediately, John Dyble would assume responsibility for freedom-of-information requests in the Premier’s office. On Tuesday, the Premier claimed that David Loukidelis, not John Dyble, would solve the FOI evasions in the Premier’s office. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that Tuesday’s Premier didn’t agree with Thursday’s Premier. Perhaps she deleted her statement.

How will putting in the man who has openly flouted B.C.’s FOI law in the Boessenkool affair and the health firing debacle restore public faith that the Premier’s office is actually obeying the law?

Hon. C. Clark: The member speaks to the issue I have already spoken to, as well, which is the fact that we want to make sure the act is being applied consistently across government. That’s why Mr. Loukidelis, a former Information and Privacy Commissioner himself, a former Deputy Attorney General, is coming in — to make sure that we are able to bring all of those recommendations to life and make sure that it’s happening in a transparent way throughout the public service.

When the member talks about dividends, she raises an issue that should be talked about — 1,000 new child care spaces, a B.C. early childhood tax benefit, a B.C. training and education savings grant, a B.C. access grant, a single-parent employment initiative and the lowest overall provincial taxes in Canada, which means we leave more money in people’s pockets to spend how they see fit rather than think that government can spend it better for them.

That is a real, tangible dividend for the people of British Columbia. If you want to talk about confidence in who is going to grow the economy, who is going to put working people on jobsites, who is going to make sure there is a future, a great future, for people’s kids across our province, it’s this government. Those are the things we believe in. It’s our platform, it’s our plan, and it’s what we’re executing on every single day.

Madame Speaker: Kootenay West on a supplemental.

K. Conroy: And the highest child poverty in the country for how many years in a row? Let’s not forget that one.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner said: “I would have expected that staff…in the Office of the Premier would have a better understanding of…their obligation to file, retain and provide relevant records when an access request is received.” In other words, John Dyble, the Premier’s choice to lead the public service, should know better. Yet for more than two years, he failed to retain a single record on the biggest human resources crisis in B.C.

My question is to the Premier. How is it possible that the man she picked to solve the culture of delete in her office failed to keep any records on a human resources
[ Page 9846 ]
debacle that cost a man his life and will cost taxpayers millions?

Hon. C. Clark: As I commented a little bit earlier today, Mr. Dyble was not the decision-maker, so those records were kept elsewhere. Those records, though, have been sent to the Ombudsman’s office, and the Ombudsman is looking through all those records as part of his investigation. We look forward to that concluding and the public release of all of those records.

With respect to poverty, I do want to just correct the record on that. Seventy-five thousand children have been lifted out of poverty. We have seen the poverty rate for children in this province decline by 41 percent, the second-lowest poverty rate in British Columbia since 1980, long before the NDP ever saw the government side of the House.

[1430]

What we understand…. The way we were able to change the terrible rate on child poverty produced under a decade of NDP government was to focus on growing the economy, creating opportunities for people to be lifted out of poverty and then targeting supports to people who really need them.

The difference between us and them is this. What they focus on is trying to just make it a little more comfortable, a little easier, for people to stay in poverty. What we believe in is trying to lift people out of poverty, to try and change that cycle and fix those issues in their lives forever.

HIGHWAY 16 ISSUES AND
GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING

S. Fraser: Chief Terry Teegee of the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, who lost a cousin on the Highway of Tears, says that the commissioner’s revelations have “shaken our confidence in how government are treating the whole Highway of Tears initiative.”

Why should anyone trust the Premier, when the B.C. Liberal government’s track record is to put their political gain, their political coverage, ahead of the lives of the women on the Highway of Tears?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, on behalf of the government of British Columbia, and certainly as the minister responsible for Transportation, I want to once again reiterate the fact that we acknowledge the history and the pain that has been experienced by far too many families who live up and down Highway 16. This is why we have worked very hard for many years — in fact, predating my time as the minister responsible — on a wide range of initiatives.

I have spoken about a number of these initiatives in the past: the transit services which are in place, about $1.5 million per year, that connect a number of communities; the Northern Health bus, which is funded at about $2 million per year; the web portal that was established, which connects people to all of the available resources; the $75,000 that’s been provided to the Carrier-Sekani for driver education and training.

I will say this again. There is more to do. That is why, in partnership with the First Nations Health Authority, we are very proud to be co-hosting, co-sponsoring, a symposium in November in Smithers where, again, we will be bringing together representatives of all the First Nations, local governments and other stakeholders to further assess and discuss and identify initiatives which will make that corridor even safer.

Madame Speaker: Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: The minister’s political staff destroyed key information relating to a decision made on the Highway of Tears by this government that could affect the lives of the women in the north. The Coalition on Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women is outraged at the fact that the B.C. Liberals deliberately destroyed records regarding the Highway of Tears.

Like the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, and like the families of the missing and murdered women, they are all shocked by the actions of this minister, of this Premier and this Liberal government. They’re asking the government to formally apologize to the families of the murdered and missing for the wilful destruction of the e-mails and reports related to the Highway of Tears.

Will the Premier stand in this House today and do just that and apologize to those families?

Hon. T. Stone: The member opposite — in fact, the opposition — needs to, at some point, understand that official records, decision documents, reside in the ministry. All of the records that the members opposite are referring to exist. They exist. They’re retained. They’re saved. They’re available for FOI purposes in the ministry.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair needs to hear the question and the answer.

[1435]

Hon. T. Stone: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I would also like to take this opportunity…. We have acknowledged — the commissioner in her determination that there were 36 pages of a request that was made back in February — that the scope was too narrow on that request. So we’re very much working to produce those documents. But I also think it’s important, for the record, to reiterate for this House that since 2012, there have been six FOI requests on the topic of Highway 16, totalling over 600 pages of information. Three of these requests were loaded onto open gov., and three were in-
[ Page 9847 ]
formation that was sent right to the requesters. I know this because I have the material here in my hands.

There are over 600 pages of material, mostly un-redacted, on Highway 16 — FOI requests — which have been released to requesters or have been posted on open gov. to this point. To simply suggest that there is any attempt on the government’s part to withhold key information is simply not true.

GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING
AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

M. Farnworth: In this House today, we have asked the Premier about missing e-mails and information requests related to one of the most awful human resource issues in this province that resulted in the death of an individual. The Premier felt that that was not worthy of a response.

We have asked questions in this House related to the Highway of Tears and missing women. Again, the Premier felt those questions were not worthy of a response.

We have asked questions related to other issues around the retention of information that are supposed to comply with the act, of freedom of information. The Premier has not thought those worthy of a response. Can she explain that to this House?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, there are a number of processes underway, as the member knows. The Ombudsman’s report is underway. He is in receipt of many records that would otherwise immediately be available under freedom of information, I believe, as part of his work. Those documents, those records, will be released when he says they can be released.

In addition to that, our government is making sure that we give life to the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner. There’s no one better, I don’t think, in the country than David Loukidelis to make sure that we do that, ensuring that there’s proper training across government and making sure that the act is being consistently applied all across government. That’s what we’re hiring him to do, and I can’t think of anyone better to do that.

I have given those answers a number of times. I don’t think it’s fair for the member to assume that he knows what I think and what I feel, because I have done my best to answer all the questions that have been put here today.

Those processes are underway. We look forward to their conclusion. There is more to do, and Mr. Loukidelis will draw us a road map of how we make sure we get that done.

MRI WAITING TIMES IN
FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY

J. Darcy: Peter McQuade, who lives in Surrey, has been in severe pain since April of this year. His doctors said from the very start that he needs an MRI to diagnose the source of his pain, but because the wait-lists in Fraser Health are so long, he’s going to have to wait until April 2016.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Why does Peter have to wait almost a year in order to find out why he’s suffering from such unbearable pain?

Hon. T. Lake: As always, physicians have the ability to ensure that if someone needs an emergent diagnostic procedure, they will have it right away. In Fraser Health, we have performed an additional 800 surgeries and an additional 3,400 MRIs between January and March of this year.

[1440]

We do recognize, however, that there are people waiting longer than we would like for some of these procedures. We’re working very hard with all of our health authorities to make sure we can reduce those wait times, and I’m confident that we can do that.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: Peter McQuade is not alone. There are thousands of other British Columbians like him, and many of them are waiting even longer than Peter. Some are being booked into 2017. In fact, the notification that Peter and other patients receive for their booking says, “Please note the year of the appointment” — the year. Why? Because some patients are actually showing up a year earlier than the time of their appointment.

The government’s own benchmarks say that no one should have to wait more than 60 days for an MRI, and that’s for the least urgent cases. Yet according to an FOI request about Fraser Health filed by the official opposition, the government is only meeting its own benchmark in Fraser Health in 15 percent of the cases — 15 percent.

Surely, we can do better. Peter McQuade is suffering. And it’s not a laughing matter. Peter McQuade is suffering. He can’t get treatment until he gets a proper diagnosis.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Why is this government not even meeting its own benchmark for MRI wait times?

Hon. T. Lake: In fact, the number of MRIs done in British Columbia since 2001 has more than tripled, so we are doing far more MRI procedures than ever before. However, we understand, with an aging population, particularly, that we have to increase the number of MRIs available. I have asked my ministry to work with all the health authorities and ensure that we can reduce those wait times.

I recognize that in health care, we always can do better. We have one of the best-performing health care systems in Canada, but we’re not going to settle there. We’re going to continue to improve our system to make sure all British Columbians get the best health care in the world.
[ Page 9848 ]

FUNDING FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES

S. Robinson: Maple Ridge school board has had to choose between window coverings for portables and services for students. As a result, teachers have been asked if they could find some cardboard, cut it to shape and prepare it for use as window coverings. That way, if they need to shade the windows from sunlight to keep out the heat of the day or they have to shade so that the classroom can actually see the overhead projector, they can simply tack up the cardboard to cover the windows.

In fact, as part of keeping our children safe, it’s protocol in the event of a lockdown to close blinds so that any potential intruder cannot see into the classroom. But at this Maple Ridge school, teachers were told that in the event of a lockdown, the teacher is supposed to quickly tack this cardboard up so that the intruder cannot see the students in the classroom.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Will he admit that his government’s so-called administrative savings are affecting our kids’ classrooms and stop underfunding our education system so that schools like these in Maple Ridge can have proper window coverings, like blinds, instead of cardboard?

Hon. M. Bernier: Actually, on this side of the House, one of the things we’re really proud about is the fact that we work well with the parents, we work well with the teachers, and we work well with the school districts in the province. In fact, we’ve invested more than $1.4 billion in the last few years just on improved schools, working on seismic, working on safety in the classrooms.

One thing is important to mention here. What’s really important is the positiveness that we have on this side of the House when we talk about the education system. What’s unfortunate is we always have to hear the NDP besmirch the system.

[1445]

You want to talk about outcomes, you talk about what happens in the schools. We’re rolling out a new curriculum. Why? Because we’re educating our students today. We’re educating them for the jobs of today and tomorrow. If it wasn’t for this side of the House, if these people were in government, there wouldn’t be jobs tomorrow. So I want to thank this side of the House for the great work our members are doing.

[End of question period.]

Hon. A. Virk: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Virk: I’ve had two classes visiting me from my constituency today, the grade 5 classes from Surrey Christian School. We’ve had Ms. Hofstede’s grade 5 class and Ms. Kay’s grade 5 class.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued debate on Motion 26.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 26 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION REPORT PROPOSALS

(continued)

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

M. Mungall: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to the motion to receive the report from the Electoral Boundaries Commission, as they are proposing to change the electoral boundaries for the upcoming 2017 election.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the commission for their work. It’s not an easy job to look at the map of B.C. and look at how our electoral boundaries are shaped and what they need to do to rework those boundaries to ensure that people are represented — that we have a strong representation by population but also by region — and to hear from people right across this province in terms of how their communities connect, how they work together in terms of what they do on a day-to-day basis, just living and working together in their communities on the variety of issues that they may have.

For example, in Nelson-Creston, agriculture is a very important issue in my area — and how the Creston Valley connects and works together on the issue of agriculture and how they want to see them stay together in working on that issue and with their elected representative.

It’s not an easy task for the commission to go out and speak with four million people on how they’d like to see their electoral boundaries look, in terms of how that impacts their representation. Not an easy task, but they did it, and they did it well.

They had some constraints this time around, as we all know. One of the things that they had to take into consideration is that there were 11 ridings, I believe — 11 rural ridings — that were not going to be changed whatsoever. They were going to be protected regardless of whether their population met the average or even the re-
[ Page 9849 ]
quirements under the Election Act, historically, in terms of their population.

[1450]

For example, what the Election Act says is that constituencies cannot deviate from the average by more than plus or minus 25 percent. That’s no longer the case for those particular rural ridings, and Nelson-Creston is one of those ridings.

We didn’t see much of the Boundary Commission this time around. We did engage with them back in 2007, 2008, when they were redrafting the boundaries at that time. They came through Nelson and Creston to hear what we had to say about the boundaries.

The original proposal would have taken four ridings out of the Kootenays and only had three ridings. Some of the things that we said at the time and that still hold true today — maybe not to the extent that we’re seeing with this current map, but they do hold true — are that we do have to create a balance between representation by population and the regional realities that are here in Canada and particularly in British Columbia.

We don’t want the people in rural areas to be at a disservice of having good representation simply because there is a sparse population in their region, and it could take you two or three hours to get to your representative because of that sparse population.

It’s fair to say that we do need to have regional representation, and that’s why we had the plus or minus of 25 percent. Nelson-Creston now and in this particular report is actually at minus 30.5 percent from the average. So we’re deviating by 30.5 percent, and that means that our total population in Nelson-Creston is 36,907.

I can appreciate that if we increased the size of Nelson-Creston to perhaps the former boundaries of what it was under my predecessor — the MLA for Nelson-Creston at the time, Corky Evans — the Slocan Valley was included in Nelson-Creston right up to Nakusp. I know today I still feel some challenges in being able to get out to all the communities I represent as much as I would like to. And I couldn’t imagine having that much larger a riding. But we do it. We see our federal counterparts do it. So we do make it work.

Right now, with the deviation of minus 30.5, there is a little bit of concern that maybe Nelson-Creston is being over-represented, but I think that’s more of a discussion for another day.

Right now, it’s about the commission’s report, what they’ve done and the fact that they had quite the challenge on their hands to comply to the constraints that were imposed on them by this government but also to meet the requirements of the Election Act and ensure that they have sufficient public input. I do think that they met the task that was before them and we have a good electoral boundaries proposal from them at this stage.

If I can, I would like to speak about Nelson-Creston under the current electoral boundaries that are going to be maintained in this report. Of course, I know that there are 84 other MLAs in this chamber that are very assertive that they represent the best riding in British Columbia, but the truth is that Nelson-Creston is actually the best riding in British Columbia for many reasons.

The geography. We can start there with the geography. Nelson-Creston is 13,212 square kilometres. On the east side, it goes all the way to Yahk in the Creston Valley, then heads north through the Purcells and all the way around the north end of Duncan Lake, comes back south past Kaslo, then heads west at Balfour and takes in the west arm of Kootenay Lake.

Heading past Salmo to South Slocan, just before you meet the junction between Highway 3A and Highway 6, it cuts off. Highway 6 belongs to my good neighbour, the MLA for Kootenay West. She has Mount Sentinel School on her side of the line. For those who are watching back home wondering where that line is, it’s just the property line between Mount Sentinel School and the Twelve Tribes farm.

[1455]

Then it goes south from there, down to the U.S. border, and includes Salmo and the surrounding areas in the district of Salmo. We don’t include Fruitvale or Montrose or Warfield. Those are part of Kootenay West. But we do have some of the rural communities just outside of Salmo, closer to the Bombi junction. Those are the boundaries.

But what’s really amazing about Nelson-Creston are those 13,212 square kilometres inside the boundaries. Like I said, the Purcells are on the boundary on the east side. Then throughout the entire riding, we have the beautiful Selkirk Mountains, which are a very old mountain range, not as high and as rocky as the peaks of the Rocky Mountains but more of a rolling mountain. They are absolutely stunning to look at. We’re surrounded by them. They’re very, very tight as well.

We don’t have large valleys. Kootenay Lake, over the last millions of years that it has been forming, has not provided a large valley. In fact, it’s a very narrow valley. As a result, it’s not necessarily an easy riding to navigate. In fact, the longest straight stretch in Nelson-Creston is a whole 3.4 kilometres.

A little while ago, I put a contest on Facebook for people to guess where that 3.4 kilometres is. There were some really wonderful guesses — all the way from a straight stretch that is between Creston and Yahk and another straight stretch that is at the north end of Kootenay Lake to another one closer to Salmo, between Nelson and Salmo, on Highway 6. In fact, where it is, is on the Creston flats. This is one area where we do have a little bit of a larger valley — on the Creston flats. That’s why you have the longer straight stretch.

This is the historical drainage essentially produced by the Kootenay River flowing into Kootenay Lake. Historically, this area would flood every year and produce some of the most amazing wetlands, and it would recede every year as
[ Page 9850 ]
the spring runoff from the mountains discontinued. The water would recede, and the Kootenay River would continue to flow into Kootenay Lake. The water would pull back. Historically, the First Nations would collect a lot of the natural vegetation in that area for their food.

Nowadays we see farmers who have come into the valley. In fact, Creston was originally settled…. The First Nations settled it and were living in the area, and then the European settlers came in. They settled it in a way that was a bit different than the rest of the riding. I’ll come back to what brought Europeans to the rest of the riding.

What brought Europeans to the Creston Valley was that farming potential that resulted from the Kootenay River receding and depositing incredible amounts of nutrients onto the land base around the Kootenay River in what is the Creston Valley.

It’s still a tight valley, but my goodness, doesn’t it produce some of the best food you’ll ever eat, hon. Speaker? This is one of the contributing factors that makes Nelson-Creston the best riding in British Columbia. I’m sorry. I know you represent the wonderful riding of Burnaby-Edmonds, and it is fantastic. But Nelson-Creston is just a little bit better. One of the reasons….

I have MLAs from other areas who are insisting their riding is actually better than Nelson-Creston. I hate to disappoint, but Nelson-Creston, I do believe, does remain the best riding.

One of the reasons, as I was going to say, is the food that’s produced in the Creston Valley. It truly is remarkable. The best asparagus you’ll ever eat comes from Sutcliffe Farms — yes, colleagues do know this to be true — which grows this asparagus right on the Creston flats, on the Kootenay Lake flats that I was just describing. They grow it right there, and it truly is just remarkable.

[1500]

It is crisp. It is fresh. It’s just vibrancy as you bite into this asparagus. The same can be said for the carrots that are grown out in Canyon. And of course, the dairy production that exists all throughout the Kootenay valley is, bar none, some of the best dairy you’ll ever eat, as well, because of what the cows are eating. The cows are eating the hay that is grown in the Creston Valley. They’re eating the grasses that grow up from this mineral-rich soil in the Creston Valley.

