2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 30, Number 6

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

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2015

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: I have the pleasure to introduce four guests who are joining us for question period this morning. Dr. Malcolm Moore, who is the incoming president of the B.C. Cancer Agency, is with Lou Del Gobbo, who is the interim president and CEO of the B.C. Cancer Foundation. They’re also joined by cancer survivor Susan McLoughlin and B.C. Cancer Foundation staff person Shamim Pirani.

[1005]

They’re all here this morning to join us for an announcement of $2 million to the B.C. Cancer Foundation in support of the B.C. Cancer Agency research towards world-leading genomic research to improve the outcome for breast cancer patients here in British Columbia and around the world.

Would the House please join me in making them very welcome.

D. Bing: I have the pleasure of introducing a good friend to the House today from Saskatchewan. His name is John Nilson. We date back to high school days. John and I met when we were 15 years old in New Westminster Secondary School. We were on the football team together, and we were in chemistry and physics together, I recall.

I went on to UBC, and John went down to Tacoma to go to university in the States. From there, he came back to Canada, did his law degree at UBC and was called to the bar in 1978. He was called to the bar in Saskatchewan in 1979.

From there, he was in corporate practice, I believe, for 15 years, and then he ran for the New Democratic Party in the riding of Regina Lakeview. He was elected and has been an MLA there for 20 years. He has served in many positions, including Attorney General and the Minister of the Environment, and at one time, he was the interim leader as well.

Would the House please make my good friend welcome — John Nilson.

G. Kyllo: I have a number of announcements to make today. Joining us in the House is my lovely wife, Georgina, a very patient woman. We celebrated our 27th wedding anniversary just last week. Also joining her is my lovely daughter, Samantha. Samantha is taking her community care worker program at Sprott Shaw College. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Also joining us in the House today, it’s great to have my nephew, Brady Stead from Vernon joining us. I’m very proud to welcome Brady, along with members of the Camosun College men’s golf team that is based here in Victoria. The Camosun Chargers golf team was recently crowned champions by the Canadian Collegiate Athletics Association at the Canadian championships in Chilliwack. This is a national title, making the Chargers the number one college team in all of Canada.

These fine young Camosun men won the championship in dramatic fashion, coming from behind on the back nine on the final day to win by eight strokes over Niagara College of Welland, Ontario. Brady, whose hometown is Vernon, was also named player of the year and placed fourth in a field of 72 national golfers to lead the team to the gold medal.

Most if not all of the team are here with us today. I’m very pleased to introduce my nephew, Brady Stead, and his teammates Grant Maskiewich of Smithers, Jeff Riches of Victoria, Matt Matheson of Vancouver and Mac Keats of Calgary, along with their coach, John Randle. It’s also worthy to mention that the Chargers were supported this season by alternate team members Tyler Robertson of Prince George and Scott Merriam of Cranbrook.

Congratulations, gentlemen, for making B.C. proud. I encourage members on both sides of the House to make them feel very welcome.

R. Fleming: It makes me very proud, as a University of Victoria alumni member, to introduce a number of guests from the University of Victoria Students Society, who are joining us here this morning. We have Brydon Kraemer, Solenn Madevon, Fardoussa Omar and Bernadette Peterson. They are directors with the UVic Students Society. They are advocacy group representatives here in the precinct this morning to have some meetings with government.

I would ask all members of the House to make these guests most welcome here today.

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, have quite a few guests here today. But first of all, I’d like to welcome my friends at Seycove Secondary. I don’t very often have very many people come to visit from my riding, believe it or not. It’s really a joy to be able to have some of my students from what used to be called the FLIGHT program. Now it’s called the performance learning program.

They are members of the Apex cohort, a grade 10 class that includes English, science and social studies. Entrance to this distinct, enhanced program is by competitive application. They’re visiting Victoria as part of an in-depth gold rush field study that includes a visit to the
[ Page 9884 ]
Royal B.C. Museum to work directly with the chief oral history archivist, a walking tour of the city’s Victorian era, gold rush history and a tour of the Craigdarroch Castle to see firsthand how the upper class lived during this period of their study.

[1010]

I’d like to welcome students Michael Crema, Nolan Carey, Matthew Dandar, Griffin Dent, Anatolia Floe, Michael Fourie, Jacob Goodman, Joel Hamersley, Marley Harman, Kirby Harris, Nash Jacoe, Spencer McCoach, Tylo Roberts, Jackson Rogers, Zakaria Rook, Christopher Ross, Gabrielle Rossignol, Matthew Seed, Brianna Teegen, Laura Woelke, Teva Zanker and their esteemed teachers, Bryan Hughes and Petra Willemse. Can the House please make them welcome.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I’m thrilled today to introduce very five special people in my life. They are Judi Ainsworth, from French Creek; Carol Tennessy, from Kamloops; Adrian Parker and Karen Hilton, from North Vancouver; and Dee Dhaliwal, from Vancouver.

What brought us together initially was we were all either presidents or chairs or vice-chairs of the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce. What continues to fuel our friendship is the opportunity that we have to spend time discussing politics, football, hockey, food, wine, the birth of new grandchildren, hip replacements and relationships that worked and didn’t.

My only regret today is that one of the women who is part of the Chamber Chics, Debbie Tardiff, couldn’t be here. But to the Chamber Chics: thank you for coming to Victoria. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I have another group of guests. The Canadian Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation is a charitable foundation that raises funds to finance research to better understand and develop treatment and find a cure for pulmonary fibrosis. They are raising public awareness, and they’re offering support to those that suffer. Their group is here to visit some MLAs.

I’d like to welcome Barbara Deglau, Martin Wittman, John Webb, Sue Webb, George Kaminsky, Doug Barber, Adrianne Barber, Bob Mellor and Ann Mellor. Can the House please make them welcome.

And then just two more people that I’d also welcome. My friends Bonnie Swan and Lee Swift — they’re up there — with Merck.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s a pleasure today to introduce representatives of the UVic Students Society and UVic Pride. I’ve just met with the president of the UVic Students Society. We’re working together for a better future and a brisk economy using the bright minds of our students. Please welcome them.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

HOMELESSNESS ACTION WEEK
IN VANCOUVER

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak about the fourth annual Kensington–Cedar Cottage Homelessness Action Week event, preventing homelessness and promoting growth.

The week’s purpose is to raise public awareness on the issue of homelessness. It involved a resource fair with information tables in McAuley Park and had participating organizations of SAFE, Vancouver rent bank, MOSAIC B.C., Coast Mental Health, UBC Nursing, MPA courtworkers, Positive Living Society, the Native Courtworkers and Counselling Association of B.C., WISH and the Vancouver-Kensington community office.

Afterwards we went to the Salvation Army family services for a short screening, hosted by the John Howard Society, on homelessness and heard from an individual, Stuart Weans, who had previously been homeless.

His story was very striking. He talked about how he didn’t feel safe in housing, and so that’s why he was homeless. Every night he went to sleep under a structure. He had some furry companions. He had some pets. They were a family of skunks. The babies would crawl into his sleeping bag and sleep at the foot of his sleeping bag. The mother skunk would curl up in his arms, and the father skunk would be at the far end. This is a really powerful story.

Really, I want to commend the organizers who pulled together the week. They were Eric Desjardins, from the John Howard Society, Kelly Woods, from the Cedar Cottage Neighbourhood House. The city of Vancouver participated, the Vancouver Public Library as well — the Kensington branch. Tara O’Kaffey and Derek Hyatt, from the Salvation Army, and Rajdeer Braish, from John Howard.

[1015]

Homelessness. They talked about — we had a community discussion afterwards — how we need more affordable housing and supportive housing, second-stage housing to support individuals coming out of emergency housing — and need to support individuals with addictions and who are overcoming mental health challenges.

Housing is more than having a roof over your head. It’s being supported and being inclusive. It was a great event to mark that.

NEW PATHWAYS TO GOLD SOCIETY

L. Throness: Last week several MLAs had the opportunity to meet the New Pathways to Gold Society, represented by Gordon Rattray, Terry Raymond, Lily Chow and Chief James Hobart of the Spuzzum First Nation.
[ Page 9885 ]

New Pathways to Gold was founded in 2007 with a mandate to preserve the historic Gold Rush Trail up the Fraser Canyon, encourage tourism and promote First Nations reconciliation. Our government seeded new pathways with $2 million at that time. Since that time, the society has used the funding to leverage another $2 million, undertaking 17 major projects, such as the 13-kilometre Tikwalus Heritage Trail.