It would be terrible for me to leave this chamber at the end of my time without mentioning the cherries of the Creston Valley. Then, of course, I know the apple growers and the strawberry growers and everybody else is going to be quite upset with me. But we all know that Creston is well known for its cherries. Again, it’s that richness of the Creston Valley and the water that exists in our area that allows us to produce all this phenomenal food, including those amazing cherries that people love to stop for in cherry season.

I will remind members that the world’s best juice is produced from those cherries. That’s right. The best cherry juice is being produced by my friends Susan and Gary Snow. It’s called Tabletree cherry juice. They truly did win the award for the world’s best juice. The year following that, they won the award for the world’s best apple juice. So I’m not kidding when I say some of the best food you’ll ever eat comes from the Creston Valley.

You might think that the Creston Valley is not able to grow citrus fruit, but you’d be wrong, because the Creston Valley is growing citrus fruit in their greenhouses. You can even get oranges and limes and lemons. The farmers there are very creative in experimenting with citrus fruits.

You can pretty much get anything you’d like to eat from the Creston Valley. And that’s all within 100 kilometres — or 100 miles, as the 100-mile diet goes. I’ve brought that up here in this House before. One of the things that makes Nelson-Creston so great is that you can have a full 100-mile diet in Nelson-Creston because we also produce grains. We have amazing grain growers as well.

I don’t just say it. I try to live it as much as I possibly can in my home. My husband and I, when we got married in 2011, wanted to show our family the wonderful abundance of the Kootenays and everything that can grow within 100 miles of our house. We hosted a 100-mile wedding feast. Everything that we served came from the Kootenays, 100 miles of Nelson. Most notably, pretty much 95 percent of that came from the Creston Valley.

Being able to have that lifestyle is great. It really shows that the connection between Creston and Nelson is right on our dinner plate. What’s on our dinner plates is very important to policy and government decision-making and representation. That’s why Nelson-Creston continues to be a riding where these two communities — these two important communities in the Kootenays — are linked.

Just to share with you some of the history of when that link first took place, it was 1933 when the riding of Nelson-Creston first appeared on the hustings in the general election. It appeared after a redistribution of that time. It was just the riding of Nelson, and there was a riding of Creston. So there were more ridings, and the population was smaller. In fact, Frank Putnam won that election in 1933 with 50 percent of the vote. So 2,489 people voted for Frank. There was a total of 5,162 voters.

Now contrast that with the last election. We have about 26,000 registered voters in Nelson-Creston. A good percentage of them…. We see about 60 to 70 percent of people coming out to vote. Contrast that with only 5,000 voters. Now we have 26,000 people who are registered to vote in Nelson-Creston.

[1505]

In that same election, in 1933, that was also a significant year for the predecessor to the New Democratic Party. The Co-operative Commonwealth Federation was founded in that year, and they ran a candidate in Nelson-Creston. For as long as Nelson-Creston has been around, the New Democratic Party and its predecessor, the CCF, have also been running candidates.
[ Page 9851 ]

In 1933, the candidate for the CCF garnered 23 percent of the vote. It’s a little bit different now. We’re the successor to the CCF — the NDP. We garner about 50 to…. I think our highest total, in 2005 with Corky Evans, was 60 percent. We’ve come a long way, just like the riding of Nelson-Creston has come a long way.

I do want to acknowledge that it was 1953 that saw the highest voter turnout for Nelson-Creston. Now, Nelson-Creston — typically, we retain the right to brag that we always have high voter turnouts. We always have a higher voter turnout than the provincial average. Right now that provincial average sits at about 52 or 53 percent, and we’re 10 percentage points above that, at around 63 percent. Unfortunately, that’s not where we have been historically. Our highest was in 1953, at 88 percent voter turnout — 88 percent. I truly think that is amazing. The Social Credit won the election of the day in 1953.

That high voter turnout, I think, is a real credit to Nelson-Creston. I think we need to do our very best in any future election to get back up to 88 percent or more. That would be amazing to see — more than 88 percent. I think we need to set ourselves a goal in Nelson-Creston to achieve that 1953 high of 88 percent voter turnout. Only good things happen when people come out to vote. That’s democracy in action — absolutely.

I spoke a little bit about one of my predecessors, Corky Evans, and I talked about other predecessors — Frank Putnam, for example. But I’ve had the privilege of actually meeting four of my predecessors.

First let me talk about Lorne Nicolson, who represented Nelson-Creston — again, with different boundaries than what’s being proposed here in this report. But it was the Nelson-Creston riding. He represented Nelson-Creston from 1972 through to 1986.

In 1973 — I believe it was, if I’m remembering my history books correctly — Lorne was named the Minister of Housing under the Dave Barrett government. It was quite an honour for Nelson-Creston to have a minister in the government and to be representing an issue that is so important to our region — and to anybody in British Columbia. But the people in Nelson-Creston have a real passion for affordable housing, so it was very wonderful for us to see somebody who understood that passion be able to take what we have in Nelson-Creston, which is a commitment to affordable housing, and be able to take that responsibility forward for the rest of British Columbia as well.

Lorne, though…. While I said he was elected in 1972, that wasn’t the first year he ran. He ran in 1969, at the same age I first ran for Nelson-Creston — at 31 years old. So Lorne was a young man while he was in the cabinet of Dave Barrett and representing Nelson-Creston. I have the honour of being a younger woman in the House — second-youngest. I’m very happy to pass the torch of youngest woman in the House on to my colleague the member for Burnaby-Lougheed.

Lorne was a young man when he first ran for Nelson-Creston, and I have been very, very privileged to get to know him in recent years as a mentor to me, since I was elected in 2009. Lorne has a deep passion for the Kootenays and a deep commitment to social justice.

[1510]

Every election you see him there, because that passion for the Kootenays, that passion for social justice, he believes, is best met in his work in the democratic process. He never shies away from working in the democratic process. I’ve learned so much from Lorne over the years, and I’m so proud to be able to be filling his shoes, so to speak. He has done such a service to the Kootenays in representing us for a total of 14 years.

Another predecessor that I had the privilege of meeting was Howard Dirks. Now, he was representing Nelson-Creston for the Social Credit Party from 1986 to 1991. I got to know Howard when he was the executive director for the Nelson and district economic development partnership. When I was first elected to city council in 2002, Mr. Dirks had that position. I met him at that time and got to know him through his work in terms of economic development for the area. He worked very hard for the area in that position. I saw that firsthand.

I have no doubt that he had that same work ethic when he was an MLA for five years from 1986 to 1991. I didn’t get to see that firsthand. If I was living in the Kootenays, I would have been eight years old when he was first elected. I would have appreciated knowing my MLA at the time, but I would not necessarily have had the full breadth of understanding of everything that he was doing for the region at the time. No doubt he was working very hard and serving the people of Nelson-Creston very well. I thank him for doing that.

I’ll also mention another MLA before I get to the biggest shoes that I have to fill. An MLA named Blair Suffredine represented Nelson-Creston from 2001 to 2005. He certainly made his mark on this seat at that time. He was actually preceded by and succeeded by somebody who is without a doubt a legend in British Columbia politics.

It doesn’t matter where I go in B.C. People always ask me: “How is he doing? How is Corky?” That’s right. Corky Evans represented Nelson-Creston with a larger boundary set than what we see here in the Electoral Boundaries Commission motion that we’re speaking to today. He represented a larger boundary, which included the Slocan Valley and Nakusp, from 1991 to 2001 and again from 2005 to 2009.

Corky…. I’m going to just call him by his first name throughout this speech, because he is a friend and another mentor of mine. Corky was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forests, and he was the Chair of the Legislature’s Select Standing Committee on Forests, Mines and Petroleum Resources when he first entered the chamber. He was given some substantial re-
[ Page 9852 ]
sponsibilities right from the beginning. Of course, his ability to meet those responsibilities was very clear. Not surprisingly, he became the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Following that, he also had the post of Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

After his first leadership race, he advocated…. Pardon me, his second leadership race. This was his second leadership race, and I’ll come back to that. After his second leadership race…. During the race, he was advocating for a ministry of rural development, looking at…. The economic development and the social development and the environmental needs of rural B.C. were distinct and different than what was happening in urban areas, and we needed to put a very specific lens on that.

Corky advocated for that very successfully and became the Minister for Rural Development following that leadership race, which he didn’t win. That’s democracy. That’s why we participate. He became the Minister for Rural Development. Not long after that, heading into the 2001 election, Corky was the Minister of Health and for Seniors.

As I mentioned, my predecessor ran for the leadership of the New Democratic Party not once, as is the case for most people who have a go at that, but twice. That shows, to me, his commitment to the people that he served.

[1515]

I know that nobody disagrees with that — Corky’s commitment to the people that he served and to bringing those ideas forward and to having the debate, having the discussion, and to being a part of leadership in our party and in our province. Corky never shied away from that, and he still doesn’t today. So not surprisingly, when time came to consider a new leader for the New Democratic Party, Corky stepped up. He stepped up, and you see him…. He wasn’t elected as leader, but he stepped up. He served this party well, and he served the region well.

I see that my time is already up. I have so much more that I could say about Corky Evans and so much more that I could say about the best riding in British Columbia. I’m going to have to reserve those remarks for the next opportunity I can get to speak about Nelson-Creston. It is truly an amazing place that I hope all members of the House will take the opportunity to frequent for some vacation time.

One of the things that we do very well in the Kootenays is celebrate our region and provide a really wonderful opportunity to relax, enjoy and have fun. We also have the longest free ferry ride in the world, in part because of the work that Corky Evans did to make sure that we have the Osprey ferry going back and forth between Balfour and Kootenay Landing on the East Shore of Kootenay Lake.

When people come to visit the beautiful, beautiful area of Nelson-Creston…. Stop in Creston, have a wonderful meal, get some cherries. Stop in Nelson, enjoy the restaurants, enjoy the beaches. And make sure that you get on the Osprey ferry for the longest free ferry ride in the world. You will not regret it.

If you get an opportunity and you see Corky Evans or Howard Dirks or Lorne Nicolson or Blair Suffredine or myself on Baker Street, do say hello. That’s the way we roll in the Kootenays. We’re friendly. We like to have a lot of fun, and we always welcome visitors to come to what is truly the best riding in all of British Columbia. I’m sorry to disappoint 84 other members, but it is true. Nelson-Creston is the best place you can be in British Columbia.

S. Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this most important issue. Although it doesn’t affect my riding directly — it remains unchanged — it has had a significant effect on a number of people that sit in this chamber. I guess we’re going to be introduced to two more after the next election. I don’t know where we’re going to fit them all in, but I’m sure we will manage to squeeze.

Of course, we know that British Columbia is a province that has vastly different areas. They range in density of population between urban centres and highly remote rural regions.

In Canada, electoral districts are based primarily on population and a formula known as the electoral quotient. The electoral quotient is an average population per electoral district, and it’s calculated by dividing the provincial population by the number of electoral districts.

Now, I’m not going to drone on for 30 minutes. I don’t have the capacity to say anything more in this House than has already been said on the issue of the Boundaries Commission’s decision to modify the jurisdictions in the province. As a matter of fact, we have heard a lot. We’ve heard a significant amount, and people in this gallery watching us and people watching on television must be wondering what in the world it is we’re doing here.

Having listened to the opposition speak to some extent about this particular issue, I think I know this province more intimately now than I ever did before. Corky Evans was a gentleman that the member opposite just spoke about who I never met, but I know him intimately now. He seems like a very nice fellow. Some day, when I do meet him, I’ll have to remind him of all the time that was spent talking about him here in this chamber.

We’ve had history lessons. We’ve had geography lessons. We’ve had lessons on demographics. We know all about the service organizations in just about every community in this province. Of course, they do incredible work. I’m glad to be part of a community with a very strong sense of duty when it comes to the service organizations that continually support all of the efforts that are so needed to every community.

[1520]

We need organizations like that regularly and volunteers in a community. They’re the heart and soul of every community, no less in mine. It’s very, very important that we support their efforts, because communities are much richer and more vibrant as a result of the efforts
[ Page 9853 ]
put forward by our volunteers. We really could not survive without them.

Hypothetically, if the population of British Columbia was 100 people, let’s say — and this is the way it’s all going to work out in terms of how we define the sizes of our jurisdictions and our constituencies — the province would then be divided into ten electoral districts, and you’d wind up having ten people residing in each riding. It’s pretty simple.

The riding of Delta North, as the riding of Delta South, has been pretty consistent over the years. We haven’t changed very much. While I guess I’m glad that my boundaries haven’t changed with any significance — actually they haven’t changed at all — as I mentioned before, we do have some members in this House whose boundaries have changed quite significantly.

I have an immense amount of appreciation for the work that every member in this chamber who comes from a rural part of the province does — the amount of time they have to travel. I think the member for Peace River South mentioned to me that for him to drive from one end of his riding to the other takes him some eight hours, from the longest point. That’s very, very significant. It’s very, very difficult to service a riding — one MLA — that size.

The importance of maintaining the ability to properly represent a geographical area — I’m glad the commission took this into consideration and, as a result, decided to make sure that there were no changes to that type of representation.

Personally, a riding like mine I can transit from one end to the next, at its longest point, in about 12 minutes. There are some ridings that are even more densely populated, and you can walk from one end of the riding to the next in just about the same amount of time.

The important thing to remember, though, is that if we have roughly the same number of constituents in each riding, they still have to be properly represented. Even if a riding, geographically, is substantial and the number of constituents in that riding is less, I think it’s just as important that they be properly served. Whatever we can do to help with respect to resources in each constituency, I think, would be welcomed.

In addition, due to the population increases in the Lower Mainland, specifically, the commission is recommending an increase from 85 seats in this House to 87. If my fellow members think it was crowded before, as I mentioned, we’re going to be bulging at the seams here eventually.

I really don’t have much more to say about this. I’d just as soon let other members speak. But again, pretty much everything that has to be said on this issue has been said. I think we’ve canvassed it quite significantly in this House. I look forward to listening to further debate, but for now, I will conclude my comments.

V. Huntington: I appreciate that Delta South and Delta North are able to address this issue simultaneously, almost, in the House. It’s a pleasure to follow the member for Delta North.

I’m pleased to speak to the resolution: “Be it resolved that…the proposals contained in the Final Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission tabled in the Legislative Assembly on September 28, 2015 be approved.”

I hadn’t originally intended on speaking to this motion. I felt that because my riding had been fortunate enough not to be changed, there wasn’t much I could add to the debate. However, two situations prompted a change of heart. One was meeting the House Leader for the official opposition in the hall and listening to his wise words that advised me that this was an opportunity to speak about my riding and about the meaning of the Electoral Boundaries Commission to the province of British Columbia.

[1525]

Perhaps I’ll take this opportunity to say that my thanks are very sincere for the time that the member for Port Coquitlam has given me over the years in mentoring me in this House. The Opposition House Leader is the individual with whom I have the most official contact. I could not have proceeded as well as I have managed to in the House without his very congenial and helpful advice over the years.

As an independent, I don’t sit with a caucus. I don’t have that natural support a caucus brings to its members. That was recognized from the very first day by the member for Port Coquitlam, who has eased me into this job in the most admirable of fashions. I am indebted to him for that.

The second reason that I decided to speak was because I had been listening to the members during the course of this debate, and I began to realize just how well served we were as a House and as a province by the electoral boundaries commissioners.

Even though they were deliberating within a confined mandate, these commissioners seemed to have understood the importance of community and the importance of listening to people from communities who were concerned that their personalities might be changed — not their personal personalities but the personalities of their neighbourhoods, of their homes, of their communities, of their towns and cities and villages — as a result of decisions made by outsiders.

The commissioners listened diligently to these comments and, I think, have done a great service to the province and to its people in the deliberations that they have recommended to this House. They’ve done a wonderful job, and we owe them a debt of gratitude.

Not so much can we say the same thing, particularly in the case of my federal riding, of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission. Delta South has been treated like a soccer ball over the years federally. Whether you call
[ Page 9854 ]
it gerrymandering or trying to fit populations into one another, I believe the decisions have been made without any application of the comments made to the commissioners over the years, the federal commissioners, by community members or by their representatives, by the way. I was privileged enough to have written the comments from one of the MPs when the Boundaries Commission was considering a change to the federal riding of Delta.

Since 1988, Delta has had so many different names that we’re totally confused. We feel that everybody else is totally confused about what we are. We know what we are, but we haven’t thought that the federal commissioners of the day recognized what we were.

We have been called Fraser Valley West. We’ve been Richmond–South Delta, Surrey–White Rock–North Delta. In 1996, we became Delta South–Richmond. Then it was Newton–North Delta. Then it was Delta. Then it was Delta–Richmond East, and now once again, we’re Delta, which is what we want to be. We’re Delta. North Delta and south Delta, from a municipal point of view, from a federally constructed point of view as a riding, is Delta, and that’s what we would like to stay. We have no faith, however, given the history of our name changes, that that will happen.

At least provincially, Delta South and Delta North are different, distinct and preserved. We have been since at least 1991. It gives stability to the ridings, to the people, and it gives comfort to the population to know that their communities are stable and are recognized as such provincially and by the Boundaries Commission.

How can we say it? It gives one pride to stand up. I’m sure the member for North Delta feels the same. I certainly do as the member for Delta South. It gives us pride to stand up and say that we represent those communities and that those communities make up one, the municipality of Delta.

Delta North and Delta South are divided almost equally by population. But far more than population, they’re divided by personality and geography.

[1530]

Delta North is basically a suburban, urbanized community with a large industrial component of Annacis Island. Delta South, however, has two smaller suburban communities in Ladner and in Tsawwassen, both of whom have distinct personalities themselves and who divide the bulk of the population in south Delta between them.

Ladner and Tsawwassen are divided and surrounded by agricultural land, all of which is surrounded on three sides by water — the Fraser River, Boundary Bay and the Georgia Strait.

It’s a very unique community, a community that we have huge pride in and that we love very dearly. It’s a unique community, because it is also the environmental heart of the Lower Mainland — indeed, I think, of the Fraser Valley.

It is, as so many people in this House have heard me say over and over again…. Delta is a Pacific migratory bird flyway. Without Delta, there would not be the flyway. That is why I speak so often about it, because we are in danger of losing the habitat that supports millions and millions of birds and the habitat that supports the great salmon migrations of the world.

The Fraser River delta is south Delta. Well, I should say it’s south Delta and Richmond, but Sturgeon Bank is not what I represent, although I would certainly love to. It gets very little time in this House. But Roberts Bank wildlife management area and Boundary Bay wildlife management area are areas that I try and recognize in this House as often as I can, for without them, we lose so much. We lose the greatest wildlife migrations in the continent. Do we have a moral right to even contemplate that loss, let alone engage in it? The members will hear me, over and over again, warn them that we are in danger of losing that legacy.

But in addition to the agricultural lands, Delta South also has the Tilbury industrial area. So between Annacis Island and Tilbury industrial areas, we have the two largest industrial areas in the Lower Mainland. Delta is indeed unique in everything that it provides and becomes to the Lower Mainland.