New Pathways board members are real visionaries. Chief among future projects is the refurbishment and restoration of Alexandra Bridge as a major regional attraction, an attraction that is already bringing in tourists, particularly from China.

Our government is attuned to the growing interest in the history of the Gold Rush Trail. Just two weeks ago the Minister of International Trade released the Fraser Corridor Heritage Landscape Project Report, which documents more than 500 mining sites in the Fraser Canyon dating from the 1800s, many built by Chinese labourers.

I want to thank the society for its work and urge it to press on, and I want to encourage our government to continue to recognize the importance of preserving and promoting the exciting history of the Gold Rush Trail for all British Columbians and for visitors from around the world.

COMMUNITY OF DODGE COVE

J. Rice: Dodge Cove on Digby Island is a quiet, quaint community inhabited by about 50 people and situated across the Prince Rupert Harbour. Dodge Cove resident Sarah Brown writes to me and says: “I have lived in this area for 29 years and on Digby Island for 17 years. I am presently raising a fourth-generation Dodge Cove resident. I choose to live in Dodge Cove because it is rural living, close to nature, that has quiet, fresh air, clean water, food harvesting and hunting and fishing. This is a unique coastal community that has been here for over 100 years.”

The community may be small, but the history, characters and stories from Dodge Cove are large. In 1912, a three-storey quarantine hospital was built by the Department of Immigration in anticipation of a great influx of settlers to the region following the completion of the Grand Trunk Railway reaching its western terminus of Prince Rupert.

As things turned out, the hospital admitted only one patient, a sailor with a head cold, and the building still exists. Around World War I, Ed Wahl set up the Wahl boatyards and built everything from gill-netters, including entire fleets for the northern salmon canneries.

The CBC built a repeater station sometime around 1943, and the building still remains sitting atop what is known as CBC hill. The site offers a magnificent vista of the area, and in the spring, the hill is covered in hundreds of yellow daffodils.

Every Easter, Dodge Cove residents share in a potluck brunch in the community hall. The food includes wild salmon caught, and cooked or smoked, by the local fishermen and locally grown foods from Dodge Cove gardens. Des Nobels serves up his famous crepes, topped with locally harvested blueberries and huckleberries.

The people of Dodge Cove are a great bunch of characters. They include teachers, writers, artists, health professionals, managers, loggers and retirees. There are many published authors, past and present, from the cove. One book I’d like to highly recommend to the members of this house is called Gumboot Girls.

MISSION COMMUNITY ARCHIVES
WOMEN’S HISTORY PROJECT

M. Dalton: Every October, during Women’s History Month, Mission Community Archives celebrates the exceptional of women who are shining lights in our community. Archivist Val Billesberger established the Paths and Pathfinders women of Mission program. Her goal was to facilitate the preservation of local women’s records and to celebrate their diverse contributions to the community in the past and the present. Val has tirelessly spearheaded this initiative since its inception.

This year marked the 20th anniversary of the annual celebration, which is a first of its kind in British Columbia. The archives have expanded to include personal records documenting the lives of 100 women.

[1020]

Each year new inductees are selected. A great deal of research is done on their lives, interviews made and an informative panel painstakingly built. These women range from entrepreneurs to caregivers to educators to politicians to artists to athletes. Recognizing the contribution that women have made in our community has been ignored in our history.

The member for Abbotsford-Mission and I attended again the Paths and Pathfinders celebration event. This year three remarkable women were honoured.

Jo Priestley is an internationally recognized and award-winning artist whose exemplary leadership and volunteerism in Mission has significantly enhanced the arts community. Polly Betterton is a passionate learner and proactive, selfless volunteer for children and youth, health care, the faith community and local heritage. Sophie Zehner-Parks is a dedicated leader and advocate for the better treatment of senior citizens and an avid promoter of Ukrainian culture through the Orthodox Church.

I would like to extend my congratulations to these women and the Mission Community Archives for their work and to all the extraordinary honourees over the years.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF DELTA FIREFIGHTERS

V. Huntington: It is a great honour today to recognize the outstanding contributions of Delta’s retired
[ Page 9886 ]
volunteer fire chiefs Gordon Huff and Ken Davie. This week Gordon and Ken became the very first British Columbians to ever receive the Canadian Volunteer Fire Services Association’s long service award.

Prior to 1963, Delta’s fire service was entirely run by volunteers, most of whom were local farmers dedicated to the well-being and safety of their community. In those early days, the volunteer fire hall was a converted chicken house in east Delta. In 1953, when Delta purchased its first real, fully outfitted fire truck, schools and businesses alike closed so that everyone could see the shiny, new, red truck.

Gordon Huff began his career as a volunteer firefighter after witnessing the tragic Embree barn fire that killed 96 dairy cows. He retired as fire chief in 1988, the longest-serving chief in Delta’s history.

Ken Davie took over from Gordon and commanded the fire hall for 22 years, officially logging over 47 years as a volunteer firefighter — all this, I might add, while running a successful dairy farm. Chief Davie had joined the service in 1964 as a 16-year-old who had managed to get permission from his high school principal to leave class when the fire siren went off.

Many of the volunteers these men trained subsequently became full-time firefighters, many of whom still serve in the Lower Mainland. Delta has benefited from the leadership, bravery and generosity of these two good men. Their legacy will not be forgotten, and we honour them for their commitment to public service.

Congratulations, gentlemen, on a well-deserved award.

ANXIETY PREVENTION AND
SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH

J. Thornthwaite: We all get nervous from time to time, and we all experience excessive worry, have difficulty sleeping, and ruminate on regret. But what if these feelings became so frequent and powerful that they began to take over someone’s life?

What if walking into a crowded room or trying to make an important decision caused so much discomfort that it left you panicked, sleep-deprived, nauseated and thinking you have no control? What if social situations caused you to feel like you were choking, about to faint, and left you looking for the nearest exit? What if self-doubt, uncertainty and constant fear left you feeling crippled and unable to enjoy life?

This is anxiety. It affects 5 percent of all Canadians, and though we all probably know someone who is affected, we might not know that they are suffering. Youth are experiencing increased levels of anxiety, stress and depression. The Canadian Mental Health Association estimates that more than three million Canadians between the ages of 12 and 19 are at risk and may experience fear and nervousness daily. This can affect their academic performance and may cause them to avoid places, activities and important social experiences.

Helping school-aged children develop tools that strengthen resiliency and reduce the risk of anxiety is key to easing their suffering and improving their ability to cope not just with school but with all obstacles that life can offer.

This is where the B.C. Friends program comes in. B.C. Friends is a school-based anxiety prevention and resiliency initiative that provides programming for kindergarten to grade 7, with activities and lessons ranging from healthy eating and sleeping habits to empathy-building and mindfulness exercises. The program also offers training for teachers, counsellors and parents on how best to help children learn to be confident and brave.

[1025]

This program is offered at no cost to schools throughout the province, and I encourage all educators and counsellors to look at it and take part. Help us increase mental well-being in our schools so that we can hold anxiety away from our lives.

Oral Questions

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL RULING
AND INDEMNITY OF
COLLEGE OF VETERINARIANS

J. Horgan: The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal was set up so that groups and individuals subjected to racism, discrimination — or just being treated unfairly for who they were — would have a place to find justice. But now we know that a group of South Asian veterinarians seeking that justice, seeking to end discrimination, have conducted a ten-year review at the Human Rights Tribunal, costing them millions and millions of dollars, while the government of British Columbia through the Attorney General’s ministry has indemnified the college that was the heart of discrimination.

My question is to the Minister of Justice. If we’re going to have a functioning human rights tribunal, surely the government of British Columbia shouldn’t be picking sides in the middle of that process. Certainly the government of British Columbia shouldn’t be indemnifying the college that’s the product and producing the racism that we’re trying to defeat here in British Columbia.

Hon. S. Anton: There’s no question that this was a long, complicated case in the Human Rights Tribunal. A decision has now been made and, indeed, found discrimination, and award has been made, as appropriate.

It was a long time. It was a long case, and the tribunal is very aware of that. They do have a mandate, and they are very committed to following our dispute resolution philosophy in Justice, which is to find early resolution to cases, to make sure that they’re short.

This one was more complicated, and it did take a long time. The result has been made, and an appropriate re-
[ Page 9887 ]
sult, and the parties will, I expect, live with that result, because it was one that was made after a lot of consideration, hearing from a lot of people, a lot of witnesses, and having a very detailed examination of the evidence and coming down with the finding.

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

J. Horgan: If a ten-year case is expeditious resolution, I shudder to think what would happen in a longer case.

The issue that I’m raising today is the fact that the government of British Columbia, the Attorney General’s ministry, has been indemnifying the college that has been found to be discriminating against a group of citizens, against South Asian veterinarians, for over a decade. It’s not about the tribunal. It’s about the fact that the government picked a side.

When Nick Lang lost his life and Peter Lang stood up to defend his dead son, the government sent him a stern letter telling him he was violating the privacy rights of his dead child. That’s the wrong thing to do. When J.P. won a second case at the Supreme Court, the government through the Minister of Family Development is appealing that ruling. That’s the wrong thing to do.

In this instance, the government of British Columbia was backstopping a college that has been found to be discriminating against a class of citizens. Human rights should come before defending your friends.

Can the minister tell this House why it is that the province of British Columbia through the B.C. Liberal Party and her ministry decided to say the college deserves support and the South Asian vets did not?

Hon. S. Anton: The case itself, as the member observes, is an older case. It was a ten-year case. It does predate the college.

As to the information that the Leader of the Opposition is speaking to with regard to the indemnification, I will get back to him on that. I do not have the details on that.

I will say that in terms of indemnification, generally, it’s not a political process. It does not come to the Attorney General. Indemnifications in government are done by senior staff at the deputy minister level. As I’ve said frequently in this House, it is not a political issue. It’s not something that comes to the politicians.

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

[1030]

J. Horgan: Again, more scandals collide on the B.C. Liberal side. It’s no wonder they can’t keep track of them.

We asked the Ministry of Attorney General for their reports and their recommendations on indemnifications. We asked for records on that, and we got — guess what — “no records found.” Fortunately, the Clerk of the Legislature had in his possession a copy of the indemnity report, so we have it in our possession.

The Ministry of Attorney General made a decision to support an organization that has been found to have been perpetuating racism and discrimination against veterinarians of South Asian descent. That’s despicable, and I hope that the government, through the minister, will stand up and agree with me right now.

Hon. S. Anton: As to the specific question, I will return to the member with that information. As to the general, quick question around indemnities, they are reported out annually. They are private. We do not know the names of the people attached to the indemnities. It is a matter of privacy, and the member well knows that. They are reported out, and they are not political.

H. Bains: What’s really troubling in this situation and this government’s action is the fact that by pledging taxpayers’ dollars to support the college, they effectively chose to place the province in a conflict of interest. The province was no longer a neutral third party in this case. The province picked a side, the side of a college that is found to be guilty of discrimination.

My question is to the Minister of Justice. Why did the government choose a body that has been found to be discriminating against their own members instead of standing with the victims of discrimination?

Hon. S. Anton: As I’ve said, I will return with the detailed information that the direct questions are asking for. But in terms of the support for the case, there was great support for the case in terms of the Human Rights Tribunal. The Human Rights Tribunal took this case extremely seriously. It went for over 350 days of hearings. There were numerous interim rulings along the way, and there was a very lengthy, well-considered report at the end of the hearing. This was a case taken extremely seriously by our Human Rights Tribunal, as it takes all cases seriously.

The Human Rights Tribunal does an excellent job for British Columbians. It hears many, many complaints. It manages to resolve a lot of those complaints up front. There are others that need to go to a hearing. They do go to a hearing, and indeed, that’s exactly what happened here. It was a complex hearing. It was a lengthy hearing. And it came to a conclusion that supports that there was in fact discrimination. So the system worked well, and it worked as it should.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: It took 356 days of a hearing, because the college knew that the government was backing them
[ Page 9888 ]
with taxpayers’ dollars. But now the college is found to be guilty of discrimination. Government chose a side in this. They chose to side with the perpetrator rather than with the victims of discrimination.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

H. Bains: Even today, this government’s inaction is enabling the same college to harass, to pressure, to go after the same victims of discrimination — even today.

My question is simple. To the Minister of Justice: would you pick up a phone and talk to the college? “The fight is over.” They are found to be guilty of discrimination. End discrimination. Call their dogs off. Allow these victims of discrimination to earn their living in a profession that they love and with the respect that they deserve.

Madame Speaker: Minister of Agriculture.

[1035]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, Madame Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to the question.

Everyone in this House was saddened to learn about the discrimination that was placed on the part of the veterinarians over ten years ago. It was done by the association. Since then, we now have a college which is reviewing the results of the Human Rights Tribunal decision.

I understand that they will have a board meeting next week. At that board meeting, they will discuss what their decision is. I’ve also been in contact with the four publicly appointed members of the college. I’ve advised the three that I have been able to speak with the position of the government on this matter, and I totally expect them to come to a conclusion by next week that everyone in this House can support.

GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING AND
ROLE OF OFFICIALS IN
HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION

K. Conroy: For the past two days, we’ve asked the Premier how it is that for over two years, the head of the public service, John Dyble, failed to keep a single record about the firing of health researchers. Yesterday the Premier said: “Mr. Dyble was not the decision-maker, so those records were kept elsewhere.”

If Dyble wasn’t the decision-maker, it must have been someone else. Well, we requested all e-mails, records and correspondence regarding the health firings sent or received by Graham Whitmarsh, the former deputy minister, and Stephen Brown, the current Deputy Minister of Health, during the same two-year period. What did we get back? Exactly one record.

My question is to the minister. How is it possible that two Deputy Ministers of Health managed to keep just one record on the firing of eight health researchers?

Hon. A. Virk: The member opposite certainly knows that the matter has been referred to the Ombudsperson, who’s undertaking a comprehensive review within the full authority of his office. The member opposite also knows that the Ombudsperson has more documents, has a number of documents, and it’s within his purview to provide consent for the release of those additional documents. The member opposite also knows that we are fully cooperating with the Ombudsperson as he conducts his review.

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

K. Conroy: I hope the Ombudsperson has a lot more luck getting documents than the opposition has had through the freedom of information. What’s even more revealing in this case is the content of that single record. It’s a heavily redacted e-mail from Stephen Brown to John Dyble that says: “Hi, John” and then “update on litigation resolution from investigation. Just an FYI. If not, we can link up early next week by phone. Thanks, Steve.”

In other words, it’s a record of the current Deputy Minister of Health briefing the Premier’s deputy on the Health Ministry’s firings. It looks like the Premier’s claims that Mr. Dyble wasn’t involved simply wasn’t true.

My question is to the minister. How can she possibly claim that the Minister of Health kept all of the necessary records on the Health firings, when the two deputy ministers managed to keep just one e-mail between them?

Hon. A. Virk: The member opposite may certainly seek to mix up the timelines. Once again, the member opposite also knows that the Ombudsperson has…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Virk: …at his disposal a large number of documents. Those are government records. And the Ombudsperson, within the purview and the full authority of his office, will have the authority to release the records after he’s had the opportunity to fully comment on them. I’m expecting a full and comprehensive review by the Ombudsperson. We’re fully cooperating and looking forward to the findings of the Ombudsperson.

[1040]

A. Dix: The minister just suggested that the timeline was mixed up. Mr. Whitmarsh, after he left the government and his e-mails seemingly became available, said: “Your immediate superior, John Dyble” — it’s a letter to
[ Page 9889 ]
the head of the public service — “is also seriously conflicted in this matter. You and I, both individually and together, briefed John on many occasions during the course of the investigation.” He was involved in key decisions and the timing of key events.

Interjection.

A. Dix: The Minister of Health put out, under his own name, a chronology of this that said John Dyble instructed Stephen Brown, his deputy, to conduct a further review. You know how many records there were? No records. You know who told me that? The Minister of Health. Stephen Brown conducted a five-month review. You know how many records there were? No records. You know who told me that? The Minister of Health.

Can the minister explain why the Office of the Premier, the Deputy Minister to the Premier, has no records and why the successive Deputy Minister of Health had one record over two years?

Hon. A. Virk: The suggestion from the member opposite that there are no documents is false. There’s a large number of documents that have been made available through the FOI process and are publicly available. In fact, if the members would avail themselves to go on line, they would find those.