The problem is, in south Delta — and to some extent, north Delta, but less so — we’re struggling with the demand to develop the agricultural land reserve. We’re struggling with the demands that are enabled by a province that hasn’t put its foot down about development on the agricultural land reserve, indeed, which supports development in some regions of this province on that land reserve — land which is so vital to the future of this province, of our population and of the country in general.

In talking about Delta South, I can say that when you include Burns Bog, when you include the Fraser River, when you include the Fraser estuary, the agricultural lands, Boundary Bay wildlife management area, we are talking about something that is absolutely vital to the health of this country.

In Delta, next to the Boundary Bay wildlife management area and just south of the Boundary Bay Airport, is a raptor management reserve. Very few people know that this raptor management reserve exists. Delta has the largest concentration of raptors in Canada, yet we are constantly playing and building upon the habitat that supports these raptors. With the South Fraser Perimeter Road and Tsawwassen Springs development alone, 30 percent of the old field habitat in Delta disappeared — two developments, 30 percent, one of them heavily supported and built by the province. How can we continue to allow that type of habitat destruction to continue?

If you want eagles in the Lower Mainland, you’ve got to protect the habitat in Delta South, and it’s that simple. If you want to see a harrier, you’ve got to protect the habitat in Delta South, and you if want to go out right now
[ Page 9855 ]
and see 100,000 snow geese on the farmland, you have to protect the habitat of Delta South.

I will not rest until somebody in this House, on that side of the House, recognizes the fact that if they don’t step up to the plate and protect Delta South, there’s going to be a disaster, an environmental disaster, that will be on their shoulders.

[1535]

Lastly, I’d like to just comment on the member for West Vancouver–Capilano’s comments on this motion. We were chatting today in the rotunda, and I said to the member that I agreed with his position that this House has to start looking at a different way of distributing the population, of representing the people of this province.

We can’t continue ad infinitum to add members to this House. I don’t think the people would stand for us building a new institution. They love this one. We love this one. It is a glorious building, and we should be protecting it as a right of everyone’s heritage in this province.

We’re filling it up now. It’s reaching its capacity, I believe, although I must say that the Opposition House Leader thinks we could go to benches and do well. Well, maybe that’s what we’ll end up doing if we continue adding members.

However, I think we have to sit down in an atmosphere of discussion and conversation, not debate. We need to sit down in a non-partisan manner. We need to talk about how we can represent the people of this province without adding exponentially to the members of this institution as the years go by.

I think we need to look at: do we do what the Americans have done, for instance? Do we give larger budgets so that we can hire more individuals and have more offices to serve the population in a riding? Is that how we handle the increase in population? How do we do this?

I can’t answer that. There are other ways in the world that they have discovered — new processes and new ways of representation — but we need to do that. We need to think about it, and we need to do it in a non-partisan manner, a conversation rather than a restricted debate.

So with that, I’ll sit down and just once again compliment the Electoral Boundaries Commission on the very fine work it has done for the people of British Columbia.

D. Routley: It gives me pleasure to stand up in support of the motion brought forward to support the Boundaries Commission report that we have just received in this House.

I’d like to talk a little bit about the process itself and then a little bit about the constituency that I represent and have represented for some time now, having lived through a previous boundary reconfiguration.

I think the general feeling amongst people in our society is that there is a growing cynicism about representation. There is a growing cynicism about the transparency of government, and that’s been a very hot topic in this House for the last few days and for several years now.

The transparency, accountability and integrity of government is at stake, and people need to have faith and confidence in their government in order to abide by common laws and to pay respect to the process that governs our province. This is a very important issue that we all face, not just in this House but throughout the province — the disengagement of voters.

This process of examining boundaries is meant to do two things. It’s meant to, as much as possible, make everyone’s vote equal in this province so that whether you live in the north of the province or the south of the province, in an urban area or a rural area, your vote is roughly equal to another British Columbian’s vote.

But that principle clashes with the principle of effective representation when, if we had the average constituency by population applied to the vast areas of the north of this province, these ridings would become impossible for any member to represent effectively because of the travel and the distances and the terrain involved.

So we have come to a compromise in this province that accepts 25 percent above the average to 25 percent below the average as being acceptable, with several exceptions even to that. Those exceptions are in the north. There are two seats that are more than 50 percent under the population average of seats in the province. There are ten seats that are below the 25 percent level.

[1540]

This has been a compromise that has attempted to balance the two principles: the one of making people’s votes equal and the other of making their representation effective.

We accept these differences, but then the application of boundary reconfiguration is something that historically, here in Canada, here in B.C. and throughout the world, has been vulnerable to political manipulation, gerrymandering — the reconfiguration of boundaries to serve a particular partisan political interest. We’ve had experience with that in B.C. in my lifetime and yours, Mr. Speaker.

This process has been developed, having three noted people — in this case, a judge, Mr. Justice Melnick; Beverley Busson, the former superintendent of the RCMP; and Keith Archer, the Chief Electoral Officer — strike a commission which examines, in an objective, non-partisan way, how to create boundaries that are both equal in representation as much as possible and effective in representation as much as possible. This is an extraordinarily difficult task, and I commend them on the work that they’ve done.

We had great concerns when the current government changed the terms of reference of that commission and allowed the protection of a greater number of seats. We had some doubt as to whether the commission could do that in a way that was justifiable and legitimate. But we happen to be very pleased and reassured that the commis-
[ Page 9856 ]
sion has come forward with boundaries that protect those two principles, balance them and also resist any kind of influence, in a partisan sense. We do offer our commendation to the commissioners and the work that they did.

The process of the commission. The commission travelled in its first phase to 29 communities. It heard from 128 presenters, and it received 295 written submissions. There was a second phase after the preliminary report, which travelled the province again, went to 15 communities, heard from a further 144 presenters and received another 426 written submissions. These submissions have influenced the decisions of the commission.

I started out by saying that there’s a crisis of confidence in government in our society now, a feeling that there is a growing cynicism about the integrity, honesty and transparency of government. I think that this process is a reassurance to British Columbians that the process is true and honest. I really thank the commissioners for not only the report but for a contribution to reinforcing people’s faith in this institution and the representation that they receive.

There have been changes to 48 constituencies. There have been a total of two new constituencies added to the Legislature under this report, if adopted — and it appears that it will be adopted. People will often feel that perhaps it’s not worthwhile to invest in more representation, but I feel that that’s a mistake.

This addition of two seats is supportable and justified by a population expansion in the province. Our lives are so complex. The government’s business is so complex compared to what it was historically. It’s a $46 billion enterprise that affects every aspect of our lives. It is education, health care, transportation, environment — on and on the list goes — an incredibly complex institution that requires the ability to not only hear from constituents but to adjust and reflect the wishes, views and needs of constituents.

[1545]

For such an enormous organization to have that kind of flexibility requires that people be able to send their voice to government, either through government members or through opposition members. I think it’s always a good investment to reinforce the capacity of people’s voices to be heard by government. So we support the addition of two seats, and we look forward to working under this new map.

You know, the complexity of government is only matched by the enormity of government. That’s not a bad thing. We have public health care. That’s one of the biggest pieces — in fact, the biggest piece — of government. We have the great benefit of public health care, something that defines Canadians, something that we all find identity with and something that has become another enormous task of delivery on the part of all Canadian governments. In B.C., the health authorities, if they were a private organization, would be the largest employers in Canada, the single largest employer in Canada — just the health authorities in B.C.

So you can imagine that that being one aspect — albeit the biggest aspect — of provincial government business, it is a reflection, an illustration, of exactly how big the task of governance is.

The commission made its recommendations in terms of the shape of constituencies, the size of constituencies and the location of borders, but they also made a couple of recommendations. One was to allow Elections B.C. to take over the administrative support for future commissions. I hope the government will hear that recommendation in the legislation it brings forward to support this report.

It has said that the Legislative Assembly should assess whether increased discrepancy in representation by population was sufficiently addressed in the May 2014 legislation, freezing the number of electoral districts in slower-growing regions. That requires further debate, but it’s understood on this side of the House — and I’m assuming, from what I’ve heard, on the government side of the House — that, in fact, that is a legitimate reflection of the balance between the principles of equal representation and effective representation.

We have 17 protected seats in the province, and we had, in the past, only three. That was a major concern on the part of the opposition, but thankfully, the commission appears to have managed that requirement with grace and integrity.

Having now spoken about the role of the commission and the functioning of the commission, I’d like to turn my attention to the constituency that I represent. The name of that constituency, as you know, is Nanaimo–North Cowichan. I grew up in the Cowichan Valley, and I am very intimately aware of the relationships between the different communities on the Island, in the mid-Island area that I grew up in and now represent.

I attended high school in Chemainus, which is one of the small communities I represent. I’ve played sports in all of these communities. Despite their close proximity and their cordial relationships, there is a high degree of competitive interest between these communities, and it’s never to be underestimated.

When I was a school trustee, a school trustee who hadn’t grown up in the Cowichan Valley made an unfortunate remark about the tensions between the community of Lake Cowichan and the community of Duncan when we were discussing the management of school interests. Not having grown up in the Cowichan Valley, she observed that they were only 20 kilometres apart. How different can they be?

I think the Justice Minister, who also grew up in Duncan and the Cowichan Valley, would readily agree that there are very distinct differences between these communities — high levels of competitiveness but high levels of cooperation and interdependence as well, some-
[ Page 9857 ]
thing that’s quite a lovely mix that has grown up organically over time.

The Justice Minister’s father was a very significant person in the Cowichan Valley, in fact. I personally learned a great deal from her father around the historical role of the community of Duncan and the Cowichan Valley.

[1550]

I’m relieved, in fact, that this time the constituency I represent has changed very little. The southern boundary at Herd Road and Lake Cowichan Highway has remained the same. The northern boundary has changed slightly, by a couple of blocks, further north, and a couple of different neighbourhoods have been removed. But these amount to, really, tinkering at the edges. This is something that I’m relieved about, not simply for my own comfort but for the comfort of constituents.

Last time, the last boundary reconfiguration, which occurred at the point of the 2009 election, the constituency I represented changed by 50 percent. The population changed by 50 percent. People, effectively, had moved north, 50 percent past its boundaries. So 50 percent of the population was new, and 50 percent were the people that I represented between 2005 and 2009. This is a very significant change, of course, for me, but I’m familiar with those communities and active.

But for the constituents, it was a really jarring experience, and this is not to be underestimated. The constituencies that members represent that have experienced large changes will find that there’s quite a significant impact that comes from that change.

My history of it in Nanaimo–North Cowichan was that the boundary, when it moved north, also newly encompassed the island of Gabriola, with a population of just about 5,000 people. Gabriola is a very unique and separate, independent community. The residents of Gabriola were, I think, really jarred by that change last time — just having to go to a different office in a different part of the city, becoming familiar with a different representative, as I was re-elected, under these new boundaries.

I’m relieved, in fact, that the constituency I represent did not significantly change, because of that disruption and the impact that people felt last time. I have empathy for the constituents of members who are experiencing greater change. It is not an easy thing. It’s not easy for the members, as well, to become familiar with new community groups, new local governments, new school districts. All of these things take time in the relationship-building that’s vital to the representation that we provide to constituents.

The constituency I represent, Nanaimo–North Cowichan, actually decreased very slightly in area, from 2,720 square kilometres to 2,709 kilometres, but has increased in population by about 5,000 citizens. It was at 49,402, and it is now at 54,560. It’s about 4 percent over the average, but it’s still a very manageable number. The fact that the area hasn’t greatly changed makes that, again, much easier.

Part of the tension in developing a map by any Boundaries Commission is the tension between urban and rural representation. In B.C., we are so dependent on resource industries, which largely come from the smallest communities. Although being the economic breadbaskets of our province, often I think that rural communities feel under-represented — not in a sense of the quotient of population to members in the House but in terms of the priorities of government, because of the high concentration of people in urban settings.

[1555]

My own experience is similar in that Nanaimo–North Cowichan, the constituency I represent, in a way, is a representation of that tension. I represent the south third, roughly, of the city of Nanaimo, the densely populated Harewood neighbourhoods and the South End community. These are some of the most historic neighbourhoods of Nanaimo. They are the traditional homes of miners and lumbermen, people who are dependent on the resource industries of the island but who also live in a very urban setting.

Then I also represent vast areas of wilderness, mountainous terrain and agricultural communities, farming-based communities. So just within the constituency of Nanaimo–North Cowichan, we see played out the tensions between rural and urban divides and the different interests that people have, the different challenges they face in terms of acquiring government services, in terms of standard of living — challenges that are very different from a rural setting to an urban setting.

I’ve said that there are 54,000 people here. In fact, there are 54,560 citizens proposed under the new boundary, and we, in our offices, generally have two staff people. If one out of 100 of those constituents has an issue or a problem or a need that must be addressed through the office of the MLA, that’s 545 or 546 people in a year. These problems are sometimes simple but more often very complex and difficult, vexing problems to solve.

Our constituency assistants do amazing work in dealing with the load of that requirement, all that need. They must have relationships built within ministries and with bureaucrats throughout government. They must become experts in everything, Mr. Speaker. You know this well. Our constituency assistants have to deal with not only that enormous load of constituency work in representing people but also the amazing complexity of what they must know in order to do that.

There was a cartoon circulated a few years ago that was titled “The constituency assistant begins their day.” This person had a blindfold on and was throwing a dart at a wall that had “education, health care, transportation, bus” — all the issues that they face. Then at the bottom it said: “Today I’m an expert in….”

This is absolutely the truth. These folks do amazing work, and we have to thank them very deeply for being able to do that. I think it’s a job and a task that’s perhaps
[ Page 9858 ]
underappreciated because it doesn’t get a lot of attention, but when we talk about the budgets of offices and what it takes in order for a member to represent their community, that’s where the resources go. It’s very well-spent public funds that go to these people to represent constituents.

In Nanaimo–North Cowichan, we have an enormous diversity, as I’ve already indicated, in terms just of small communities that I represent. The community of Crofton is home to the Catalyst pulp mill. There are long-time community families there who were friends of mine as a child, who go back many generations to the founding of the community — some still living in the houses that they’ve lived in for several generations. It’s a beautiful seaside community with a ferry terminal that connects Crofton to Saltspring Island.

I represent the community of Chemainus. Chemainus is a lovely little town that has always been very forest-industry-dependent. It has had several mills come and go over the years. One of the major mills was closed when I was a teenager, actually, and it was a huge blow to the community. Since then, more milling activity has come on stream, but in recent years that has been challenged by a lack of availability of fibre for those mills as raw log exports increase.

[1600]

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Chemainus is known as the little town that did. That is because when Chemainus first suffered the blow of the closure of their main mill, they rallied together and, behind the leadership of several citizens, had murals painted throughout the town depicting its history — the social, economic and environmental history of Chemainus. This became a globally recognized attraction. Suddenly Chemainus was able to provide employment and small business opportunity through attraction as a tourist destination, something that had never been a part of its past. I think it’s an example of the resiliency and determination of the people of the communities that I’m proud to represent.

The town of Ladysmith. They say you’re never over the hill in Ladysmith because it’s built on hills like the hills of San Francisco. It’s a beautiful little town that was founded primarily as the home of workers in the coal-mining industry.

One of my interests is railway history. The history of the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway, currently owned by the Island Corridor Foundation, owned by the communities of the Island, is a history that was established when B.C. entered Confederation. There was an agreement that a transcontinental railway would have its terminus point in Victoria, so that there would be a railway from Nanaimo to Victoria, as one of the conditions of B.C. entering Confederation.

In order to deliver on that promise, the governor of British Columbia granted land to Robert Dunsmuir, who was a coal baron. It was, essentially, the eastern third of Vancouver Island. All the resources, all the coal, all the forests, all the land of the eastern third of Vancouver Island was granted to Dunsmuir in order to complete that railway.

Communities sprung up along the railway that were home to workers. This deeply affected the history of Vancouver Island, particularly mid–Vancouver Island — Ladysmith, South Wellington, communities that I represent proudly.

Dunsmuir was not known as a particularly friendly person to organized workers, organized labour. There was a very notable strike in the Ladysmith, South Wellington, Nanaimo area. For many months, coal-mine workers were on strike, and the companies brought in armed reinforcements to control and force the workers.

There was a very famous moment when the women and children of Ladysmith stood in between the Pinkerton armed guards that were sent to control the strikers. And the strikers themselves — a very brave, historical moment.

Ladysmith has gone on to become a forestry-dependent community that had several mills, some of which have closed. Employment is much reduced in the forest industry. It, too, has turned to tourism. A famous Ladysmith light-up celebration, where the entire community is lit up with Christmas lights and decorations in the holiday season, has become a huge attraction up and down the Island and further on. Thousands of people now visit Ladysmith to enjoy the tourist opportunities.

South Wellington is a similar community but even smaller, with a long history in that coal-dependent economy, with families still living there that go back to these original inhabitants, still living in the same homes.

[1605]

The south end of Nanaimo and the Harewood neighbourhood of Nanaimo — some of the most challenged postal codes in British Columbia, in terms of income and poverty, yet some of the most beautiful places you can imagine with engaged citizens, engaged community organizations.

I have the island of Gabriola, as I mentioned, but Thetis also and the First Nations on Penelakut Island. In terms of First Nations, Nanaimo–North Cowichan has five First Nations: Lyackson on Valdes Island; Halalt, which is both in the Chemainus-Crofton area and on Kuper Island, or Penelakut Island; the Penelakut, who are actually on the island; the Chemainus; the Snuneymuxw in Nanaimo; and even overlapping territories with the Cowichan.

First Nations populations are very important in my constituency. They’re interrelated. They’re families. Their ceremonies are shared. It’s a vibrant and lovely component of the constituency.

There are two school districts. There are five local governments: city of Nanaimo, regional district of Nanaimo,
[ Page 9859 ]
town of Ladysmith, Cowichan Valley regional district and municipality of North Cowichan. There are six ferry terminals.

All of this points to the complexity and challenge of representation. All these separate communities. All these different ethnic backgrounds. All these different challenges of representation and relationships to be built with so many different local governments. All these different tensions between newcomers and the rights and privileges of First Nations. I am extraordinarily proud to represent these communities.

G. Heyman: It’s my pleasure and my honour to stand up and talk to the commission’s report and to recognize some of the difficult work the commission has done and the thoughtfulness and effort that was put into presentations to the commission by people all around the province, including in my own constituency of Vancouver-Fairview, in preparing for this.

It has been fascinating to look at some of the histories of the whole nature of how boundaries are defined and commissions are given mandates; of past commissions; of the boundaries of different constituencies that once existed in the past and now comprise current-day Vancouver-Fairview as well as some others; and, interestingly enough, of some of the very interesting controversies that we’ve seen around electoral commissions and boundary redistribution in this province in the past. Some have come very close to home in Vancouver-Fairview.