There are more documents now that the Ombudsperson has conduct of the matter and is undertaking a comprehensive review. I fully expect that he will do a comprehensive review and will consent to the release of more documents.

PROTECTION OF CARIBOU HABITAT

A. Weaver: It’s well understood within the scientific community that the loss of natural habitat due to human activities is the primary cause for the disappearing caribou herds in British Columbia. Deforested land provides grazing opportunities for ungulates like deer and moose, which move in along with their natural predators — like, for example, wolves and cougars. Caribou then become the bycatch of these predators.

Because the caribou were sparsely distributed to begin with, the herd simply cannot survive this increase in mortality. With so few mountain caribou left in the south Selkirk region and rapidly dwindling or extirpated northern caribou herds in the South Peace region, their future looks bleak.

My question is this. What is this government doing to ensure that the habitat for the remaining relatively healthy woodland caribou populations is protected in light of growing pressures from mining, natural gas and forestry sectors?

Hon. S. Thomson: As you know, the province has implemented mountain caribou recovery implementation plans. Oversight is provided on those plans by a progress board, a progress team, with a wide range of stakeholders and interests on those teams. They report out annually.

Since the plans were implemented or adopted, over 2.2 million hectares of habitat have been protected — 108,000 hectares in the south Selkirk area, 400,000 hectares in the Peace River.

We continue to work — with the input of scientists, biologists, the progress team — to monitor the implementation, to ensure that we continue to provide that habitat for this very, very important species here in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: My concern with this, of course, is that under the Species at Risk Act government must act to protect land when the caribou are threatened. My concern is for existing mountain herds that are not subject to species-at-risk legislation today because they are not threatened today.

[1045]

You know, these protected lands also are incredibly important for biodiversity, especially in light of the ongoing global warming. I recognize there are some in opposition who believe it’s not actually occurring, despite overwhelming scientific evidence.

A lot of these protected areas for the existing caribou herds that are threatened are old-growth forests. They are only protected in light of the fact that they must protect them under the Species at Risk Act. My concern is this. Scientists will tell government that the south Selkirk herd will go extinct despite the government’s efforts. The government then no longer has to protect these forests under the species-at-risk legislation.

My question to the minister is this. Will the minister commit to the continued protection of these forests? Even if the caribou herds, those herds which required the forest to be protected in the first place under Canada’s Species at Risk Act…. Will they still be protected — because of the pressures that they will get from the forest industry for this valuable timber?

Hon. S. Thomson: So 2.2 million hectares of land are protected under the implementation plans. As I said, we continue to work with the progress team to monitor that implementation, to report out annually on progress on the implementation plans.

As was mentioned, the herds are dispersed — 15 separate herds across British Columbia — so that’s why it’s important we continue to get the scientific and biologists’ advice in, through the progress report, and the range of stakeholders that are on the progress board report.

That’s why we’re also taking additional actions, particularly on the high-risk herds, in order to deal with what
[ Page 9890 ]
the member opposite talked about: imminent extirpation of those herds. That’s why we’ve taken extraordinary steps in those specific herds to give the best chance we can to ensure that we continue to protect and recover those herds. That’s where the focus of activity will continue to take place.

HEALTH SERVICES CONTRACTS AND
SUNSHINE COAST HEALTH CARE WORKERS

N. Simons: Recently housekeepers in Vancouver Coastal health care facilities on the Sunshine Coast were told that a new company would be taking over. Compass would be taking over the contract from Aramark. Vancouver Coastal Health and the new company told people on the Sunshine Coast that many workers would retain their jobs. “Laid-off Workers Welcome Back” read the headline, in fact. That didn’t happen, and 17 workers were left wondering why they weren’t rehired.

Because of this contract flipping, good workers were left out of work. Can the minister explain why these workers were treated so poorly?

Hon. T. Lake: In British Columbia, we strive to provide top-quality health care and value for money in everything we do. That’s part of the institute for health innovations’ triple aim. That’s something we follow here to make sure that taxpayers’ money is well spent and used effectively to produce the best health outcomes.

It is not unusual for health authorities to look for the best value from their service providers, and in this case, that’s what Vancouver Coastal Health has done. It is also a responsibility of the health authority to make sure that the services are top-notch and continue to serve the patients in their health authority at the level that British Columbians have come to expect.

Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a supplemental.

N. Simons: Trained workers are value for money. These workers who were laid off are now looking in the newspaper for new jobs, and they’re seeing their old jobs being advertised. They can’t get those jobs, and that seems patently unfair to me.

I’m not sure why the minister is defending the indefensible. Some of these workers were in their 50s. Some had never missed a day of work in over ten years. They were willing and qualified to work under the new company’s collective agreement.

The people of the Sunshine Coast were told one thing; another thing happened. Presumably, this minister is going to stand idly on the sidelines and think this unfair practice is fine. How can the minister countenance this kind of behaviour?

[1050]

Hon. T. Lake: I mentioned that health authorities have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer to ensure that they’re providing high-quality services at the best possible value. Vancouver Coastal has assured me that Compass Group Canada is a highly experienced environmental services company, and its bid for the housekeeping contract in Vancouver Coastal and Providence Health Care facilities does provide the best value.

In fact, the contract includes significant value add-ons that were not included in the previous contract, including the addition of 56 more workers, creating jobs and providing high-quality health care for the patients of Vancouver Coastal.

J. Rice: This has happened time and time again with this government. They flip contracts, and they ruin lives. It may benefit American companies, but it doesn’t benefit B.C. families and B.C. communities.

Will the Health Minister do the right thing and ensure these qualified, hard-working people get their jobs back?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the member should maybe listen to the answer to the question before she speaks rotely from her notes that she has. In fact, 56….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Lake: Vancouver Coastal assures me that 56 more jobs have been created. In fact, on average, 86 percent of former employees have been hired by the company in Vancouver, Richmond, North Shore, Sea to Sky…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. T. Lake: …Sunshine Coast and Powell River. Eighty-six percent of those people were rehired, in addition to 56 more positions that were created.

FOREST INDUSTRY JOBS AND
FOREST STEWARDSHIP

B. Routley: This government has had 30,000 forest industry jobs that have vanished…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

B. Routley: …and hundreds of mills have permanently closed. This side of the House believes we should be growing employment in the forest industry and investing
[ Page 9891 ]
in value-added opportunity. Step one is to manage the forests of British Columbia properly.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

B. Routley: Recently, the Forest Practices Board released a damning report into the forest stewardship plans and how the government is overseeing them. The board examined 43 plans and found problems in each and every one of them.

Can this minister explain why his government is so completely failing in properly managing this vital public asset, our B.C. forest lands?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: The Chair will hear the answer and the question.

Hon. S. Thomson: Let’s look at the numbers: 61,000 direct jobs, a 23 percent increase since 2009; export value, $12.4 billion, a 63 percent increase since 2009.

Let’s look at the increase: 55 community forests in British Columbia benefiting local communities directly; increase in woodlot licences in British Columbia, great expansion of the woodlot program; opportunities for First Nations in British Columbia — 15 percent of annual allowable cut now for First Nations, building jobs and opportunity in First Nations communities across the province.

We continue to support, in partnership with the industry, a diversified, innovative industry. That’s why the forest industry of British Columbia is going to continue to contribute to rural communities, local communities, urban communities with a positive future in British Columbia.

[1055]

B. Routley: These forest stewardship plans are the only documents licensees have to produce for the public — the people’s own land. The Forest Practices Board first reported on problems with these plans back in 2006. Nine years later the board says that it’s truly disappointing to have to report that now the situation has not improved.

The land base is degraded. This government is failing to properly manage it. Even failed safety requirements that this government has on bridges, logging bridges, were reported to the Forest Practices Board. Again, will this minister explain exactly why this government has not learned from the colossal failures in forest stewardship?

Hon. S. Thomson: The Forest Practices Board has provided recommendations. The ministry is taking all of those recommendations seriously. There is an opportunity now with the renewal of forest stewardship plans to take those recommendations and put them into the review of the forest stewardship plan process, and that is underway.

The members opposite. This is the group that brought in the forest practices code, piles of documents, piles of restrictive regulations that cost the industry billions and billions of dollars in extra costs and additional costs. We have worked to make sure that we build a globally competitive industry that is going to continue to contribute…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Thomson: …to rural and urban communities, to the economy of British Columbia, building jobs here in British Columbia. And that’s what we’re going to continue to do in partnership with the industry.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Second reading of Bill 42.