First of all, let me extend my thanks to Justice Melnick, to former commissioner of the RCMP Ms. Busson and to the Chief Electoral Officer, Keith Archer, for taking on this difficult but very, very important task that’s so fundamental to democracy. Nothing can be more fundamental to democracy than the nature of representation of people throughout this province — both people concentrated in dense urban areas as well as people who find themselves in far-flung communities across vast expanses of territory in northern B.C., the Interior, the northeast and the southeast.

First of all, having been born in Vancouver-Fairview and grown up in Vancouver but having spent a significant part of my working life in northwest B.C. and various communities on the coast, I have some sense of the differences that are entailed in both living in and being represented by elected representatives in these areas.

It’s a difficult balance. The principle of representation by population can be a difficult one to maintain. That’s why we have the principle of an allowable deviation of 25 percent as well as a recognition that there will be some exceptions for circumstances that don’t neatly fit within these criteria.

[1610]

Having said that, this has been a difficult chore for this commission, I think. The government, in the mandate given to the commission, placed some restraints on the commission in terms of insisting that certain regions maintain the current number of seats while limiting the number of seats that could be added to this Legislature to two.

Others will comment on this. Some may even feel compelled to question the constitutionality of this, but the commission took on the task and heard from a lot of people and did the best they could in the circumstance. I think what they have produced is, by and large, a very fair result, a very fair set of recommendations, one that I certainly intend to support.

As my colleague has pointed out, there were two rounds of hearings. The first one had 128 presenters, 295 written submissions. The commission went back to consider the input and had a second round of hearings, visiting 15 communities with 144 presentations and 426 written submissions. It is important. I think we all recognize that people will come to these hearings or make written submissions to these hearings, some with very legitimate points of view to put forward and others, perhaps, with an axe to grind or a very personal or self-interested or even politically interested point of view to put forward. The job of an independent commission, of course, is to sift through all of that and make recommendations that are fair, that support democracy, that meet the test of time.

It’s interesting to note. My colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway and I were having a discussion as we were listening to some of the other speeches. We were just talking generally about the nature of independent commissions, their history in British Columbia, as well as the history of commissions that were perhaps less than independent in the past. I think we’ll all be aware of this, to some extent, from the very, very controversial presidential election that took place a number of years ago in the United States — 16, if my memory serves me correctly, or 15. Only seven states in the United States of America have what could fairly be termed independent electoral boundary commissions.

This is astounding, and I thank my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway for pointing out to me this rather incredible fact. It’s something that we should be aware of, and it should instil in us a determination to maintain independence, integrity in our commissions in British Columbia and all Canadian provinces to assure ourselves that we will not run into the kinds of hotly and viciously and partisan-contested elections, where state legislatures in the United States protected the interests of their own party instead of the interests of the electorate at large.

If we go far back in British Columbia history, back to 1871, we know, and I think we will all admit…. I’ll read some history written by Norman Ruff in B.C. Studies back in 1990 that demonstrates that initially, of course, commissions that were set up to establish electoral boundaries were far from independent, were far from free from intervention in British Columbia. In fact, the first elec-
[ Page 9860 ]
toral districts going back, I think, as far as 1871, started as electoral districts that were created out of mining districts. There’s not a lot of logic that we can see to that. What might be termed one of the first independent reports was created in 1966, but, having said that, we do have a history since 1966 of reports that were meddled with, that governments of the day…. The Socred government stuck their fingers in and arranged things in ways that would suit them.

Before I go into some more of the history of Vancouver-Fairview and some of the electoral results — as well as why I think it’s so important for the voters in Vancouver-Fairview that we are seeing the result we are seeing in this report today and that today it is suitable that we are maintaining the boundaries we have in Vancouver-Fairview — let me simply read from a paper by Norman Ruff in B.C. Studies, autumn 1990, called “The Cat and Mouse Politics of Redistribution: Fair and Effective Representation in British Columbia.”

[1615]

Mr. Ruff talks — it’s a long paper; I’m not going to read the whole thing, obviously — about “Ad Hoc Redistribution” from 1938 to 1979, and he says:

“There had been some vestige of openness introduced to British Columbia’s redistribution process in 1938, when the redefinition of electoral boundaries was, for the first time, referred to a special committee of the Legislative Assembly. The special 11-member committee of the Legislature on ‘Redefining of Provincial Constituencies’ issued a report one month after its appointment, and the matter was tabled for the next session.”

Then Premier W.A.C. Bennett initiated a similar committee to make recommendations as to “the desirability of increasing the number of members to be elected to the Legislature and as to the redistribution of the members amongst the electoral districts of the province.”

If we go a little further, because certainly much happened, into Mr. Ruff’s paper…. I’m going to skip forward to the end of the first term of the Bill Bennett government and what was termed, at the time, the Eckardt controversy.

I’ve chosen this. There are many controversies. There is much to look back on in the history of electoral redistribution in British Columbia that has been controversial, but this one in particular touched on the riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain, which, of course, is not exactly the same as Vancouver-Fairview, but certainly encompasses much of Vancouver-Fairview’s territory.

The Eckardt controversy started at the end of…. I’ll simply read from Mr. Ruff’s paper at this point.

“At the end of its first term, the new Social Credit government of Bill Bennett addressed the question of redistribution for itself by appointing a one-man commission, former county court judge L.S. Eckardt, to secure a redefinition of electoral districts and review a wide range of subjects, including methods of voting, eligibility of voters, party expenditures and financing covered by the Provincial Elections Act.

“The redistribution set in train by the Eckardt commission proceeded with remarkable dispatch. The commissioner was appointed on 12 January, 1978, and, at the request of the Premier, Judge Eckardt was asked to submit an interim report on the electoral districts before 30 June, 1978.

“After 44 public hearings, the interim report dated 17 June was submitted to the Lieutenant-Governor and tabled in the Legislature on 20 June. The following day, Bill 18 was introduced to implement the report’s recommendations. Debate on second reading began on the 26th, third reading was given on the 28th, and on 29 June the bill received royal assent. The Eckardt boundaries defined the electoral map for the 10 May, 1979 provincial general election and the two subsequent elections to date.”

Those of us who were around at the time and perhaps even worked on those election campaigns will remember those elections campaigns as hard fought, outcomes not at all certain and one in which parties had a very significant interest in how the boundaries affected the outcome.

I’m again reading from Mr. Ruff’s article.

“The Eckardt commission was, from the outset, one of the most controversial redistributions in the history of the province. Judge Eckardt’s former unsuccessful bid for a seat as a Social Credit candidate immediately served to undermine the perception of his independence as a one-man commission.”

One could certainly understand why that point of view might have been shared by many onlookers at the time.

I’m sorry, that last sentence was not a quote. That was my editorial comment. I’ll get back to reading from the article.

“His recommendations increased the Legislature by two members, and in the reallocation of seats reduced representation in metropolitan Vancouver and the Kootenay region by one, increased Vancouver Island and the northern region by one and added two members to the Fraser Valley. Two existing seats — Revelstoke-Slocan and Vancouver-Burrard — were abolished. It was noticed that both were held by the New Democratic opposition.

“The shape of some of the ridings and, in particular, the lack of compactness in the riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain also attracted controversy.”

Vancouver–Little Mountain, as I’ve mentioned, is not completely significantly analogous to the current boundaries of Vancouver-Fairview, with some obvious exceptions. But there’s a lot in common.

[1620]

Back to the article.

“Two years later, this was further fuelled by a reported contact between the commissioner and the Provincial Secretary, who represented that particular riding.”

The Provincial Secretary of the time, Grace McCarthy, of course, will be remembered by many in this Legislature — certainly remembered by the Finance Minister, who achieved his seat for the first time in this Legislature by defeating her in her attempt to revive the Social Credit Party’s fortunes in British Columbia. That by-election probably gave life to the B.C. Liberal Party in very many ways.

To repeat:

“Two years later this was further fuelled by a reported contact between the commissioner and the Provincial Secretary, who represented that particular riding. It was alleged that this accounted for a last-minute appendage to the riding of an area which lent itself to the label of Gracie’s finger. A subsequent investigation by the Attorney General’s ministry, tabled 6 August, 1980, found no evidence of wrongdoing, but the affair had already played its part in the undermining of a sense of the commission’s legitimacy.”
[ Page 9861 ]

Now, it may not be immediately apparent to everybody in this chamber today why that particular electoral map would have been controversial or why the existence of Gracie’s finger would be controversial, but for people like myself who are familiar with that territory, Gracie’s finger is a little extension, narrow but long, that deviates westward from the western boundary of what was then Vancouver–Little Mountain and reaches deep into the neighbourhood of Shaughnessy. While I’m proud of the fact that I personally won three polls in Shaughnessy, it’s not generally considered fertile New Democratic Party territory.

That finger was retained for quite some period of time and went a long way to assisting Ms. McCarthy in various re-election attempts. In short, that area was heavily Social Credit, and the electoral redistribution of the time lent itself very strongly to supporting re-elections of both Ms. McCarthy and Social Credit governments.

That’s why it’s important to have independent electoral commissions, electoral commissions that have more than one person, electoral commissions with mandates and terms of reference that are not limiting in nature, that don’t lend themselves to interpretation of being manipulative or undemocratic. That’s why it’s important that the people who are on the commission itself are seen to be and believed to be independent by all of the electors and all of the people in the province, who know that the result of the election is often determined by the boundaries within which the elections are held. Therefore, the result of redistribution in any particular constituency is of concern to everybody in the province.

While some constituencies may lean heavily over a protracted period of time to one party — although we all know this changes over time — and another one may lean toward a different party, and that may simply be the way it goes, there needs to be some constituency, some logical community of interest, some sense of history. The people who reside within those constituencies have to have some confidence that the end result of the election is a will of a representative majority of the people within that constituency and not a gerrymandered majority, a majority that has been created by adding pieces or removing pieces that have a tendency to predetermine the outcome.

Let me talk a little bit about the history of elections in Vancouver–Little Mountain. Part of the history of the elections and the evolution of Vancouver’s electoral districts is also inexorably tied up with the existence that many people no longer remember — but I certainly do, and many people in this chamber will — of two-member constituencies, which, thankfully, have now, for quite a number of years, been abolished but, many people would argue, are less than democratic and created electoral problems for people who lived within them and voted within them.

[1625]

Before I go on to this, before I forget to do so, let me simply comment on the difficult balance that many people have had while considering both this report and the mandate that was given to the commission itself — the issue of the number of legislators in this House.

We all understand that the people of British Columbia don’t believe we should have an unlimited number of elected officials. I believe we work hard in this House, and I think most of our constituents believe we work hard, particularly if they have call to come into direct contact with us. But it’s also important to note that we are well compensated for that work now — perhaps that was not always true, but it is true now — so people simply don’t want a limitless expansion.

I have heard people say that we can’t fit any more MLAs in this chamber. It certainly is crowded at times. But let me simply say that as the population of the province of British Columbia grows, and grows substantially, in the decades to come…. I represent a constituency in metropolitan Vancouver. The population of Metro Vancouver is expected to grow by over one million people over the next two-plus decades.

It is a concern. It’s a concern that we ensure that there is representation by population, that that principle is maintained and that we don’t at the same time make it almost impossible for people in remote constituencies that may have very small numbers of constituents but vast distances and significantly different issues — people living in communities within those constituencies — to be represented. Those people deserve representation. They deserve representatives with the ability to meet with them, to talk with them, to understand their issues and to come back to this Legislature and make the case.

While we certainly don’t want to be irresponsible or whimsical in adding seats to this place, there will be times — just as with this report, we’re adding two seats — where this will have to be considered.

In addition, at least one party in this Legislature has talked extensively about changing the voting system to a system that does away with first-past-the-post. There are many varieties of that. But if we were to bring in some form of proportional representation, it is difficult to see doing that — it’s not impossible to do that — without increasing the number of seats.

There are a number of options, as I’ve said. But as we have a combination of different forms of representation, potentially, or a rapidly expanding population, where we have to ensure that we don’t under-represent people in urban areas and also not disenfranchise people in the northeast, the northwest, the central Interior and the southeast…. We should be aware that where necessity exists, invention has always been found to meet that necessity, and I’m sure that will again.

Let me talk a little bit about some of the history of Vancouver–Little Mountain. Back in 1966, Vancouver–Little Mountain had a total of 50,000 valid votes cast, but it’s worth pointing out that every elector, because it was a two-member riding, had two votes. At that point, Leslie
[ Page 9862 ]
Peterson and Grace McCarthy — I’ve already spoken about Grace McCarthy — were elected. They were elected with just under 25 percent and just over 23 percent of the vote respectively.

Following 1966, in 1969, we saw the number of votes go up by 6,000, or 12 percent. Again, the only significant difference in that election was Ms. McCarthy closed the gap with Mr. Peterson and got almost the same percentage of the vote, or roughly around 25 percent.

In 1972, of course, this province elected its first New Democratic Party government, under Dave Barrett.

Interjection.

G. Heyman: Yes, my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway says, “Hear, hear,” and I agree. I voted in that election. I was proud to vote in that election.

[1630]

Phyllis Young and Roy Thomas Cummings were elected for the New Democratic Party in Vancouver–Little Mountain, and there were an additional 3,000 votes cast in that election.

Interjection.

G. Heyman: My colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway correctly points out that Phyllis Young was one of the best cabinet ministers in B.C. history.

In 1975, Grace McCarthy was elected again, this time with Evan Wolfe, still in a two-member riding. The percentage of the vote went up a little bit, to slightly over 26 percent. The number of voters stayed about the same. In 1979, Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Wolfe were elected again. The number of voters went up by 13,000 — substantially. I’m not sure why we have these variances.

It’s interesting to note that this was the first time a well-known New Democrat ran for provincial office at that time. Although he was unsuccessful in that election, he went on to become Premier of British Columbia. I’m speaking, of course, of Michael Harcourt, who ran at the time with Jean Swanson, who was a very, very well-known and well-respected community activist in Vancouver and has been for decades.

In 1983 — again, regretfully, from my perspective and that of my colleagues — the New Democratic Party lost that seat. I’ve already pointed out the existence of Gracie’s finger being introduced in that election. It was a close election. Grace McCarthy and Doug Mowat won, again with just over and just under 25 percent of the vote at that time but followed closely by the New Democratic Party candidates.

I will simply say again that when you take a boundary that runs straight along one of the north-south arteries of Vancouver and all of a sudden you get a little jog that goes conveniently into one of the wealthiest neighbourhoods of Vancouver, the result is predictable.

Interjection.

G. Heyman: Gerrymandering, instead of Gerry Scott, as my colleague points out.

In 1986, again Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Mowat were elected, but I note that in that year — and that was, I believe, the last year of a double-member riding — the defeated candidate was one Colin Kelly, who had a significant career as a trade union leader in British Columbia. He was a person I’d met, a person of great integrity.

I had the pleasure a couple of years ago of being introduced to his son, who now works for an organization that I once led, the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union. Simon Kelly is a bright, young researcher who has made presentations to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, along with the president of his union, now twice.

When we went back to one seat in 1991, a New Democratic Party candidate, Tom Perry, was elected in Vancouver–Little Mountain. We move on to 1996, and someone who was to be a future Minister of Finance in British Columbia, Gary Farrell-Collins, was elected. The total number of votes at that time was almost 24,000. Again, we were with a single-person riding.

Following that, Vancouver-Fairview was created. The boundaries have changed since its creation. Vancouver-Fairview used to extend all the way to False Creek. That area north of Great Northern Way, 4th and 2nd Avenue, has now been removed from Vancouver-Fairview, for the last two elections. But I will note that the current boundary proposal reflects those boundaries.

That brings me back around to my first point. One of the interesting features of knocking on doors as a candidate in any riding, but certainly in Vancouver-Fairview, is finding out what people are really thinking about. When I first was knocking on doors and asking people to vote for me, they would say: “What? Is our MP Don Davies not running again. We love Don Davies.” I would explain to them carefully that they still got to have Don but they could have me provincially, because Don was their federal representative.

[1635]

I heard since the election, as well, that people were very fond of Don. But of course, there’s a new riding federally, Vancouver Granville. All but two blocks of Vancouver-Fairview fits within Vancouver-Granville now. The people who were used to, in a significant portion of Vancouver-Fairview, having Don Davies as the representative…. As I said, they have tremendous respect for Don, as do I. They loved having him as a representative. They don’t have him anymore. They’re now lumped in with different groups of people from different communities with different communities of interest. They weren’t happy about it.

I want to thank the people who presented to the Boundaries Commission from Vancouver-Fairview who
[ Page 9863 ]
urged the commission to maintain the existing boundaries, who told the commission that there had been repeated disruption as boundaries had changed. People understand boundaries have to sometimes change, but people had gotten used to the configuration. They think there is a reasonable community of interest.

Vancouver-Fairview is tremendous. There are great communities along Main Street, along South Granville, along Cambie village, along Oak Street, along 16th, along Broadway. I spent much of last Saturday visiting small businesses in these areas as part of Small Business Week. People are used to the community of interest. They’re used to voting together. They pretty clearly didn’t want a change of boundary.

I want to thank the Boundaries Commission for allowing the people of Vancouver-Fairview to experience some consistency, boundaries that make sense, boundaries that maintain communities of interest, notwithstanding the fact that there are within Vancouver-Fairview several distinct communities. Those communities have been maintained. The overall representation has been maintained.

It’s been my pleasure for the last two-plus years to represent constituents in Vancouver-Fairview. With their support, as I intend to ask them for, I will have the opportunity to continue doing so. It’s a great constituency — notwithstanding my colleague from Nelson-Creston — one of the greatest in British Columbia. People like the boundaries and the shape of it, and I look forward to them being maintained. With that, I will take my place.

G. Kyllo: On behalf of the constituents of Shuswap, I’m proud to support this very important motion. It’s important because it’s essential that every British Columbian is represented fairly and effectively. It’s important to me and the people of the Shuswap that Bill 42 ensures rural British Columbians will not lose representation.

By geographic area, Shuswap is not one of the larger ridings in B.C., nor is it one of the smallest. It’s somewhere right in the middle. But it is, by and large, a rural riding with close to half of the riding’s population living in and around the city of Salmon Arm.

Needless to say, the lifestyle and peace in life in the Shuswap is far different than big-city life. We have far-flung communities and First Nations and abundant natural resources that are the core of B.C.’s economy. I heard my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin say that it is an eight-hour drive to cover her riding from east to west. From the north to the south of my riding, it’s about a 5½-hour drive. The distances are even greater in ridings such as Stikine and Peace River North.

I often hear from my constituents that rural interests are not fully understood in places like Vancouver and Victoria. This certainly needs to be taken into consideration when electoral boundaries are being discussed. This act preserves current ridings in the North, Cariboo-Thompson and Columbia-Kootenay regions to ensure citizens in less densely populated yet geographically large districts can be effectively represented by their MLAs.

The bottom line is that we need fair and effective representation for all British Columbians. In a province with B.C.’s geography, equal representation by population simply isn’t possible. The Electoral Boundaries Commission’s task was to balance democratic representation with geography, which is not an easy task in a province as large as British Columbia.

My understanding is that the true definition of “riding” came back from the British parliamentary system, where it took into consideration how far one could actually travel on a day on horseback. So even back in the early days of parliamentary systems, it took into consideration the ability of a representative to effectively represent the constituents within their riding.

The commission has also done a very admirable job. I’d like to thank the commission and members for their diligence and hard work and all British Columbians who participated in this process.

[1640]

I am proud to speak for these interests of rural British Columbians. I urge all members, especially those on the other side of the House who represent rural ridings, to support this bill.

Introductions by Members

A. Dix: I wanted to acknowledge the presence in the Legislature over the past week of someone who is a very dedicated person in my church, Wilson Heights United Church. She’s a teacher. Her name is Jackie Moon. She’s here, and she took part in the B.C. teachers institute that finished last Saturday. I think she found it an extraordinary experience. I wanted to acknowledge that she’d been in the House and to ask the House to make her welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Darcy: I really very much appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak on the Electoral Boundaries Commission’s final report on regulations, recommendations, with the bill that is before us. The bill, as we have discussed…. There have been many speakers before me who have spoken to this bill. There are a number of minor changes, and then there are a few major changes.

I have to say that, overall, I don’t think there’s any question that the Electoral Boundaries Commission did an excellent report. They had a very, very tough job in front of them, as we all know, very difficult with population growth, with balancing the needs of rural and urban communities and looking at where growth is in our province and so on — a very, very challenging job. Certainly they did, I believe, the very best that they could under the circumstances.
[ Page 9864 ]

But I would be remiss if I did not focus my attention on the changes that are going to occur to the constituency that I’m so proud to represent, New Westminster. One of the areas where there is the most substantial change as a result of the Electoral Boundaries Commission’s report and recommendations is to my community.

New Westminster is going to lose Queensborough, which has been a central part of our community since the city was first created. So it is with considerable heartbreak, I have to say, and concern and regret…. I say it not just on my own behalf, because I have been so proud to represent the wonderful folks who live in Queensborough, but also I know that they are very, very concerned and very disturbed about this, because they are an integral part of New Westminster, and they have been since the very creation of the city. We have always been a constituency of New Westminster.

In fact, there was a time when the constituency of New Westminster extended into most of the Fraser Valley. We’re not suggesting that, of course, again. That would mean that we would be so, so far in excess of the numbers. But indeed, that was the case.

One of the real beauties of representing the constituency of New Westminster in this House is that it is a city, it is a community, it is one city council, and it is one school district. Our social agencies, our businesses, our chambers of commerce, our business improvement associations, our trade unions, our faith organizations all work together and work as one, in one city and one community, to do the very best that we can for our constituents.

Really, the circles all come together. People who visit New Westminster, people who have moved to New Westminster from elsewhere, when they get to be part of this and see that the city really is indeed a community in the truest sense of the word, are very, very struck by that. We will, of course, continue as a city to work together in that way.

But we will be losing Queensborough because we have a population now that is approximately 67,000 people, and we’re not allowed to have 67,000 people under the new rules. We are considerably in excess of what the guidelines are for the size of a constituency, and therefore, we will be losing Queensborough.

[1645]

New Westminster is interesting. I mentioned 67,000 residents. A small city, but a densely populated city because those 67,000 people are spread out over only six square miles. Six square miles is the size of our constituency. It’ll be even smaller now. We don’t grow out because we have no room to grow out. We grow up, so there’s a lot of condo development and so on, as is the case all throughout the Lower Mainland.

I say it with regret that we’re losing Queensborough. I want to share with you and with people in my community that I know are paying close attention to this some of the history of our city and our constituency that really makes this a difficult thing, I have so say.

We were incorporated back in 1860. It’s been some time, quite a few years, since we celebrated even our 100th anniversary. New Westminster is actually western Canada’s oldest city, the first city that was incorporated west of Ontario. For many, many years, New Westminster was the mercantile centre and the transportation hub for the Lower Mainland during and after the Fraser River and the Cariboo gold rushes.

Now, we were never able to displace entirely Victoria’s overall dominance due to the access of Victoria on Vancouver Island to ocean shipping, and when the recently united colonies of British Columbia and Vancouver Island came together in 1868, the Legislative Council chose Victoria as the permanent capital of the recently united colonies of British Columbia and Vancouver Island.

We were not the capital of British Columbia for very long, but it is certainly something that remains very much alive in the minds of my constituents. There is many a day when people say: “Judy, couldn’t you just go to the…? Couldn’t we talk about bringing the capital back to New Westminster?” After all, we remain very, very centrally located. We know that that’s not in the cards, but it does remain a hope, certainly, amongst many of my constituents.

Hon. S. Anton: The Royal City.

J. Darcy: The Royal City. I was going to come to that. Yes. The Attorney General says “the Royal City.” Indeed, we are the Royal City, a name that New Westminster continues to bear very proudly, and I will return to that.

Our city, as a transportation hub and a merchant centre, secured a CPR branch line back in 1886; the completion of the main line to Vancouver was in 1887. But we continued to be a freshwater port, a major lumber producer, a salmon-canning centre, a commercial centre for the Fraser Valley, administrative and service headquarters for the county court, the B.C. Penitentiary, the provincial mental hospital and the Royal Columbian Hospital. The court is still there. The Royal Columbian Hospital certainly is. Many of the others no longer are.

We secured rail links to the United States via the Great Northern Railway, the Fraser River Railroad Bridge, the eastern Fraser Valley through the B.C. Electric Railway, and eastern Canada through the Canadian National Railway.

Now, of course, New Westminster has changed considerably over those years, and what is at the economic heart of the city has changed considerably. Our coat of arms, from the very creation…. I know I can’t hold this up or treat it as a prop, but in November 1860 the city of New Westminster was first incorporated and the original design was presented to our municipal council by Colonel Moody. We have a famous park and various
[ Page 9865 ]
other landmarks named after Colonel Moody. Many of the elements of that coat of arms remain until this day, even though the industry and the economy, of course, have changed drastically.

[1650]

We still, interestingly, have a bear sitting atop our coat of arms. I don’t know when the last time was we’ve seen a bear in New Westminster, because it is very highly urbanized. No, it was not a polar bear, but it was a bear, indeed. Our coat of arms, to this day, still contains a sailing ship, in recognition of the shipping industry. It contains farm implements, in recognition of agriculture. It has a tree as a representation of forestry. It has pictures of salmon, representing fishing.

I’ve just actually checked my notes. It’s a grizzly bear, not a polar bear. That remains the emblem, the coat of arms of the city, to this day.

The name of the city of New Westminster was chosen by Queen Victoria, back in 1859, after her favourite part of London, England — that being Westminster. The site of New Westminster was chosen in 1859, partly for military reasons, as it was on a very steep hill. I can attest to that, having knocked on doors for a couple of years before being elected to come to this place. We are a city of very, very steep hills on the north side of a very wide river. Therefore, it was more easily defended.

As I mentioned already, it was the first city in western Canada, the first one west of the Lakehead — that is, the Great Lakes in Ontario. Then in 1860, it became the first city in western Canada to have a locally elected municipal government. The Royal Westminster Regiment traces its roots way back to the Columbia detachment of the Royal Engineers, who founded the city. We still have a maritime museum there, although the steam-powered sternwheeler that worked the Fraser River, the fifth Samson in her line, retired in 1980.

There was once a very large Chinatown in New Westminster that for many years was centred near Carnarvon Street, on 10th Street, in New Westminster.

While I’m on that subject, I do want to make note of the fact that the city of New Westminster, while for many decades the initiator of many of the racist and prejudicial laws that existed in this province and directed at Chinese Canadians…. The material that can be found in the Legislative Library on that store certainly documents that on many occasions, the city of New Westminster had sought for the provincial government and the federal government to enact laws that very clearly discriminated against Chinese Canadians in New Westminster and more broadly.

It was also our city, many, many years later, that was the first city in Canada to issue an apology to Chinese Canadians and to put in place a number of measures to ensure inclusion in our city and to encourage the province and the country to do the same. Many, many changes over the years.

We have a growing Chinese community again — many of whom have come from other countries to make New Westminster and the Lower Mainland their home. Fortunately, they now come to a community that is welcoming and that is inclusive.

We were once a real shipping hub. We still continue to be a significant shipping hub. When you look out, even from my condo window, and look down on the Pattullo Bridge and on the Fraser River…. I’m lucky enough to be able to see the Port Mann Bridge far to the east and to be able to see over to Vancouver Island in the west. I can’t quite see the Legislature, but I can see the mountains on the Island.

On our waterfront, I can also look out and I can see, on the Fraser River, the Fraser River Port Authority, which still remains a very, very significant shipping hub for our province. Poplar Island was once the site of World War I shipbuilding — large wooden ships for the war effort. There are still some ship launching ways that are still visible on the island’s upriver end. Adjacent to one of our SkyTrain stations is our former CPR station which has now been…. Well, it was converted into a restaurant. Now we’re waiting to see what its future home will be. The courthouse remains there.

[1655]

The Pattullo Bridge, of course, is quite infamous. It was quite a landmark, and it remains a very important transportation link. But I think most British Columbians, certainly in the Lower Mainland, now recognize the Pattullo Bridge more from it being heard of and spoken of every single morning on the traffic report and at the end of the day on the traffic report. Certainly, that continues to be a big, big focus in my community — the need for an improved regional transportation network that includes a refurbishing of the Pattullo Bridge as well as number of other changes.

New Westminster was not the original name of the city. In fact, Colonel Moody, who was the founder, decided that the new capital, which was to be sited at the confluence of the Fraser River and the Brunette River…. He felt the town should be named Queensborough — interestingly, because it’s Queensborough that is the piece of New Westminster that we will be losing in this redistribution. But Queen Victoria made the decision, not Colonel Moody. She decided she didn’t like that name, and she chose New Westminster, the new Royal City, as the name for the new city.

During the Cariboo gold rush, New Westminster was a major outfitting point — I think I mentioned that already — for prospectors who were travelling to the goldfield ports of Yale and Port Douglas by steamship or canoe up the Fraser River.

The penitentiary, which opened in 1878 — the federal penitentiary closed in 1980 — was the first federal penitentiary west of Manitoba, located in the Sapperton neighbourhood — again, not far from where I live.
[ Page 9866 ]

Our city was largely destroyed by the great fire of 1898. One-third of the city, from Royal Avenue down to the waterfront, had been ravaged, and the westerly portion of it was completely swept bare. The original Government House was located approximately where the Royal City Manor now stands in New Westminster. And our Westminster Quay was an Expo-era development to revitalize New Westminster, which was also accompanied by the development of the SkyTrain line going out to Vancouver.

As I said, New Westminster is a provincial electoral district in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, the only electoral district to have existed for every general election. For every single general election, there has been a constituency of New Westminster.

Our constituency has had a long history of really fine and able elected political representatives. I could review the entire list of them, but since we were around since, you know, the beginning, so to speak — not the very, very beginning, but we are the only electoral district that’s been around as long as British Columbia has been around — I won’t review the entire history.

But I will say that the constituency of New Westminster has elected representatives from either the CCF, the predecessor to the NDP, or the NDP for every term for 60 years except for one — and excellent representatives, I must say.

The hon. Rae Eddie held the seat from 1952 until 1969. That was as, first, a CCF member and then an NDP member. Dennis Cocke, a name that is really legendary in our community and in this province, represented New Westminster from 1969 to 1986. Dennis Cocke held various positions in the Legislature. He was part of a very powerful duo. Dennis Cocke and Yvonne Cocke were a very powerful couple, a very powerful family, who had, together, a huge impact on the political and economic and social life of our constituency but also of the province.

[1700]

Then a very, very fine woman, a woman of incredible integrity, who we paid tribute to in this House just a few short months ago: Anita Hagen, who passed away in June. A memorial service, a moving memorial service, was held for her in September. Madame Speaker was able to attend, and the family was so moved to have a wonderful wreath there from all members of the Legislative Assembly.

Anita Hagen held the position of MLA for New Westminster from 1986 through to 1996. She served first in the official opposition, and then she served in government. She was the Deputy Premier of British Columbia with Premier Mike Harcourt. She served, also, as Minister of Education and Minister of Multiculturalism. One of the very important things that she has to her credit is the creation of a human rights commission in this province.

Anita Hagen was replaced by Graeme Bowbrick in 1996, who served as Minister of Advanced Education in 2000 and Attorney General in 2000 and 2001.

Then there’s an intervening period when we did elect a Liberal member of the Legislative Assembly for one term.

In 2005, Chuck Puchmayr was elected — now a very prominent city councillor, then a member of the Legislative Assembly who served very ably as Labour critic, among other roles.

In the subsequent election, my constituency elected Dawn Black, a name very well known in this House, in this province and also in this country. Dawn Black served several terms as a federal Member of Parliament very, very ably — Foreign Affairs critic and held many portfolios at a federal level.

One of the things I know she is proudest of is that…. After the murder of 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique in 1989, it was Dawn Black who built all-party consensus in the federal parliament that on December 6, from that day forward, there should be a day set aside to recognize and remember women who were victims of violence. That did, indeed, become the law.

Dawn Black is also remembered, of course, for being a very able Deputy Speaker in this Legislature. Dawn stepped down last time.

I pinch myself every single day that I am honoured to follow in their footsteps and to represent this very wonderful community.

I mentioned that the city and the community have changed so very much over the years. Indeed, they have. Today, while we have one mill remaining, the Kruger mill on the Fraser River…. That remains our only mill and our major industrial endeavour, our major industrial enterprise in the city of New Westminster.

I have, in recent months, been visiting some of our others. It being Manufacturing Month, for Steel Day last month, I visited Pacific Bolt, a small manufacturing operation — 50 employees. I guess it’s inching up to maybe what you’d call just touching a medium-sized enterprise but pretty big for New Westminster for an industrial enterprise.

They are the only nuts-and-bolts manufacturer west of Ontario, employing about 50 people. They showed me around their plant with great pride. I had the opportunity to meet with many of the workers, the employer, the owner, the managers, the front-line workers, the skilled tradespeople — incredible pride.

Some of the machinery that they work on has been around almost as long as New Westminster. Some of it is very modern, very high tech. It’s a thriving enterprise that really is looking for support in the area of manufacturing in this province — spoke out about that — and we need to be there for them.

One of the things that was also very exciting…. Our businesses in New Westminster…. I’ve talked about how much we are a part of a cohesive community, and they give back in so many different ways. One of the things I was so pleased to learn was that Pacific Bolt in New Westminster actually has a very, very active and aggres-
[ Page 9867 ]
sive and forward-looking equity-hiring program in their enterprise that is supported provincially and federally.

I had the opportunity to meet a young aboriginal woman, Jasmine — I’ve already spoken about that in this House — who, with the support of her employer and her co-workers and an aggressive equity-hiring program, is thriving as a skilled tradesperson, really loving her job.

[1705]

We don’t have a lot of industry left in New Westminster. Our biggest occupation today, actually, is health care. More people work in health care in New Westminster than in any other occupation, whether that’s at the Royal Columbian Hospital, whether it’s for Fraser Health, which has a number of offices there, whether it’s the numerous residential care facilities that exist in our constituency.

We really believe that with the growth of Royal Columbian Hospital…. Our city is really intent on building Royal Columbian Hospital as the centre of a health care hub, with research and technology and so on attached to it. I would expect that that will only grow the number of people employed in health care in the future.

So many people work in the service sector, of course, as they do across British Columbia. I made a statement last week for Small Business Month about some of those small businesses in New Westminster, and they really span the spectrum of small businesses.

They are so very involved in not just employing so many people in New Westminster but also really contributing through the chamber of commerce, through their business improvement associations and through their participation in so many charitable and community events. They give back so very much in so many ways.

It’s, I think, very important to note, when we talk about the history of New Westminster, that it has been, and continues to this day to be, the home of the Qayqayt First Nation. Qayqayt means “gathering place.” There was once a thriving community of several hundred members of the Qayqayt Nation located on the hills above the Fraser River. It was indeed a gathering place for First Nations, and it was indeed a place for commerce and for exchanges throughout the length and the breadth of the Fraser River and the Fraser Valley.

Today one can count the members of the Qayqayt First Nation on two hands. It is to their credit and, especially, to the credit of Chief Rhonda Larrabee, who I want to recognize today, that she has…. She and her family have undertaken a many-year endeavour to have the Qayqayt First Nation recognized and become fully integrated into the New Westminster community.

They absolutely are. They are part of every event organized by the city. They are part of virtually every event organized in our community. When we have representation from the federal government, the provincial government, the city government, we also have representation from our Qayqayt First Nation.

Very recently a school was opened in New Westminster, and there was huge discussion. The whole community engages in a discussion about what we should name our new schools — something that probably happens in other communities. New Westminster, school district 40, decided to name this new school the Qayqayt School.

That also means that children in the school district of New Westminster learn about the history of our First Nations in our own city of New Westminster, our own community, but also the history of First Nations in our country. Chief Rhonda Larrabee has been speaking out very, very eloquently, since the federal report, on reconciliation for aboriginal peoples — to propose and to build on the kind of education that we need to do in our community and in our school district on those issues.

Our city is an increasingly diverse city, an ethnically diverse city. I mentioned that we had a thriving Chinatown at one time. It was literally burned to the ground in the Great Fire in New Westminster. Also, for many other reasons — in part because of the racist laws of the city — people pushed out over time.

I have to say that we have become a destination for new immigrants to this province and very proudly so. In addition to our South Asian community — and I want to speak about our South Asian community in a minute — we have a growing Chinese population from many places — from Taiwan, from the People’s Republic of China, from Hong Kong.

[1710]

It’s a growing Chinese population, with many people seeking out New Westminster because even though our housing is becoming less affordable than it was, it’s still more affordable than Vancouver or Burnaby. They are certainly taking their place in our community.

The Filipino community is also growing by leaps and bounds in New Westminster. Several restaurants, several stores, Filipino organizations, twinning with a sister city in the Philippines between New Westminster and the Philippines, cafés — it’s a very thriving, a very active Filipino community. And a growing Korean community, an absolutely growing Korean community — Korean businesses, Korean cultural organizations.

I want to make special mention of our South Asian community, because they really are such an important part of the Queensborough part of New Westminster that we’re going to be losing. They have been there since the early days, working in the mills. I want to thank the people of Queensborough for being such a vital part of New Westminster for so many, many years.

I speak in support of this report, but my heart is broken, and their hearts are broken that they will no longer be part of the provincial constituency of New Westminster.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the Leader of the Official Opposition.
[ Page 9868 ]

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be recognized by you for the very first time in your new role. I’m grateful for that. You look great up there, so job well done.