Madame Speaker: I’ll allow moments for individuals to return to their offices.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Thomson: In accordance with sections 8 and 18 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, I’m tabling the four-year capital project plan for the natural resource permitting project.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 42 now be read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to implement the proposals of the 2015 Electoral Boundaries Commission. The bill follows the adoption by this House of a resolution approving those proposals without amendment. Accordingly, the bill proposes no changes to any of the Commission’s proposals.

It would create 87 electoral districts in the province, an increase of two districts from the current 85. Each district would have the name proposed by the commission and would have the area and boundaries proposed by the commission as well. If this bill is enacted, the new electoral districts would be in place for the next two provincial general elections which, under our fixed-date election provisions, are scheduled for 2017 and 2021.

The reasons for adopting the commission’s proposals have been well canvassed during our recent debate on the
[ Page 9892 ]
resolution, and I won’t go into detail about that again. I will say that it’s clear that the commission carried out its work diligently and with care.

The commission had the flexibility to address population growth in the province by proposing up to two additional districts, and it has chosen to exercise that option by proposing a new district in Surrey and one in Richmond–New Westminster. The addition of these two new districts means that no electoral district in the province will exceed 18 percent above the provincial population average.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

The commission’s proposals also retain the existing number of northern and rural districts in the province, as, indeed, it was required to do under guidelines established for the commission in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act.

As I noted during debate on the resolution, the commission’s proposals would result in ten electoral districts that are more than 25 percent below the average district population. This is the same number as we currently have, and in most cases, their population disparities do not change much.

Overall, the commission recommends boundary changes to 48 of the existing 85 electoral districts. A number of these proposed changes are minor, but some are more significant, particularly in the mid–Vancouver Island region, in Surrey and for Hope and Princeton.

[1100]

I acknowledge that a few members of this House and some citizens of the province would have preferred that their own electoral districts be configured differently. That is an inevitable result of a task as complex as this one, where every decision about one electoral district necessarily affects its neighbours and the commission is required to balance a number of interests in making its proposals.

As we noticed during the debate, there is no question that we get attached to our own districts, and when changes are proposed in that district, it can be hard on both the member and on their constituents because they have gotten to know each other. For the constituents, they know who they can speak to. For the member, they know who their constituents are and the business of their constituents.

It can, indeed, be wrenching to lose a part of your constituency. I think, as we all acknowledge, that is part of the process and an inevitable part of the process, even if it does cause a little bit of grief at the time in terms of losing a piece of what have you been used to representing and for the citizens to lose that particular representative.

The commission is careful to describe in its report the reasons for alterations they propose to existing electoral districts, either to balance population or provide for better representation of community interests. I believe that, on the whole, the commission’s proposals will provide for effective representation in this assembly by all British Columbians regardless of where they live in the province.

As I said before, I know that the commission is careful, in drawing its districts, to think about municipal boundaries, to think about natural geographic boundaries, such as rivers, or man-made boundaries, such as highways. They do try and choose natural boundaries so that the districts themselves make sense.

I’d like to draw attention to the comments the commission made regarding its administration. I would like to thank the Chief Electoral Officer for offering his suite of offices. This saved time, and it saved very significant administration costs. In fact, the commission used only about one-third of its $4½ million budget. Speaking for government, of course government is very appreciative of that. The commission has recommended that that practice continue. I think it’s probably quite likely that that recommendation will be followed, because it does seem to have worked out very well in this case.

I’d like to thank the members of the commission: Justice Thomas Melnick, the Chair; Ms. Beverley Busson; and Dr. Keith Archer, the Chief Electoral Officer for British Columbia.

I know that people will be talking about their own ridings. It is an opportunity to talk about our own ridings. Speaking now as the MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview, I will be ending up with the largest riding in British Columbia in terms of population, at nearly 63,000, followed closely by Vernon-Monashee and by Vancouver-Kingsway.

Not only is Fraserview the largest, but it’s growing quickly. It has a new district in it, named River District, which will grow by 10,000 or 15,000 people over the next few years. I am going to predict right now, at this point — I’ll go out on a limb — that Fraserview may not last within its existing boundaries following the next Boundaries Commission due to the fact that it is very rapidly growing.

Fraserview itself is on the banks of the north arm of the Fraser River. It has a very strong industrial history due to…. The north arm, of course, is a working river. Fraserview was the home of a number of sawmills and other logging-related industries on the north arm there, on the Vancouver side. Indeed, when you go to the river, you still see the large logbooms, and you still see plenty of work in the working river, with the tugs and industry moving up and down the river.

Fraserview had a great deal of post-war development. In fact, much of that south slope was developed after the war, when land was actually taken over by government and post-war housing was built. Much of that housing has now been replaced. There are still some of those post-war, more modest houses there but not many. Many of them have now been replaced by much bigger and newer homes in Vancouver.
[ Page 9893 ]

We have, of course, a very immigrant population in Fraserview, one of the most diverse ridings in British Columbia, and we in Fraserview celebrate that diversity. It makes the riding ever-interesting and so many different people and cultures to know.

The most recent major development in Fraserview was in the Champlain area in the ’60s and ’70s, where co-op housing was built. One of the interesting things about Fraserview is that we have more co-op housing in Vancouver-Fraserview than any other riding in British Columbia. I do, of course, pay attention to the co-op housing and the people who live there. It is a very excellent and wonderful and enduring source of affordable housing for families on the southeast of Vancouver.

[1105]

Fraserview may be a new riding in terms of the city of Vancouver. It’s a newer neighbourhood, but it contains a very fascinating and interesting and ongoing historical institution, which is the Ross Street Temple. The Khalsa Diwan Society started the temple in Vancouver in 1906 in Kitsilano, and it moved to South Vancouver in 1967. It’s an architecturally significant building but, of course, a culturally significant building and a very important community hub. It’s the home of the Komagata Maru Museum and recently welcomed two Prime Ministers — Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Prime Minister Modi of India.

When you go near the temple, of course, it is such a community hub. It serves food at all hours of the day and night. The community is constantly going in there. I, myself, really do enjoy visiting because there are so many interesting activities, both sports and cultural — weddings, family celebrations — that happen at the Ross Street Temple.

One of the most active groups in South Vancouver is the South Vancouver seniors, led by the formidable Lorna Gibbs, who has persuaded three branches of government to each contribute $2.5 million. Thanks to the Minister of Health for finishing off that contribution a year ago so that the South Vancouver seniors centre can be built at Killarney Centre. That is with very active participation by the seniors in the Killarney Centre, seniors in the South Vancouver Neighbourhood House and seniors in the neighbourhood.

We have two outstanding high schools: David Thompson high school and Killarney high. David Thompson is famous for its math program. Mr. Speaker, I think you’re a math guy. They have a whole hallway devoted to plaques for success that the students at David Thompson high have enjoyed in math. As a former math graduate myself, of course, I’m very appreciative of that.

Very strong academically, very strong technically and, interestingly enough, very strong in business. They recently entered a Junior Achievement competition. I hope everyone is listening to this. They took $100,000, and they turned it into $221,000. Could we all be successful in our business ventures?

We have Killarney high school, which likes to rightly boast that it has the strongest music program in Vancouver. Very high participation in music and band and choir and in the productions that they put on. A highly socially conscious and, again, a very strong academically performing, technically performing school.

We have, of course, obviously, numerous elementary schools which are active and engaged and enjoy their festivals and the events that they put on.

We have many Community Living B.C…. I appreciate the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation, who came with me to a Community Living B.C. facility in Fraserview the other day. These homes just fit right within the community, of course, and the residents are part of the community, appreciated by the neighbours. I would like to thank all the people who help with the community living facilities and really let people enjoy such a good lifestyle in South Vancouver.

We have beautiful parks — Everett Crowley Park, a former landfill now turned into a very interesting new park. Fraserview Golf Course is the most beautiful public golf course in British Columbia. I’ll just put that on the record — the most beautiful. And, of course, Killarney Park and many other beautiful parks in the neighbourhood.

The newest district, of course, River District, will have parks along the waterfront. It has a beautiful waterfront walkway, which is very well used by the citizens. As it builds out, it will be a remarkable new neighbourhood in South Vancouver.