It is a privilege again, as always, to stand and speak in the Legislature about the report that has been tabled by the Boundaries Commission and speak in favour of the motion that’s before us. As Leader of the Opposition, I don’t spend as much time in debate as I have in the past. Formerly, as House Leader, I would be up on my feet quite regularly during any given day, so it’s a real treat for me to be able to stand and participate in this debate.

As with the member for New Westminster, it’s with a bit of sadness, because my beloved Juan de Fuca will be changing when this report is adopted. I understand, when we complete this motion, there will be legislation brought forward by the Government House Leader, and we will be changing the boundaries for the coming election in 2017.

When I was first elected to this Legislature in 2005, I represented the region called Malahat–Juan de Fuca. That constituency was even larger than the one that I represent now. Of course, I say, absolutely advisedly, when I talk about large constituencies, I am surrounded by members for Peace River South, members for Skeena, members for North Island, who have massive constituencies. But for someone who largely represents an area on southern Vancouver Island, I have the largest area of the lot — 2,500 square kilometres represented by the current Juan de Fuca. Before that, it was even larger.

I want to talk a little bit about Malahat–Juan de Fuca, which was the first constituency that I was elected to represent. That constituency, for those of you who understand the map of southern Vancouver Island, contained a whole bunch of portions of municipalities in the old regime before 2009. In 2005, my constituency contained a portion of Langford, a portion of Metchosin and all of the area from Sooke west towards Port Renfrew, through the mountains, through the Sooke Hills to the Cowichan River just south of Duncan.

I used to remark — and for those, again, who understand the territory — that I, in my home in an area called Luxton in the great community of Langford, would drive west to visit East Sooke. I would leave East Sooke and return by going east to the West Shore, and then I would drive north to visit South Cowichan.

Now, I’ve got to tell you that that was difficult for people to understand. How is it, hon. Member…? How is it, Member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, that you go west to find east, you go east to find west and go north to be in the south? That’s the nature of the constituency that I represented, and I believe that’s the nature of many constituencies represented in this House today.

Quite often it doesn’t make a lot of sense to those who do not look at electoral maps to understand what goes on. What’s the pulse of British Columbia? What’s the pulse of a particular region? I know in the Kootenays, for example, whenever the boundaries are redistributed, where is the Slocan Valley going to go? Will it be in Nelson-Creston? Will it be in West Kootenay?

[1715]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

J. Horgan: The member for Kootenay East says he doesn’t want it. Little doubt that the people in the Slocan Valley would not be voting for the member for Kootenay East, so I can imagine….

Hon. B. Bennett: You can’t say that.

J. Horgan: I can’t say that with absolute certainty, but boy oh boy — pretty darn certain.

We all — all of us in this place — grow an affinity and an attachment to the geographic areas that are constituted as electoral areas for the purposes of representation here in this Legislature. I was gratified when the boundaries were redistributed in 2009 and Malahat–Juan de Fuca became Juan de Fuca. And there was reason for that.

Firstly, hon. Speaker, good to see you back in the chair.

The reason that I was excited about the new constituency is that it added the community of Metchosin in its totality to the area that I represented. As I said earlier in my remarks, Malahat–Juan de Fuca only had a portion of Metchosin and only a portion of Langford.

When the Boundaries Commission, in their wisdom, redrew the maps in 2009, or for the 2009 election, they had the good sense of following, in my case in any event, municipal boundaries. Now voters, electors, would have a sense of who they were voting for. If someone lived in Colwood and they said to me, “I always vote for you,” I would go: “Well, that’s difficult to get my head around, because I do not represent Colwood.”

Prior to the redistribution however, there were Metchosin people who voted for me and there were Metchosin people who voted for the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads. So it was difficult to understand just who you voted for based on the municipality that you lived in where you paid your municipal taxes.

The new boundaries that created the constituency of Juan de Fuca were gratifying to me. And the area that I represent today as I stand before you includes four municipal entities within the capital regional district in the great southern portion of Vancouver Island.

I represent the district of Highlands, the city of Langford, the district of Metchosin, the district of Sooke and the electoral area of Juan de Fuca that takes us all the way out through Jordan River, through Shirley, through Otter Point and lastly out to Port Renfrew on the west coast of Vancouver Island, and all of the forested lands between the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Salish Sea.
[ Page 9869 ]

It’s an exciting and dynamic constituency. It’s been my absolute pleasure and privilege to represent it. But now, with this resolution before us and the new maps that have been created by the Electoral Boundaries Commission, the constituency will be dropping Metchosin from its numbers, being called Langford–Juan de Fuca.

Now, I’m absolutely supportive of heightening the importance and relevance of Langford to my constituency. It’s one of the most dynamic communities in British Columbia and certainly one of the fastest growing on Vancouver Island. We have amenities beyond compare — two new schools being built to house new students that are coming on stream, state-of-the-art technologies, parks, trails, bike trails and sports facilities. We have two new arenas. We have a football field. Rugby Canada has come to Langford to make it their home.

It’s just a fantastic place to live. I’ve been there for 23 years now. I raised my family there, and I’m very proud to be a resident of Langford. So Langford-Juan de Fuca in itself is a good thing. But here’s the sad part. Those of you who enjoy fall fairs, those of you who have the sense of what a rural community can be like, will appreciate my sorrow at having Metchosin leave my area or the area that will be represented by the next person to seek office and be successful in Langford–Juan de Fuca.

Metchosin is a spectacularly rural location — fiercely rural, I would argue. And on Metchosin Day every year in September, they have a salmon and a lamb barbecue. It is absolutely the meal ticket for the entire south Island. People line up for hours to get access to the beautiful lamb of Metchosin.

When I was first elected to represent Metchosin, I was asked to participate in the doling out of the food and the condiments and so on, and they stuck me in coleslaw. Coleslaw. I thought: “Come on. I’m an opposition member, but coleslaw? Certainly I should be able to get better than that.” But I worked hard. The next year, I moved up to the corn table, which was okay. I didn’t mind corn.

C. Trevena: It’s a bit corny.

J. Horgan: It’s a bit corny, and I kind of fit that bill my colleague suggests and rightly so. But I managed to make it to the end of the line. The mint jelly station at the Metchosin Day’s lamb barbecue is the pinnacle of serving the people of your community. And for two gorgeous years….

[1720]

Sadly, it was cancelled this year because of the fire hazards that we’re all familiar with in British Columbia this summer, so I will not have another opportunity to be doling out the mint jelly at the Metchosin lamb barbecue.

Now, people are joking. They’re laughing. They’re smirking. They’re rolling their eyes. But everybody goes by the mint jelly table. As a retail politician — I’m shameless about this — I like people. Hon. Speaker, you’ve heard me talk about this before. And where better to meet people than when they have a plateful of food and you’re asking them: “At what point do you want me to deposit the mint jelly? Do you want it right on the lamb? Do you want it on the side of the plate”?

Now, these are minor issues, I know, when we’re talking about the important, weighty issues of public policy in British Columbia. But for retail politics, for meeting people, for connecting with people, there’s nothing better than doling out the mint jelly. Coleslaw was fine. Corn was okay. But the mint jelly table was it for me.

The Happy Valley Herb Farm on Happy Valley Road, where I represent…. Lynda Dowling gave me a special spoon for doling out the mint jelly, which is made with a lavender hint to it. For those who can see colours, it’s important, but it means nothing to me. But I was given a special spoon to dole out the mint jelly. And if this report passes, which I understand it will, I will no longer have the opportunity to be at the front of the line — or rather, the back of the line — on Metchosin Day.

Many people will be saying: “Hon. Member, if that’s the biggest problem you have with this report, then, why are you standing, speaking to it?”

Interjection.

J. Horgan: I got a comment from the other side. It was in passing, so I’ll just let it go.

These are important issues. It goes back to my colleague from New Westminster. We become attached to the locations that we represent. We have to remember always that we are not here other than by the good wishes and will of the people who send us here. If that changes, by increasing or decreasing populations in an area, by a redistribution to manage the growing and evolving nature of our province and our region, then, so be it.

But for me, going now into what will be my fourth election campaign on what will be the third set of boundaries…. I heard one member say: “Well, I’m going to be moving from this street to that street.” The urban members of the Legislature have daunting challenges with diverse populations and large populations in condensed areas, oftentimes in highrises, difficult to access. It’s not as easy to get mint jelly onto people’s plates when you’re going to large condominium complexes in urban centres.

But for those of us who have the good fortune…. I consider myself to be blessed, in this regard, to represent an area that is dynamic and fast-growing and as urban as you can find in British Columbia, a place like Langford, and also to be able to go to a place that is fiercely rural, like Metchosin or the Highlands, which is also a rural part of my constituency, or the hub of the west coast of the southern part of Vancouver Island, the great district of Sooke. It is a real privilege and an honour to represent these rural communities and a dynamic urban community as well.
[ Page 9870 ]

When I hear my colleagues from Vancouver-Hastings or Vancouver-Quilchena talk about, “Well, we’re just moving a couple of blocks over or a couple of blocks up. We’re on this side of Granville. We’re on that side of Granville,” I can appreciate that it may not be as emotional for them as it is for those of us who have established relationships with people who are now going to be looking elsewhere for their political representation.

It seems a small thing. For those who are watching at home, those who think, “Well, isn’t your job just to come here and make the laws of the land? Aren’t you supposed to be debating vigorously the back and forth of budgetary decisions? Are the priorities of the government the priorities of your community? Are you standing up for the things that are important to the people you represent?” of course, that’s the work that we do, but we’re all human beings. We all establish relationships.

To be successful in this business, I believe, enduring relationships need to be established. And they don’t usually become established along party lines. For example, I see my friend from Peace River South. I have been to Fort St. John many, many times, and I’ve met with Mayor Lori Ackerman. On every occasion that I alight in Fort St. John, I stop in and I see the mayor.

We do have relationships that are not built on a partisan divide. Ms. Ackerman votes differently than I do, and that’s okay. We have a common interest in understanding what the needs of our communities are.

[1725]

Similarly, my colleague from Kootenay East — he and I have grappled and crossed swords and argued and been intense many, many times. But at the end of the day, the objectives of the member for Kootenay East and the objectives of myself and my colleagues are the same, and that is to fiercely protect and promote the interests of the people who sent us here. When that changes, it’s an emotional moment.

Now, not to overstate that, but for the new members of the House, those who are coming for the first time, if you then look at this map and you find that there’s an area…. As the member for New Westminster has discovered, Queensborough is no longer going to be part of her constituency. That feels like a loss, a genuine loss. Now, there will be additional people coming to the community. You’re going to be able to meet new voters that have never met you before. All of that happens in the course of our business here and outside in our communities. But you do establish relationships, and it’s a sad thing when they end.

As I often said to my caucus, when Malahat–Juan de Fuca became defunct and it was just Juan de Fuca, I missed the Malahatians. I missed going up the hill, driving up the Malahat, going to the Cowichan River and meeting the people in Cowichan Bay, Shawnigan Lake, Cobble Hill and Glenora. Those were my constituents for an ever-brief period of time. I still pine for those days when I would go back and forth, up the Malahat, north to South Cowichan, west to East Sooke and then east to the West Shore.

It was confusing to me. It was confusing to anyone that I talked to. But you get into a pattern. You get into a rhythm. You get into a sense of what the people in the region that you represent need. It rarely, rarely breaks as a partisan question. It’s always a question about the people. What are their needs? What are their hopes? What are their aspirations?

I worked very closely with successive Ministers of Education on the government side to ensure that, finally, we would have new, state-of-the-art high schools built in Juan de Fuca. It wasn’t until the last minister…. It was George Abbott who was the minister at the time. He was the last of many that I had talked to and cajoled and lobbied and coerced to try and convince them that a good expenditure of public resources would be better made in my constituency than in a neighbouring constituency.

That’s the essence of the advocacy work that we do. Whether we’re in government or in opposition, we’re always trying to find advantage for the people who sent us here. It’s our fundamental responsibility. To think that I will not be able to advocate as aggressively for the people of Metchosin after the next election, should I be successful, as I have been to this point in time, saddens me. I will absolutely miss them.

Having said that, southern Vancouver Island is not a massive location, and I will be going to Metchosin periodically. My brother lives there, after all. I’ll be going in to see him, and I’ll be visiting my family and friends in the region. But it’s the ability to be able to say: “I represent the people of Metchosin.” I will not be able to say that should I be successful in 2017, and that disappoints me.

Now, I’ve been involved in these sorts of things in the past. I did not make a presentation to this Boundaries Commission, but I did make a presentation to the federal Boundaries Commission, interestingly. I did so because when I first became aware of political boundaries that were drawn along the lines of electoral purposes rather than for the purposes of municipal division or regional division, I was working for a chap who represented Cowichan–Malahat–The Islands. That was the name of the federal constituency.

At that time, it stretched from Nanaimo right down to Esquimalt and all of the Gulf Islands. It was a massive constituency. Tommy Douglas was the first member to represent Cowichan–Malahat–The Islands, and now that constituency has been split into four federal constituencies. It used to be one, and now it is four. I bring this up as illustrative of the challenges that we’ve faced and the challenges that the commissioners faced when we gave them their marching orders by statute whenever it was — 18 months ago or something to that effect. I believe they came back and did a particularly good job.

The reason I highlighted the emotional connection we as representatives have to our area is because that can’t
[ Page 9871 ]
cloud the work of the commission. The commission must look at population distributions. The commission must look at what transportation corridors make sense. It has to try and not divide communities. It has to try and bring them together.

Now, we’re in the business of doing that all the time. We are always trying to find common ground with our neighbours. We’re always trying to find ways to advocate for our constituencies. But the commissioners, when they were set with their task, were sent out to ensure that there was an equitable balance of population and geographical distribution, also ensuring that those transportation corridors made sense.

[1730]

My colleague from North Island represents a whole series of places that you can only get to by ferry. Soon one of them you’ll only be able to get to by a cable ferry. Heaven knows if that’s going to work. We’ve got some doubts about that right now.

My friend from Saanich North and the Islands also has to find himself on ferries. My colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke also has a ferry system in his constituency that affects him. Those issues had to be taken into consideration when the commissioners put in place the recommendations in the report that we have before us.

As much as it’s really easy to sit on the couch and second-guess the work of the commission, as I think we did do the last time they got together…. I can remember, even at the appointment of the individuals, there was controversy. “Oh, those individuals will never be able to do an effective job. They just don’t understand.”

Well, of course they understood their marching orders. They understood their terms of reference. What they didn’t have was the emotional attachment that all of us in this place have to the areas that we represent. And because they don’t have that emotional attachment, I think they’ve done a very, very capable job.

I am absolutely crestfallen at the prospect of no longer doling out the mint jelly. But I do know that the work of the commission was absolutely above reproach. We have not had a Gracie’s finger. We have not had a gerrymander. Anyone who thinks that that’s the case has not been paying attention to the evolution of these issues over time.

I go back to my presentation to the federal boundaries commission. The reason I went was not because I had any particular interest in what the configuration of the maps was. But I felt it was important for me to offer up my experience with respect to Malahat–Juan de Fuca as an elected representative and, also, my understanding of the federal challenges in massive areas on Vancouver Island with ferry issues, with highway issues.

People often say the Malahat. I’ve talked to successive Transportation ministers about the Malahat drive, from the south part of Vancouver Island into the Cowichan Valley. Now, many people who live in treacherous areas like Revelstoke will look at the Malahat and think that’s a ride in the park, but for those of us who live on Vancouver Island, it’s not just a physical barrier; it’s a psychological barrier.

The new federal constituency of Langford-Cowichan-Ladysmith, I think it’s called, has to deal with not only a community that’s really centred in the Cowichan Valley but is also centred in the capital regional district and is attached to Nanaimo. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, based on my personal experience as a representative as well as my understanding as a born-and-raised Vancouver Islander.

So I made a presentation to the boundaries commission there, and they didn’t listen to a darned thing I said. That’s probably because they didn’t have the emotional attachment that I talked about. They had numbers. They had data in front of them. “We have to make sure that we’re not deviating too much from what the standard is going to be across the province, across the country, at the federal level” — much more complex than we have here. They made their determinations. We’ve had an election. People were elected. They’re going to be going to the House of Commons. All is well.

So my concern and my fretting about these emotional issues mattered not to the boundary commission, and most importantly, it mattered not to the voters, because they showed up in large numbers in the most recent federal election, the largest numbers we’ve seen in perhaps two or three generations — fantastic news. Not one individual who voted in Langford-Cowichan-Ladysmith was at all concerned about the configuration. They went into the polling place, they looked at the ballot, they cast their votes, they have a representative, and our democracy has worked very, very well.

When you peel away all of the issues about our personal connections and our personal loyalties, it comes down to what is going to work for the people that we represent. Sure, it’s going to be easier if I don’t have to drive up the Malahat every day to represent people in the Cowichan Valley. Sure, it’s going to be a lot more fun if I get to go to Metchosin more regularly than I will now with the redistributed maps.

But at the end of the day, this process is not done for us. It’s not done for the people who are sitting here today. It’s done for the people who send us here, and I think that there’s been a very capable job done with this commission’s report.

Before I wrap up my remarks, I wanted to make note of one individual who represents…. I’ve heard other members talk about those who’ve been elected to this place over time. I think the Legislative Library has had more requests for “who came before me?” than ever before, and I think that’s a good thing. It reminds us that we are transitory, if I can use something that was perhaps a little bit controversial earlier in the day.

[1735]

We are transitory. We come here, and we’re here not at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor, as those in
[ Page 9872 ]
the Premier’s office, but at the pleasure of the people who elect us.

When I was looking through the great number of people who have represented the area that we now call Juan de Fuca — which was formerly Esquimalt for absolutely decades and then became Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, then became Malahat–Juan de Fuca, then became Juan de Fuca and will in the future be called Langford–Juan de Fuca — one thing jumped out at me. My name is here three times. That jumped out at me.

What else jumped out at me is another name here, and it’s Franklin Mitchell. Frank Mitchell was a CCF member of this Legislature, first elected in 1951. He was re-elected in 1952 and then was re-elected in 1979. Frank Mitchell had a big break from this place, a big break. He went on to be a police officer in the community of Esquimalt, served there for 25 years after being first elected here, and then came back on his retirement and served two more terms. Frank is still very much alive and kicking and living in my community on the west coast of the Island.

The last anecdote I’ll share with you. This is largely because Lynn is here and he wants to be entertained at the end of the day. When I first put my name forward to run to be a member of this place, I went to Frank Mitchell. I approached him and said: “Frank, I need your help. I need you to help me understand these areas that I’m not familiar with.” I hadn’t been to Port Renfrew since I was a kid. He said: “Don’t worry about it, Member.” It was not “member” at that time. “Don’t worry about it, candidate.” I’m not wanting to say my name. “I’ll take you out to Port Renfrew, and I’ll introduce you around.”

A friend and I got in the Volkswagen van, my friend driving. I’m in the passenger seat, and Frank, who is a large man — he’s my size and better, with a spectacular shock of white hair — was sitting, regal, in the back seat of this Volkswagen van.

We pulled into Port Renfrew, which is largely a First Nations community. The Pacheedaht reservation was where we actually stopped, on the San Juan River. And Butch — who I now know, but I didn’t know at the time…. He was just a guy standing on the side of the road, cutting up some salmon. His name is Butch, and he’s become a friend. Butch was looking at us a bit sideways. “What is this van doing in my driveway? Why are these people coming here? Who are these two young punks that have come to my territory?”

We got out of the van, and we pulled open the back door, and there was regal Frank sitting in the back seat. And Butch’s face just lit up. He had this enormous smile on his face, and he started laughing. He said: “Which one do you want me to vote for, Frank? That one or that one?” And Frank pointed to me, and Butch has been voting for me ever since.

That’s the type of lore that a guy like Frank Mitchell, after…. First elected in 1951, and still going strong on the west coast of Vancouver Island. That’s how he did politics: enduring relationships, enduring over half a century with Butch. Butch took good counsel from Frank, and Butch voted for me in May of 2005, and I’m able to stand here today and tell the story. It was a fun story for me. It was a funner story for Frank, because although he has been out of politics for some time, as we all know, once you’ve got it in your blood, it’s very difficult to get rid of it — as I look at the second generation of persons with that name.

Ed Conroy’s spouse is here, as you know. I can say that. That’s a crafty way of getting around that.

Oh, stay with me, Quilchena. Stay with me. I’m almost done.

With that, I’d like to wrap up my remarks and thank members for their patience. It’s been a while since I’ve had an opportunity to speak in debate. I have to confess that this is the quietest that the government side has been when I’ve made remarks. I don’t know if it’s deference or respect for my moderate tones.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Don’t blow it, yeah. I’ve got this far and I’m starting to wreck it.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yeah, we’re enthralled. Thank you very much, Member.

But it is a privilege to have an opportunity to represent Juan de Fuca. It’s a privilege to be able to stand here and say that the Boundaries Commission report is, in my opinion, as good as you can do in a very difficult situation. We’ve balanced, by and large, the population challenges we have, the geographic challenges we have, the transportation challenges we have.

When this bill comes forward, as the Government House Leader has promised, I’m fairly confident it will pass swiftly after measured debate, sufficient debate to fill the time of the day that we have at our disposal.

[1740]

Hon. Speaker, it’s always a delight to speak with you and every member of this House. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Hon. T. Lake: I thank all of the members for their comments. With that, I move Motion 26.

Madame Speaker: The motion reads: “Be it resolved that in accordance with section 14 of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 107, the proposals contained in the Final Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission tabled in the Legislative Assembly on September 28, 2015 be approved.”

May I ask members to take their seats to assist in the taking of the division.
[ Page 9873 ]

J. Horgan: I know this will come as a shock to all who are here, and those who were here for my remarks will be not be half as disappointed as others, but I’m advised that I broke Hansard while I was speaking, and the screen went blank. Not being prone to conspiracy theories, I take some comfort in knowing that Lynn Klein was here to hear every word of it.

If we weren’t able to record it in Hansard, we do know that our personal watchdog was here to make sure that every word was listened to intently. So thank you, Lynn, for being there when Hansard was not.

[1745]

Motion 26 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

Hon. S. Anton presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Electoral Districts Act.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I am pleased to introduce the Electoral Districts Act. I do so pursuant to section 14 of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, which requires that if the Legislative Assembly, by resolution, approves the proposals contained in the final report of an electoral boundaries commission, the government must introduce a bill to give effect to that resolution during the same session of the Legislature. We have just approved such a resolution, and accordingly, this bill would implement without amendment the proposals of the 2015 Electoral Boundaries Commission.

The bill would create 87 electoral districts in the province, an increase of two districts from the current 85, with the areas and boundaries as recommended by the commission. The new electoral districts would take effect for the scheduled 2017 provincial general election.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 42, Electoral Districts Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Bill 41, second reading.

[1750]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 41 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2015

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 41, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No, 3), 2015, now be read a second time.

Bill 41 amends a number of statutes. The amendments to the University Act and the College and Institute Act will ensure that fees continue to be collected from students who resign from the student society. The Ministry of Advanced Education will consult with student societies and public post-secondary institutions to determine which program or service fees should be protected under the legislation.

The proposed amendment to the Child, Family and Community Service Act will enable the expansion of the agreements with young adults program, allowing the Ministry of Children and Family Development to extend the duration of agreements and raise the age limit. The amendment will also enable agreements to be used for life skills programs in addition to the educational, vocational and rehabilitative programs.

Amendments to the Utilities Commission Act will implement recommendations from the B.C. Utilities Commission core review task force. The task force was initiated by government in 2014 with the goal of increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the commission in response to concerns raised by consumer groups and utilities about BCUC’s capacity to deliver clear and timely decisions.

The final report of the task force was released in February 2015, and government accepted all 35 recommendations. In its response to the final report, government committed to considering legislation to enable changes recommended by the task force. The amendments are intended to follow through on government’s commitment to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Finally, the proposed amendments to the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act are intended to strengthen out-of-province support-order enforcement. The amendments facilitate the enforcement of child and spousal support orders from other jurisdictions that do not provide certified copies of orders, making this process more efficient. The amendments also facilitate the transfer of responsibility for serving support applications received from other jurisdictions from the court to the B.C.-designated authority. This change will result in faster service of documents and a more efficient enforcement process.

Changes to this act reflect our continued commitment to supporting families, and they will further enhance the
[ Page 9874 ]
successful work done by staff in the family maintenance enforcement program, a program which has collected over $3 billion for families since 1988.

D. Donaldson: I rise today to take my place in second reading debate on Bill 41, specifically Bill 41, part 2, which deals with amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Those amendments primarily deal with the provision of youth agreements. Overall, it appears to give the director the ability to offer youth agreements to youth who turn 19 — previously youth who were termed as having aged out of ministry care. It also removes references to the duration of limitations of youth agreements from legislation, replacing them with regulation.

At committee stage, I’ll be addressing more of the specifics, but at this point, I’d like to speak generally. What we’re facing here is a response to many cases that we’ve witnessed and revealed and heard about since May. I must say that I try to remain positive. I’m a hopeful person, and I give credit where credit is due when I believe that the government is implementing legislative changes that make a difference.

This bill, in regards to the Child, Family and Community Services Act, makes amendments that could make a difference for a limited number of youth.

[1755]

What it is, though…. As a sum total of the legislative response of this government to the issue of youth transitioning out of care, it falls very short, in my opinion. I’ll speak to that. I’ll speak to the context, the issues the bill is attempting to address and, specifically, to youth agreements.

The bill is primarily a response to the report by the independent children’s representative, called Paige’s Story, which came out in May. That report was about a young First Nations woman, Paige Gauchier, who died just over 11 months after leaving care — aging out, as the term goes, at age 19 — of a drug overdose outside of a public washroom in Oppenheimer Park in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver.

She had been labelled throughout her life as service-resistant to provisions being provided or attempted to be provided by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I’ll go into more detail on Paige’s life — this is what Bill 41 was in response to — a little later in my comments.

But it’s not just that Bill 41 is in response to that horrific situation of Paige Gauchier. It was also, I believe, drafted in the government response to the death of Carly Fraser, a young woman who died only 20 hours and a few minutes after aging out of care, with no investigation, with the rehabilitative help that was needed not there and with, eventually, a freedom-of-information request by her mother, Lisa Fraser, to find out what actually happened in her child’s life turned down by this government. Bill 41 is also in response to that young woman who aged out of care and died.

I think, also, the context for Bill 41 relates to Alex Gervais. He was an aboriginal, a young Métis man, who ended up falling from the fourth-floor window of a hotel at age 19 and dying — dying while in care. He had been in a group home that was closed and was moved, contrary to government policy, to a hotel, where he lived for many months — many months. There was no transition plan in his young life either. He was 18, almost at the time of aging out of care, which Bill 41 addresses.

I also believe that Bill 41 was a response by the government to the death of Alex Malamalatabua, who died at 17, while in care, with nowhere to go. He had been, for months, in the child and adolescent psychiatric emergency unit at B.C. Children’s Hospital. For months, when the facility…. It should be an average stay of just one month. In effect, he was living in a hospital, and there was nowhere for him to go.

The comments from the independent children’s representative after he died were: “We need a better care system. We have completely defunded therapeutic foster care.” So this is Bill 41, addressing a case like Alex Malamalatabua, age 17, who died while in care.

Finally, I believe that Bill 41, in its effort to address youth agreements, was also drafted in connection to Peter Lang, who died at 15, while in care, after being left alone for 40 minutes while he was detoxing from a meth addiction, when his parents were told he would be under constant supervision. Again, the issue being rehabilitative help, the ability to provide youth agreements beyond the age of 19….

Here we have Paige Gauchier, Carly Fraser, Alex Gervais, Alex Malamalatabua and Peter Lang — all cases that have been revealed since May, all cases where young people died.

[1800]

The sum total of the legislative response in this session that we see from this government is Bill 41, where they make some adjustments — or are suggesting some adjustments — to youth agreements. I just believe that this falls very short of what a response should be to the cases that I just outlined.

Bill 41, as drafted and presented, is no doubt a response to Paige’s story — Paige Gauchier. As I said in my introductory comments, I wanted to remind listeners and viewers in this House of Paige’s story as revealed by the Representative for Children and Youth in her May 2015 report.

Paige was a First Nations woman, and her horrific life began in small communities in B.C. — small communities where resources have been lacking. And Bill 41 does not go anywhere near addressing the resources that are lacking.

She was a First Nations girl. She was originally raised in small communities like Fort St. James. She spent time
[ Page 9875 ]
in the Okanagan, and she spent some time in Merritt. These are small communities that I’m very familiar with when it comes to the lack of services for a girl like Paige — lack of trauma counselling, lack of social workers. For instance, 48 percent of social workers in this province carry 30 or more cases when the experts say that best practices are 16 to 17.

We had this government announce that they’ve gone about hiring 110 new social workers lately, yet that was only one side of the ledger. The representative pointed out that 91 social workers or child protection workers were lost during that same time — so only a net gain of 19.

Bill 41 was an effort to address the story of Paige, and it’s only addressing it through some adjustments on youth agreements.

Paige was the subject of 30 child protection reports during her 19 years. She was repeatedly returned to her mother — three times during the first year of her life — despite it being known that it was not a healthy, safe or a nurturing environment to be with her mother. Her mother had some very serious issues with drug addiction and with alcohol.

By the time that Paige was 16 years of age, she had moved 40 times. She had moved between residences with her mother, between foster homes and between temporary placements and shelters.

Again, Bill 41 is a response to this story. As I’ve said already, it falls far short in a response to Paige’s story.

After 2009, Paige moved to the Downtown Eastside with her mother. Between 2009 and when she aged out of care at 19, a matter of 2½ years, Paige moved another 50 times between homeless shelters; safe houses; detox centres; and couch-surfing, which is a term that we’re very familiar with in the small communities in the north.

When there are not enough facilities for young people in distress, they find couches of friends and acquaintances and exploiters — temporary facilities. They find these couches to live on. It’s called couch-surfing, and it opens them up to all sorts and types of abuse.

She also lived in foster homes, and she also lived in single-room-occupancy hotels — SROs — in the Downtown Eastside.

Bill 41, again, is a response to this story I’m telling.

Paige had 16 school transfers through a number of communities in B.C. By all accounts, she was a bright young woman who actually wanted to pursue her studies, her academic career. But the way that she was living, with the challenges she faced in her life, she wasn’t able to make it past grade 10 — but 16 school transfers in that short of a period.

She had 40 police files on her short life up until 19 years old, and 17 times she was in an emergency ward or in detox after being found unconscious or incoherent — sometimes on public buses, sometimes in the street.

[1805]

Again, Bill 41 is a reaction to the Paige report and trying to address the issues that Paige faced. It simply deals with voluntary care agreements, and I’m making the case that it is a less than adequate response on the part of the government from a legislative framework.

Paige had three terminated pregnancies before she was 19. She was, apparently, involved in the sex trade before she died at 19. She was labelled service-resistant by front-line workers, and she was left as a teenager to live alone on the Downtown Eastside. I don’t think any prudent parent would think that it was appropriate for a teenager at 16 to be left alone to live on the Downtown Eastside. It’s no place for a kid, and the prudent parent in this case was the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Bill 41 is a response to Paige’s life and Paige’s story. If this is the sum total of the government’s response around kids and youth and young people transitioning out of care, then I think it is wholly, wholly inadequate. At 19, Paige aged out — in other words, the Ministry of Children and Family Development were no longer responsible for her care. She was living in a foster home at the time. When the foster parents phoned the ministry office and said, “Well, she turned 19 today. What do we do with her belongings? All we have is a garbage bag,” they were told, “Put her belongings in a garbage bag, and deliver them to the last known place that we know she was at,” which was the school. Her belongings delivered in a garbage bag to her school. Now we have Bill 41, a response to Paige’s story.

It’s talking about youth agreements. It’s talking about services after 19. Now I’m going to talk a little bit about what that means and why this response is inadequate. A youth agreement is not foster care, with all of the supports that are contingent with foster care. As pointed out in the Paige report…. I’ll quote a little bit from that report, because it was the genesis of the bill that we see today:

“A youth agreement is a legal agreement between the Ministry of Children and Family Development and a youth, most typically between the ages of 16 to 18” — this bill involves making amendments to expand that beyond 18 — “who is affected by an adverse condition, such as severe substance abuse or sexual exploitation and is unable to live at home or with another family or adult. The purpose of the agreement is to help such youth gain independence, return to school or gain work experience and life skills.

“However, there are six criteria that must be filled in order for a youth to proceed with a youth agreement. As such, these criteria are not attainable by many vulnerable youth who may have the capacity to live independently. Conversely, many youth who are assessed as eligible are placed on youth agreements before they are ready to live independently.”

In the case of Paige, by the time she turned 19, all indications are that she was addicted to drugs. She had been severely traumatized by being involved in the sex trade. She had been abused. This is not the kind of youth who are going to be able to, on their own, gain enough experience on a youth agreement to return to school. A youth agreement in the instance of Paige, you know, provided her with funding for some of her personal medical needs, which is good, including transportation to medical appointments in other communities.

[1810]

The point here is that under this Bill 41 and the suggestions that are being made as amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, they don’t talk about the resources that are needed to actually give a helping hand to young youth, like Paige, who are in terrible predicaments and are labelled service-resistant. It’s not simply providing additional cash resources to the youth, which it appears that this amendment is about.

It’s about the rehabilitative services that are needed. It’s about a whole host of services that are needed. The Paige report by the independent youth representative goes a long ways to point that out. Rehabilitation services would be needed in the case of Paige, in the case of Alex Malamalatabua and in the case of Peter Lang to provide the important transition support needed for them to actually get to school, for them to actually get to jobs, for them to actually become contributing members of society and overcome the challenges they face.

But all Bill 41 does is say that the government may — may, discretionary — provide a youth agreement, offer a youth agreement, to a youth past 19. Again, that might help. If it does help a few young people who are in care to get to the next stage, then that’s a good thing. But as the legislative response in this session to the litany of hurt and pain and waste of human potential that I outlined in my earlier remarks, it is just not up to snuff.

The amendments to the act add life skills as well as rehabilitative services. But look at who we’re dealing with here: children who have great trauma. If the life skills aren’t there in first place, then what’s going to happen to these children? It says that in a youth agreement, under these proposed amendments, the youth has to be involved in life skills and has to be involved in a rehabilitative program. Many of these rehabilitative programs aren’t available, especially in more rural areas. Trauma counselling — you have to go hundreds of kilometres, in some communities, to access trauma counselling.

In Bill 41 it says: “Well, if a youth like Paige doesn’t take us up on life skills, then potentially, she should be cut off the youth agreement.” I mean, the reality of the youth that we’re dealing with and the challenges and barriers that they have to overcome is not addressed in the section of Bill 41 that deals with the Child, Family and Community Service Act. Sixty percent of youth in care are of aboriginal descent, but youth agreements are not available to delegated aboriginal agencies for youth living on reserve. So the amendments proposed under Bill 41 do nothing to address that huge gap.

We’ve got an issue here. We have 60 percent of children in care who are of aboriginal descent, and the population of the province of aboriginal ancestry is 5 percent, so it’s totally out of balance there. I would think that if I was wanting to draft legislation that really got to the crux of youth transitioning out of care, I would make sure that in that legislation I’d have something to say about services to aboriginal youth who are aging out of care.

Instead, this bill, Bill 41 and the amendments proposed, are silent on that — silent on the fact that 60 percent of youth in care are of aboriginal descent, yet youth agreements are not available to delegated aboriginal authorities for youth on reserve. It’s mind-boggling, in the fact that that was not addressed in this legislation. Again, it’s part of the reason that I say that Bill 41 falls far short of a legislative strategy to address the whole issue of the transitioning of youth out of care.

[1815]

What a serious and wholesome approach would be and what Bill 41 could have addressed was recommendation No. 1 from the Representative for Children and Youth under Paige’s Story.

Recommendation No. 1 has a number of bullet points, but the one that is really pertinent to what we’re talking about today under Bill 41 is this, and I’ll quote from the report. This is the recommendation.

“Enhanced transition planning is offered for aboriginal youth who are aging out of government care, with the recognition that these youth may require particularly robust services, including foster care and other supports, that extend beyond the age of 19. Aboriginal girls in care who are at risk of drug overdose, involvement in survival sex trade and poor school attendance to be offered extension of foster care to 24 years of age.”

Other provinces have enacted legislation similar to that. The point that the Representative for Children and Youth is making in that recommendation, the point that is pertinent to Bill 41, is that youth agreements fall far short of foster care, and as it stands today when a child ages out of care from the Ministry of Children and Family Development at age 19, they’re no longer available for foster care.

Under the amendments under Bill 41, they might be offered a youth agreement. But the distinction that the Representative for Children and Youth is making is that the resources required for a fair transition, for a just transition for these young people are not available under youth agreements. They are available under foster care.

So I’m going to conclude my remarks here in this second reading debate of Bill 41, in particular addressing part 2 of the bill around the Child, Family and Community Service Act amendments, with just the general comment that it’s disturbing and it’s disappointing that this is the sum total of the government’s youth response plan in a legislative framework after looking at the horrific stories of Paige, the horrific stories of Carly Fraser, the horrific stories of Alex Gervais, the horrific story of Alex Malamalatabua and the horrific story of Peter Lang.

Those stories that have been revealed to us over the last six months — just since May; less than six months — deserve a more fulsome, a much better, a much stronger legislative response than what we’ve seen here today and what we’ll get into at committee stage with this bill.

I believe the youth of this province deserve better. I believe
[ Page 9877 ]
the families of this province deserve better. I believe we can do better, and I expect better from the government. And I’ll have more comments at committee stage.

N. Macdonald: I see there are no government members that are going to speak on this bill so far, which is interesting. It is, you know, an opportunity to speak on a couple of interesting aspects to important parts of government.