Vancouver-Fraserview is a beautiful riding. I did want to put those comments on the record. I think this Electoral Boundaries Commission debate is a good opportunity to talk about our own ridings. I am privileged to be the MLA for Fraserview. I am so appreciative of all the citizens in Fraserview who come and talk to me. I love talking to them about their interests, their projects, their issues with the provincial government. Everybody often has things that they want to tell us about, things that they want help with.

I’d like to thank my two riding assistants: Tanya Tan and Dawn Escobedo. Like all of our constituency assistants, they are there, they are present, and they help citizens. They help them every single day with their issues. They are very effective. I’d like to thank them and, once again, just say what a pleasure it is to be the MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview.

I know we will have some debate on this motion. I look forward to the comments and debate by other members of this House.

[1110]

G. Holman: I’m proud to stand to speak to Bill 42, the Electoral Districts Act, and thank the minister for her comments.

I really appreciated and was interested in her comment about natural boundaries being one of the criteria that
[ Page 9894 ]
commissions have historically taken into account to draw our electoral districts in B.C. That actually is something I wanted to talk a little bit about today, in addition to the bill: not just about my constituency in particular — although I do want to take this opportunity to talk about Saanich North and the Islands — but about electoral districts and the role of MLAs as representing not just their constituents but actually representing a place as well.

The minister’s comment about natural boundaries forming part of the criteria for establishing electoral districts, I think, is consistent with that view.

I was also pleased to hear the minister speaking favourably regarding the recommendation in the report that Elections B.C. could take over permanent administrative support for future Boundaries Commissions. There are a lot of very good arguments for that, of course, efficiency being one of them — the existing capacity and expertise within Elections B.C. The recommendation makes a lot of sense. It’s not, obviously, dealt with in Bill 42. But it was encouraging to hear the minister speak positively about that.

In terms of my own constituency, the Saanich North and the Islands boundaries will not be changing as a result of these recommendations. That, in my view, is appropriate. The population has not been growing rapidly in Saanich North and the Islands, in part because of an approach to land use in the area, which I do want to speak about later. Population growth has been maybe 10 percent over the last eight years or so.

Also, the boundaries make sense. The northern boundary is the southern Gulf Islands in the trust area. The southern boundary is the southern boundary of Central Saanich, one of the municipalities on the peninsula. So it makes sense both from a geographic perspective and a physical perspective.

Also, from the administrative lines that are already drawn, it makes sense to have a constituency fully include, if possible, municipalities on the Saanich Peninsula. It makes sense to me, and clearly, I think, made sense to my constituents. Maybe I missed something, but I didn’t hear any objections about the recommendations of the commission with respect to Saanich North and the Islands. My constituents seem to be fine with the status quo, and, as I said earlier, it does make a lot of sense from both a geographic and administrative perspective.

I do want to take the opportunity to thank my staff in my constituency office, who have done such a great job over the past two and a half years. I know all of us in this place speak of our constituency offices in this way. I’m so very proud of the staff that work for me. Day in, day out, they do their best to help people with issues with provincial agencies, programs. I’m just very proud of the work they do, and I feel very fortunate to have the staff that I’ve had working for me — Debra Hartung, Chris McLaren, Ryan Painter and, more recently, Marina Holding.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank my family — my partner, Alicia Cormier; my children Eren, Amber and Owen — for the support they’ve shown me during the campaigns that I’ve run and as an MLA. You can’t do this work without having your family there, knowing they’re there, knowing that they’re always going to support you through thick and thin, no matter what happens politically, no matter what happens in the constituency.

[1115]

That’s so important for all of us in this place, to have that kind of support, and I thank my family for providing that for me.

I have the dubious honour, I suppose, of being the MLA with the smallest proportion of votes in British Columbia, because in my constituency there was essentially a three-way race between myself, the Liberal candidate and the Green Party candidate. It was virtually a three-way split. I won by a very narrow margin of 163 votes, a number that has been burned into my psyche.

Now, I didn’t have the smallest margin in British Columbia. I believe that distinction is held by my colleague from the Port Coquitlam area, Port Moody area. In any case, it was very close, with just over a third of the vote, which, actually, in my case, had to be recounted.

The first thing I had to consider as an MLA was: “Well, what’s my mandate?” If, in fact, two-thirds of the people in the constituency voted for somebody else, what actually is my mandate as an MLA? I actually do feel I have a mandate for several reasons, which I want to talk a little bit about today.

I also want to say that I’m so honoured to be representing my constituents, to be elected as their MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, no matter how narrow that margin. I feel that, of course, they made the right choice. But the question of my mandate really is something I had to deal with immediately.

The recount process itself was also an interesting experience, because there was a two-week delay after the election in May. It wasn’t until two weeks later that the official recount was undertaken. Of course, that was supervised by Elections B.C., so I got to see firsthand the professionalism of that office and how they deal with circumstances like that.

It was a two-day process, and there were a number of, I guess, counting areas established, each under the direction of an Elections B.C. staffer, and each of those counting areas had representatives from the three different parties. Because it was so close, every one of those counting stations was fully represented by all of the parties.

The other thing I was struck with in that process, aside from the professionalism of Elections B.C., was…. There was absolutely no question, in that process, that they were under complete control. There was a civility there and a professionalism there that still sticks with me today.

I was also struck by the civility among the partisan representatives in that process. In each and every case, it was very heartening to me to see how people went through that process in such a collegial way, all under-
[ Page 9895 ]
standing that any one of the three candidates could have been elected, because the margin was so narrow. In fact, initially, the margin was only about 50-plus votes. As a result of the recounting, that margin tripled. I now have the nickname of Landslide Holman. My margin did increase. But the process itself could have resulted in any one of those candidates — Liberal, Green or myself — winning that election, despite those stakes being so high.

It just really struck me how civil, how collegial people were in going through that process. It was a lesson to me in democracy — how our democracy in this province has its challenges but, in that particular instance, how well it worked. I just felt very good about the system that we have here in British Columbia, very lucky to take part in it.

I just want to speak briefly about the issue about my mandate. The reason why…. I feel I have a mandate for several reasons, not least of which is the platform that we ran under.

[1120]

My view of party platforms…. Of course, they’re partisan documents. They represent the vision of each of the parties running in the election for not just the constituency but for the province as a whole. My view of those platforms is that that’s our promise as a party, if we form government. That’s also our promise as individual MLAs. Those platforms, for me, represent my promises to my constituents.

First-past-the-post. This is a system we need to reform and, hopefully, will reform eventually. Nevertheless, I was elected to represent my constituents. I was very clear about the promises we were making as a party, the promises I made as a candidate about the issues I wanted to work on within Saanich North and the Islands. I was very explicit about that and felt that that was my promise to constituents: “If you elect me, this is what I’m going to be working on.” That’s one reason that I do feel I have a mandate.

The other reason is because…. It was quite striking…. I believe we had nine debates during the campaign throughout the constituency. And in each and every one of those debates, what was striking to me was how much consensus there was among the three candidates, even to the point of — and if you’ll forgive me for being a little bit partisan here….

For example, the Liberal candidate. An issue around B.C. Ferries, which is crucial to the southern Gulf Islands. That candidate was explicitly contradicting the Liberal position on funding B.C. Ferries. There was actually quite a bit of consensus among the three candidates about the things that we said were important to Saanich North and the Islands, the things that we wanted to work on. I felt that in many respects there was a fair bit of commonality in, to some extent, the platforms — but more particularly, the positions that the candidates were taking during that election. We were on the same page in so many respects.

I do feel that that also gives me confidence that the platform I ran on, the promises I made, in many cases, were shared by the other candidates. So I feel pretty confident that in the course of my work and the course of the issues I’ve been working on for the past 2½ years, those issues, those concerns, are shared by the people that I ran against in that election and are shared by my constituents.

I just want to talk a little bit about Saanich North and the Islands. I know that each of us believes that we represent very special places in British Columbia. It’s a remarkable province. Each of the 85 constituencies — soon to become 87 — in their own right, are very special places, and I know that each of us in this House feels very strongly that we live in the best place in British Columbia. We’re all proud and honoured to represent our constituents.

I do want to raise again this notion that as MLAs…. I’ve come to believe that we don’t just represent constituents. We don’t just represent voters entirely. I think we also represent the place and the value of that place.