So this is the miscellaneous statutes act. It is, in fact, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3). Now, for those who are watching, a miscellaneous statutes act is generally something that will involve minor amendments to a number of existing pieces of legislation.

[1820]

As the name sort of hints at, this is the third such bill in this session alone. So they’re quite common. Pretty well every session that I’ve been here, we’ve had a miscellaneous statutes act. They’re usually benign. In this case, it certainly looks like most of the elements here are benign. Sometimes government uses them to sneak in some significant changes, so you have to look carefully.

Bill 41 involves changes to the University Act; the College and Institute Act; and the Child, Family and Community Service Act, which my colleague just previous to me has spoken about. As well, there are changes to one of the justice acts.

I’m going to focus most of my comments on one element of the miscellaneous amendment act, which is changes to the operation of the B.C. Utilities Commission. First, before I go there, I want to touch on changes in this bill to two acts that impact university and college student unions.

This spring the B.C. Liberals changed the Society Act. So in this same session, they changed the Society Act, and at that time, our critic raised concerns about the impacts of those changes on university and college student associations. Included in this act is an attempt by government to fix what they got wrong mere months ago. Later in the debate the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake will do, as she always does, a very complete job of pointing out what remains as a problem with this attempted fix.

What it does raise is a question of whether the minister did any consultation with the groups impacted. But there’ll be an opportunity for the minister, either in this debate or perhaps at the committee stage, to bring in amendments so that we get it right this time or give an explanation as to the direction that the government has decided on.

But the parts of the miscellaneous amendments act that I want to focus my comments on deal with section 17, and they run to section 27. All of these deal with, to be clear, fairly minor changes to the B.C. Utilities Commission that arise from a so-called government core review.

Now, the B.C. Utilities Commission is a B.C. government agency that is tasked with, among other things, regulating rates and regulating the standards of service quality for utilities — including, of course, most specifically, or the one that people would be most familiar with, B.C. Hydro. The B.C. Utilities Commission is responsible for making sure that the public interest — in this case, the interest of ratepayers — is protected and that the significant public investment that is controlled by B.C. Hydro and is owned by the people of British Columbia — that that infrastructure is protected. That’s the task for the B.C. Utilities Commission.

It is a quasi-judicial body. It makes legally binding decisions. Their mission statement is “to ensure that ratepayers receive safe, reliable, non-discriminatory energy services at fair rates” from utilities such as the publicly owned B.C. Hydro. That’s an important task. And this body, the B.C. Utilities Commission, is an important agency, especially for ratepayers. This bill makes some minor changes to the B.C. Utilities Commission. But of course, the real problem is that the B.C. Liberals regularly bypass the B.C. Utilities Commission altogether.

There is over $12 billion in B.C. Hydro spending that has very purposefully been removed from B.C. Utilities Commission oversight by the B.C. Liberals — $12 billion that should have gone through a process that is in place to safeguard ratepayers, was purposefully removed from oversight by the agency that we pay for in any case and that has the legal obligation to oversee. That is the problem that actually needs to be fixed.

[1825]

You would ask yourself, and I think you’d ask yourself fairly: why would the B.C. Liberals not want a group with expertise, tasked with protecting the public interest and providing independent oversight, to look at $12 billion worth of spending? What rationale is there for purposely having the B.C. Liberals remove the B.C. Utilities Commission from looking at $12 billion worth of spending? The answer is that the spending has something to do with something other than the public interest. In fact, that is the case, and it’s demonstrably the case.

The B.C. Utilities Commission was set up for a purpose that is really clear. It was set up to prevent political games. When a government specifically removes at least — and this is at least — $12 billion from B.C. Utility Commission oversight, let’s be clear. It is to allow political games. That’s what the B.C. Liberals have done, that’s what the B.C. Liberals are doing, and that’s what the B.C. Liberals will be doing in the future.

The results are predictable. While some friends of government no doubt benefit, the ratepayer ends up paying more. We’ve seen this. If you just look at your bill…. People at home, just look at your B.C. Hydro bill. Sure enough they have gone up, on average, 51 percent since the B.C. Liberals came in, and they are going up a further 28 percent.

Each and every ratepayer in the province of British Columbia is paying for B.C. Liberal games. They are paying the price of a government making decisions and pur-
[ Page 9878 ]
posefully removing the B.C. Utilities Commission from having a look at it and deciding whether it’s truly in the public interest, truly in the interest of ratepayers, to see that B.C. Hydro is being looked after properly. All of that has been removed by the B.C. Liberals.

Now, the government will say — and it’s true — that we have about the third-lowest rates for electricity here in British Columbia. That’s true. That is accurate. But of course, any province that has heritage hydro dams is going to have cheap electricity. They’re going to have the advantage that other provinces with different geography don’t have. If you look at the three provinces that have heritage hydro dams — Quebec, Manitoba and B.C. — of those, B.C. is now the most expensive. That’s the comparison.

With hydro power, the advantage that B.C. should have, and has traditionally had, has been eroded with decisions that are politically motivated and decisions that have been taken away from the B.C. Utilities Commission. The reason often relates, of course, to these decisions that the B.C. Liberals have made. And of course, as is common, they often specifically forbid the Utilities Commission to look at the decision.

How have some of these decisions worked out? We have not only the opportunity to look at what’s coming and to say that that’s potentially problematic. We also have the ability to look back at decisions that were made by the B.C. Liberals and decisions that were specifically removed from the oversight of the B.C. Utilities Commission.

I’ll remind members, just for the public, to go back to IPPs. In 2006 or so, we had a host of private river-diversion projects. Now, to remind members and to remind the public about that initiative, that was when the B.C. Liberals passed legislation that prevented B.C. Hydro from developing run-of-river facilities — specifically, did not allow B.C. Hydro to make those developments.

[1830]

The sites that B.C. Hydro had already identified as good locations for run of river were given to private companies, and they were given rights to those rivers for as little as $5,000. So the public paid to identify the sites, and then individual companies were given the opportunity to use those sites at $5,000 or less.

B.C. Hydro was then required to sign on to 30- to 35-year commitments to buy power from these IPPs, from these companies, from these private river diversion projects. At the same time, B.C. Hydro was split into B.C. Hydro and B.C. Transmission. Of course, that didn’t work. It was a very expensive flop. Now B.C. Transmission is back in with B.C. Hydro, and the contracts have proved to be absolutely disastrous financially.

I am proud that the people in the Kootenays fought the initiative. I have to say they mainly fought to try to protect their rivers in their area. But in the community meetings that we had, people understood that the other aspect of it was how disastrous it was financially for B.C. Hydro and for ratepayers. It is gratifying, in hindsight, to be right, to have community members right. But the fact is that the damage to B.C. Hydro is done.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Over the next 35 years, B.C. Hydro will pay out $55 billion for energy that is not needed. That is a startling sum and a startling mistake. In the scope of errors that have been made by governments through the history of British Columbia, to make a decision that for the next 35 years will cost ratepayers $55 billion…. It blows your mind. It is a shocking error.

It is an error that, as opposition, we talked about. The Leader of the Opposition, as the Energy critic, predicted this problem, took apart the arguments of government.

To this bill. The aspect that is interesting is that the group that was not asked to look at these decisions was the B.C. Utilities Commission. They were specifically removed from looking at these projects by the Clean Energy Act, which the government, in its rush to avoid oversight of any sort, passed using closure, without the committee stage of that bill even going forward. They had somewhere else they had to be, I suppose.

So a $55 billion mistake that all ratepayers will pay for over the next 30 to 35 years for energy we do not need. We are buying energy most years at the same time that we are running water over facilities that B.C. Hydro owns — all of that without the oversight of the B.C. Utilities Commission.

That’s just one example, and it’s a shocking example. But it’s where it gets you when you put politics and the very close relationship between many of these companies and the government ahead of the public interest. You know you’ve done that when you remove the B.C. Utilities Commission.

It also, by the way, excluded rural people in decision-making. Actually, that was a miscellaneous statutes act change. That was the Ashlu River provisions that removed rural local governments’ say in terms of whether the diversion of rivers was appropriate or not.

Let’s go back. The B.C. Liberals put forward a plan that cost $55 billion for power that we don’t need. They removed the B.C. Utilities Commission from oversight. They used closure to do that here in this Legislature. And, third, they removed local governments’ ability to have a say in whether the developments were appropriate or not. It’s actually incredibly shocking, but there we go.

[1835]

What other projects has the B.C. Utilities Commission gone through and had its authority, its responsibility removed from it? Here we are. We’re looking at a bill that’s going to tinker with the B.C. Utilities Commission, but the real problem is that this government, the B.C. Liberals, regularly uses legislation or regulation to make sure the B.C. Utilities Commission can’t look at what’s going on and say whether it’s a good idea.
[ Page 9879 ]

Remember, the purpose of the B.C. Utilities Commission is to protect the interests of ratepayers. It is to make sure that there is not political interference. Well, where are some of the other projects? Let’s see how they’ve done. So we’ve got $55 billion — that mistake. Pretty significant.

What about the northwest transmission line? Well, that’s a project that supplies, potentially, some mines up in the northwest. Potentially, it is a project that one could argue is a good investment. But that’s not an argument that was made in front of the B.C. Utilities Commission. That’s one that was instead imposed. And it’s a project that is 85 percent over budget.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Well, the minister scoffs. The minister responsible scoffs. But before the election, it was $395 million.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Wow. Here is the minister. The minister says: “He doesn’t have a clue.”

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Please continue.

N. Macdonald: The minister, in question period, when asked about the transmission line — which, before the election, he said was going to be $395 million…. It is now going to be $716 million. Then he stood up in this House, and he told us: “Well, with these projections….”

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Minister.

Point of Order

Hon. B. Bennett: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I’d like the member to retract his statement about something that he said I said.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, he doesn’t have evidence, because I never said anything about the project. What the member just said is incorrect, and I’d like him to retract it.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Member. Member.

N. Macdonald: Google it. It’s there. You can check in a second.

Madame Speaker: Member.

I’ll thank the minister for his submission and ask the member to be so guided.

N. Macdonald: So $316 million was the B.C. Liberal promise. The actual number — $736 million.

That’s the fact, Minister. You don’t like that? Well, then you can walk away. Bye. Off you go.

Madame Speaker: Member.

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Speaker, I’d like the member to retract that last statement as well.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Member.

N. Macdonald: You guys, you play by the rules, eh?

Madame Speaker: Member, you will know that it is not customary to comment on the absence or presence of members in this House. You know that.

N. Macdonald: Okay.

So $316 million was the B.C. Liberal promise. And $776 million….

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Minister.

I would ask all members to direct their comments through the Chair.

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Speaker, I believe the rules of the House do not allow a member to make reference to another member either being present or not present in the House. This member has made such a comment, and I’d like him to retract it.

Madame Speaker: Member.

N. Macdonald: The minister wants to make a speech. You had the opportunity. You can get up, and you can say what you like.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke, I have given you the same advice. Please withdraw the comment.

N. Macdonald: I’ll withdraw the comment.

Madame Speaker: Thank you. Please continue.
[ Page 9880 ]

Debate Continued

N. Macdonald: Off you go.

So $316 million was the promise — $395 million, $716 million. A number of the transmission lines are also specifically prevented from being considered by the B.C. Utilities Commission — $1 billion.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Well, the minister says I’m a loser. Fine, fine, fine. Well, this…. Okay.

[1840]

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Yeah, let’s focus, then. Let’s focus.

B.C. Utilities Commission — $1 billion smart meter program. Well, I was never shown a business case for that. I was never shown a business case for the imposition of smart meters, and neither was the B.C. Utilities Commission. In fact, the B.C. Utilities Commission was specifically prevented by the B.C. Liberals from evaluating the investment of $1 billion — specifically removed from that oversight.

That worked well. You’d think for $1 billion that there’d be a business case, and you’d think with the business case, if you had one, that you would be capable of going to the B.C. Utilities Commission and putting it in front of that commission. But that wasn’t the case.

Now, Site C. Site C is another example — exempt from B.C. Utilities Commission oversight. Site C was originally…. What was the first sum? It was $6.6 billion? It was going to be $6.6 billion. It is now going to be $8.8 billion, and likely the final figure is closer to $13 billion. That money is money that is yet to come from ratepayers.

The B.C. Utilities Commission….

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: The member for aboriginal affairs….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member, please take your seat.

N. Macdonald: The member for aboriginal affairs….

Madame Speaker: Please take your seat, Member.

N. Macdonald: Okay. Well, we’ll get….

Madame Speaker: Please take your seat.

All comments will be directed through the Chair.

N. Macdonald: So the B.C. Liberals, through the Chair…. The member for aboriginal affairs says we just make numbers up, so let’s talk about some numbers made up. Let’s leave aside the numbers for Site C, which are made up.

Let’s talk about LNG — 100,000 jobs. Hey, that’s made up. If only it were so. No, there’s more fantasy. You see, fantasy jobs that you talk about are not the same as real jobs, like the 30,000 you’ve lost in forestry. Those were real jobs.

Madame Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

N. Macdonald: Those were real jobs. Quesnel — shut-down mill. We’re talking about Houston losing a mill, Canal Flats losing a mill. One hundred thousand jobs made up. A $100 billion fantasy prosperity fund.

There’s a made-up number for you, Minister.

How about the LNG plant that is supposed to be up and running right now? What about “Debt-free B.C.,” the $168 billion that the minister campaigned on to get rid of?

Madame Speaker: Member.

N. Macdonald: What about no sales tax?

Madame Speaker: Member, please align your comments….

N. Macdonald: There are an awful lot of made-up numbers that the B.C. Liberals have.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke, align your comments to the content of the bill.

N. Macdonald: Well, let’s talk about Site C — $6.6 billion, $8.8 billion and likely $13 billion. All of this is something that the B.C. Utilities Commission should have an opinion on.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Well, the minister has a lot to say — the minister responsible for this file. He didn’t choose to say it in his speech, and no matter what he says about me, whether he calls me a loser or not, I always know that he had worse to say about Premier Gordon Campbell. He had a lot more to say about Gordon Campbell. It was a lot worse. So whatever you say, it doesn’t approach “that bad man.”

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

N. Macdonald: I’d be happy to.
[ Page 9881 ]

The B.C. Utilities Commission, then, is just an example of what is needed to make sure that we don’t drift into more mistakes. One might think that it would be smart to do due diligence on an investment of billions and billions of dollars and to use an agency that we are paying for that is tasked with doing that work. But the B.C. Liberals think otherwise.

[1845]

This miscellaneous statutes act is generally not voted against at second reading. We usually look at whether the specifics of the bill make sense or not.

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: Well, I can see we’ve got a raucous group here on what was otherwise a very dull day — raucous group. As a teacher…. At the end of a long day, it often happens, and it’s happened here again.

The specifics are pretty clear. This bill makes minor changes to the B.C. Utilities Commission. What I have talked about is example after example that represent massive sums for ratepayers, that are the reason that we see record levels of increases in costs to ratepayers. People just have to look at their bills, and they see them go up, and when they are dealing with the reality of having to pay more for these Hydro prices, they need to ask themselves the question: are the decisions that government has made reasonable decisions?

There was every opportunity for government to check and make sure that they were reasonable decisions. They could have gone to a body that exists in legislation to prevent governments from playing games. It is absolutely unbelievable to me that instead of doing that, this government chose to go a different direction. They chose instead to go in a direction of side-stepping the B.C. Utilities Commission and to go instead to a place where they are going to make decisions that turn out to be incredibly poor decisions.

Let’s just go back over the list. The IPP fiasco: $55 billion over the next 30 to 35 years — $55 billion dollars. The B.C. Utilities Commission would have said that there are better things to do than to buy energy, rather than….

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: Well, you know what I’m positive of? I’m positive that this is a government that is bereft of ideas. I’m positive that this is a government that doesn’t know that it is supposed to keep records. I am positive of that. I am positive that we can do better if we use the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: Well, it’s a feisty group, isn’t it? There’s an awful lot here that they don’t like to hear. There’s an awful lot here that they don’t like to see.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Why don’t you explain to us how much…?

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

N. Macdonald: Ah, through the Chair. Well, we were having an interesting conversation, but I’ll come back to the Chair as we approach the end of the day.

The B.C. Utilities Commission has a job to do. If given the chance to do the job, it would save money. It would have saved $55 billion over 30 years. That’s a significant sum. It would have asked questions on transmission lines, questions that would make sense for those interested in the ratepayers to ask. It would have made sure that we didn’t step into the number of mistakes that we have stepped into again and again.

What’s the government’s intention going forward? Have they learned their lesson? Their intention is to sidestep the B.C. Utilities Commission again and again, and you have to ask yourself: why do they do it? They do it for a very specific reason. They do it because it serves a political interest, a narrow political interest, and whether they waste $12 billion or they don’t waste $12 billion, it’s all the same to them.

Well, I note the hour, and with that, I move adjournment of the debate for today and suggest that we gather and continue this debate in the future, when members are calm and we can have a more rational debate.

Madame Speaker: There is time remaining. I’ll recognize the Minister of Energy and Mines.

[1850]

Hon. B. Bennett: A couple of quick things. First of all, it’s well known that the NDP does not support clean energy in this province. As it happens, next week is the annual general meeting of the Clean Energy Association of British Columbia. I’ll be speaking there — I’m their keynote speaker — and I will be sure to tell all 285 people who are there at the clean energy conference that, once again, the NDP was in the House slagging their industry. Good for you.

Now, secondly, on this side of the House…. You’ve got to listen to this. In 1998, the NDP government introduced a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, No. 3, that provided a process for exempting new power supply contracts from the BCUC. So what the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke just stood up and talked about for half an hour, they actually were doing in the 1990s. I mentioned this about a month ago here in the House when I was talking about the Site C motion.

I don’t mean to pick on the member from Coquitlam. He happened to be the Energy Minister at the time. Here’s what the Vancouver Sun said about this. They said: “The
[ Page 9882 ]
amendments enable the minister to exempt virtually any energy supply contract from independent and public review.” So it seems like there may be some hypocrisy involved with recent comments made by the opposition. The Minister of Energy at the time — he was responsible for B.C. Hydro — said that these amendments would reduce red tape.

I don’t know why the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, who is a very…. He is not a loser, and I’m sorry that I said that. He is a good man. I’m sorry that I said that. I apologize and withdraw the comment. But he certainly was wrong about everything that he said.

When you think about the fact that B.C. gets 25 percent of its electricity from the clean energy industry…. Now, we get 25 percent of our electricity from the clean energy industry, and the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke said: “Well, if we weren’t buying that electricity, it wouldn’t cost us anything.” Where does he think we would get that electricity from? We would have to build new generation. It’s NDP economics. It’s NDP math.

I just wanted to get a few words in on this before we retire for the day.

Hon. B. Bennett moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake: I hesitantly move adjournment, because it’s been so much fun here this afternoon. But I do move adjournment for the day.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:53 p.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