Saanich North and the Islands is a remarkable place. I’m sure most of us are very familiar with it, driving through the peninsula, and have visited the southern Gulf Islands. The green space, the rural landscapes of Saanich North and the Islands are unmatched, in my view, in British Columbia. That has been the result of an evolution, over time, of governance in the area, of land use policies in the area, of parks being established in the area.

The agriculture land reserve has had a huge impact on the physical landscape and has also been a key factor in, it’s fair to say, constraining population growth, because so much of the area is, essentially, protected from urban sprawl. If there’s one aspect of my constituency that I think distinguishes it from many others in British Columbia, it is the fact we have been able to protect and retain those rural landscapes.

[1125]

I feel a personal responsibility, and it certainly was reflected in my promises to constituencies. Of course, I will do my best to represent them, but I also represent that landscape. That is a responsibility that I take very seriously and I know the vast majority of my constituents take very seriously.

Saanich North and the Islands is also a very interesting place politically and from a governance perspective. Of course, we have the seven Gulf Islands, which are included in the Islands Trust area. Saltspring, North and South Pender, Galiano, Mayne and Saturna are all included within the Islands Trust, which was established in 1974 by the Barrett government.

Although as I understand that history, there was support from both sides of the House in establishing the Islands Trust, which has a unique mandate in British Columbia and probably in Canada and North America — the so-called preserve-and-protect mandate.

The trust was established as a result of a massive subdivision on Pender Island. I believe it was Magic Lake
[ Page 9896 ]
Estates. That sent such a shockwave in the island communities around this kind of development that the provincial government took notice and came to understand that they had to create a land use authority that would better manage that kind of development in the Gulf Islands.

The trust was created in 1974. That was the Barrett government that did that. Of course, the Barrett government also established the agricultural land reserve, which is also one of those foundational land use decisions that has resulted in the protection of so much of that rural landscape that we appreciate now as constituents.

At the time, very controversial. At the time, it flew in the face of notions around private property rights. Farmers weren’t too pleased either, and some of them still aren’t too pleased. But the agricultural land reserve, particularly on the Saanich Peninsula, is a crucial land use policy without which the Saanich Peninsula would look very different than it does today.

There are three municipalities in the Saanich Peninsula: Central Saanich, Sidney and North Saanich. Sixty percent — it might even be two-thirds — of Central Saanich is included in the agricultural land reserve. You can imagine what Central Saanich would look like if that land reserve was not in place.

Approximately a third of North Saanich is in the agricultural land reserve. I don’t know the percentages for…. Sidney, of course, is pretty much a community that’s built out. The agricultural land reserve is also very important in the Gulf Islands. I don’t know the percentages there, but you can be assured that much of the low, valley-bottom land in the southern Gulf Islands has been protected by the agricultural land reserve, in addition to the Islands Trust.

Those two entities, those two land use decisions, have resulted in the protection of much of the rural landscape in Saanich North and the Islands. Of course, the other major feature of Saanich North and the Islands is our parkland and our protected area.

Again, the NDP governments historically have played a crucial role there. NDP governments have created most of the parkland in British Columbia. That’s a legacy that we’re very proud of on this side of the House. That legacy has certainly been demonstrated within Saanich North and the Islands as well. You have the Gowlland Tod Park. You have Ruckle Park on Saltspring Island, and of course, you’ve got the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve. So parkland protected area in Saanich North and the Islands is another land use aspect that has controlled population growth, to a degree, but has also retained that rural and forested landscape that we love so much as constituents.

[1130]

Again, it reinforces for me the importance that we have as residents of that area and as elected representatives of that area — that we have a responsibility to protect that legacy.

I’ve been remiss. I’ve yet to acknowledge the fact that, of course, Saanich North and the Islands, as well as the rest of British Columbia, were the traditional territories of First Nations. On the Saanich Peninsula and the Gulf Islands, that’s the WSÁNEĆ First Nations, who have stewarded those lands for millennia. That’s another reason why we have a responsibility to protect those resources — not just land resources but the marine resources of the area, which have been seriously depleted. We have to do a much better job of protecting those resources. We need to establish a marine conservation area in the southern Gulf Islands.

Another reason why it’s our responsibility to protect that is that we need to continue the stewardship that the WSÁNEĆ people have exercised for millennia. It’s our responsibility to them, and I know that First Nations take that responsibility very seriously. In fact, they have a legal authority to do so. Saanich North and the Islands are included in the Douglas treaty area, which provided First Nations the right to hunt and fish “as formerly.” Those are words right out of the treaty.

But the rights to hunt and fish…. This has been demonstrated in the Tsilhqot’in case. I remember Jack Woodward, who was the lawyer working with the Tsilhqot’in on that case, making a statement that not only do First Nations have the right to hunt and fish and use their traditional resources as formerly but they have the authority to actually protect those resources.

In my view, the Douglas treaty gives First Nations those rights, those responsibilities and that authority. I take very seriously as an MLA — and I know that all elected officials within the constituency take very seriously — those responsibilities. It’s not just about representing people. It’s about representing a place and protecting that legacy.

Interesting. I was talking about the Islands Trust, a unique authority in British Columbia. The Islands Trust, for those islands that I mentioned earlier, is responsible for land use planning. So you have the Capital Regional District that’s responsible for service delivery in those areas. On the Saanich Peninsula, we have three municipalities that I mentioned before: Central Saanich, North Saanich and Sidney.

The governance structure within Saanich North and the Islands is actually reasonably complicated, but I think it reflects the diversity of views. I think it reflects the diversity of constituents living there. These governance institutions have evolved to reflect the values of the people living there, and the Islands Trust certainly is reflective of that necessity to protect that rural landscape on the Gulf Islands.

Of course, we have four First Nations on the peninsula as well. The WSÁNEĆ are comprised of the Malahat band, which is on the other side of the Saanich Inlet, and the four First Nations on the peninsula, including Tsawout, Tsartlip, Tseycum and Pauquachin. Each one of those First Nations, of course, has their own councils and their own authority, their own lands over which they have complete jurisdiction.
[ Page 9897 ]

There’s a history there, of course. We all know we have to reconcile that history. We have to work every day, if we can, to support First Nations in addressing the unfortunate legacy we have left with them. We have taken many of their lands. We have depleted many of their resources. We have a responsibility not just to protect but to restore and enhance those resources. Again, that’s a responsibility I feel very strongly about. I represent both First Nations and non–First Nations within Saanich North and the Islands.

[1135]

The land use in many local areas is quite often the hot issue. Again, I think it reflects the fact that people feel very strongly about the places in which they live. They feel very strongly about protecting the attributes which are the reason they moved there in the first place. Land use issues often become fairly heated on the peninsula and certainly in the Gulf Islands. Valdy, one of our famous folk musicians that lives on Saltspring, described Saltspring as 10,000 opinions surrounded by water.

In many cases, the controversies that spring up on the Gulf Islands and on the peninsula are around land use issues. Again, it reflects this importance of place, this value of place and how people take that seriously. That’s why they moved there. That’s why they’re living there — in many cases, for decades and decades and, of course, in the case of First Nations, for millennia.

Another indication of the importance of land use in the area. Each of the Gulf Islands in Saanich North and the Islands…. Every one of them has a conservancy, which is actually quite remarkable. Saltspring Island — 20 percent of Saltspring Island is protected areas, either in parks or held by conservation covenants that our own Saltspring conservancy holds. Every island has an organization whose purpose it is to preserve and protect the natural attributes of the southern Gulf Islands.

On the Saanich peninsula, we’ve got important groups like the Farmlands Trust, like Peninsula Streams, like the Saanich Inlet Protection Society, like SeaChange. Throughout the constituency, these groups have been organized. Their purpose and objective — and people are so passionate in pursuing these objectives — is to protect and restore the natural attributes of Saanich North and the Islands.

Of course, one of the institutions that’s so important to my constituency is B.C. Ferries. The problems that have arisen over time around the cost of ferries, the lack of connection between the islands…. Historically, there were much stronger connections between the islands in terms of travelling between them. If you were to ask people in the southern Gulf Islands about the three most important economic issues that they face, they would say: “Ferries, ferries and ferries.”

Of course, it’s also important to the peninsula, because you have the B.C. Ferries terminals in Swartz Bay. You have the Anacortes ferry in Sidney. So marine transportation is a crucial aspect of our constituency.

Despite the fact that our rural landscapes are so amazing in Saanich North and the Islands, it’s actually quite interesting that we’ve got some very large industrial parks in the area as well. We’re actually quite blessed. There is a large industrial park in west Sidney and one in Central Saanich, in the Keating area.

The kinds of businesses and industries that are established there are simply quite amazing for such a small area. There are thousands of people employed in those industrial parks. And of course, we have the Victoria airport, which is getting awards every year for being one of the best airports in North America, if not the best in Canada.

Despite the fact that we’ve been able to retain this rural landscape and protect the green space there, we have these engines of growth, in the form of the Victoria airport and these industrial parks, that create thousands of jobs — not just within Saanich North and the Islands, but they are also engines of growth within the entire region.

[1140]

We are particularly blessed in Saanich North and the Islands to have this balance of natural landscape but also employment opportunities in various industries.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should get to the bill. Do I have a little bit more time? If you could allow me just a few minutes, I’ll just speak briefly to the bill.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. There are other members. Time’s up.

D. Barnett: On behalf of the constituents of Cariboo-Chilcotin, I am proud to support this bill. First, I want to thank the members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for their outstanding work in completing their report. It is thorough, thoughtful and sensitive to the realities of our large province, with its densely populated urban areas and vast rural regions where communities are often great distances apart and sparsely populated.

The act recommends an increase in the number of electoral districts in B.C. by two, to 87 from 85, with new ridings in Surrey and in the Richmond and New Westminster area. There will also be boundary changes to 48 ridings, including substantial changes in the Fraser Valley, the Hope-Princeton area and Comox Valley and mid–Vancouver Island region.

Our province is thriving, and it’s no surprise that people from other parts of Canada want to live here. They want to take advantage of job opportunities and set down roots in our province. People want to come here to retire because our standard of living is second to none in Canada. They want to come to a province that has a stable, disciplined government that sees the value in balancing its budget year after year and all the benefits and possibilities that come with it.

Our government has introduced legislation to adopt all of the Electoral Boundaries Commission recommen-
[ Page 9898 ]
dations, which will ensure British Columbians are effectively represented in both urban and rural areas of the province. We live in a province with dense and growing urban areas and more-remote, northern and rural regions, and we must ensure that all British Columbians are represented appropriately.

We plan to retain districts in the North, the Cariboo-Thompson and Columbia-Kootenay regions to ensure that British Columbians in less-densely populated yet large, sprawling districts can be effectively represented by their MLAs. My riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin is one of those large rural ridings with a smaller population. We have far-flung communities and several First Nations, plus a wealth of natural resources that are the backbone of British Columbia’s economy.

I recall that only a year ago members of the opposition were against a bill that protected the number of northern and rural ridings. Amendments to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act in 2014 required that no reductions in electoral districts can occur in B.C.’s North, Cariboo-Thompson and Columbia-Kootenay regions.

During second reading debate of this bill in March 2014, opposition MLAs unanimously spoke against the proposed bill. Opposition members representing the large, mostly-rural ridings of Columbia River–Revelstoke, Kootenay West, Nelson-Creston, Stikine and Skeena did not voice support for this bill, which suggests to me that they put the interests of their urban colleagues ahead of the needs of their constituents — this despite the fact that Skeena, for example, is one of the ridings that is being protected despite its small population. In debate, the member for Skeena did not voice his support for the bill despite the fact that Skeena is one of the ridings being protected by the proposed legislation.

[1145]

The opposition MLAs from northern and rural regions should have been standing with us in making it clear that protecting those ridings and giving residents of small, rural and remote communities proper access to their MLAs is essential in a democracy such as ours.

Thankfully, there will be no reduction in the number of seats in the rural regions of the province, because in 2014, we mandated a freeze on changes in remote regions. We gave the independent commission the ability to adjust the boundaries of all electoral districts, while preserving the existing number of districts in northern and rural regions. The intention was to help the commission balance population between districts and ensure effective representation.

Our government has voted to approve all of the commission’s recommendations and introduce legislation to support this. I would again like to thank the commission members, for their diligence in creating the final report, and all British Columbians who participated in the process. The independent commission has weighed every factor and ensured that every British Columbian will have effective representation in the next two elections.

H. Bains: It is an honour to stand and speak on this bill. What I want to say here is that since 2005, when I was first elected by my constituents, it’s been an honour and privilege to represent my constituents. Many of them stood with me in dealing with many of the important issues that our community faced over those years. I’m heavily, heavily indebted to them for their support.

I want to talk a bit about the constituency itself. Going back into the history, I’ll touch a bit on that. In 1978, Surrey became a dual-member electoral district. It wasn’t until about 1986 that the commission that was commissioned to deal with the electoral boundaries in 1984 came back with a recommendation that Surrey would get a single seat, a single MLA for three different districts.

I’m so happy that I’m following in the footsteps of my mentor, Penny Priddy, a good friend — always came to support, made a huge contribution to our community and to this province. When she was elected here, she held numerous portfolios in the ministry. She also is the only person, I believe, who was elected provincially and on a school board and as a Surrey civic representative and a federal MP. It’s quite an achievement, actually.

I had an opportunity to spend a lot of time with her. I was on her executive in the 1990s, and then, when she decided not to run in 2001, we continued to work together to build that constituency. It was her who encouraged me to run in 2005, one of the persons who encouraged me to run, and here I am.

It also is very, very humbling — for me, at least — to come here, when in 2005…. I believe it was in June when our leader from Victoria–Beacon Hill…. She was our leader, and we came here for our inauguration and swearing-in ceremony. When I was shown my seat and my name on it…. You reflect back into the history of this House, of our province.

[1150]

Many people, and I mean…. Mr. Steven Purewal was here just the other day and gave us a small glimpse of our history in Canada. When I saw my name here, I reflected back on that history. There was a time when people that looked like me, who came from the country that I came from, were not even allowed to come to this country, never mind sit as an elected representative in this House. And here I was, thanks to so much work of many people who came before us in this province and worked hard, took risks, made huge sacrifices so that we could turn this society into the equal society that we enjoy today.

Do we have work to do? Of course we have more work to do. We just heard today and the other day how some systemic discrimination still exists in many places in this society. I know that people who are sent here by their constituents are expected to pay attention to make sure that we have a society that is inclusive, that looks out for each other and where we don’t see any difference in each other, where we treat each other equally.

When you look at people like me coming here, like I
[ Page 9899 ]
said, who weren’t even allowed to come to this country…. Then in 1907, a motion was passed in this House to take them off our election list.

Mr. Speaker, I went to the library and did some research. In 1895, people of your background, Chinese, and Japanese and our First Nations were taken off our election list. In 1907, they called us “Hindus,” and that’s the way it is written in that act. Hindus were taken off that list. So effective 1907, First Nations, Japanese, Chinese and “Hindus” were taken off the voters list.

For 40 years — 40 years — many people struggled to establish themselves here in this country, in this province. Finally, in 1947, the South Asians were given the right to vote, and I believe in 1948, Chinese and Japanese were given the right to vote. It wasn’t until 1958 that our First Nations were given the right to vote.

That’s our history. I reflect back on how lucky I am, how fortunate I am, that because of the hard work of so many people before us, we overcame all those barriers, and here I am, representing and helping make laws, in a House where those discriminatory laws were passed. What a change. What progress.

When I reflect back, the role of elected officials…. I was astounded and my spine actually was shaking when I read some of the language used in support of the 1907 act — why Hindus should be taken off the voters list.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I just can’t help but bring to this House’s attention that we have come a long way, and we have a long way to go. When I looked at all those elected officials — Conservatives and Liberals and some independents — they were sitting here, and they passed that legislation unanimously.

[1155]

This bill, when you established new boundaries…. I say thank you to the commission. All those members worked hard, took many presentations, and they came back with a very minor change to Surrey-Newton.

I said before, and I want to repeat it again today, that I am losing part of my constituency, which is east of 144 Street — between 144 Street and 152 Street and 72 Avenue and 80 Avenue, the Chimney Heights area. I want to say thank you to them for standing with me and supporting me in helping me do the job that we need to do for Surrey-Newton. I welcome the new area that is added between 68 Avenue, 72 Avenue, 140 Street and King George Highway.

Noting the hour, I will take my place and move adjournment of the debate and reserve my right to come back and speak again on this bill.

H. Bains moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

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