2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 30, Number 10

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

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2015

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: Madame Speaker, thank you for giving me the honour of speaking first.

I would like to introduce some great individuals from the B.C. Ag Council and associated groups. They are here today to talk to members on both sides of the House about the great things that are happening in agriculture throughout B.C. and, of course, talk about some of their key asks, which I look forward to hearing again from them today.

We have our president, Stan Vander Waal, who is here. Also represented are members from the Blueberry Council, B.C. Cattlemen, B.C. Dairy Council, B.C. Fruit Growers, B.C. Grain Producers, B.C. Pork Producers, B.C. Poultry Association, Certified Organic Association, B.C. Horse Council, Raspberry Industry Council and United Flower Growers.

I ask the House to please make all these wonderful people very welcome.

J. Yap: I’m very pleased to welcome three representatives of the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia to the House today.

The society represents more than 300 highly trained notary professionals in B.C. Notaries have served our province well for more than 100 years, helping people with a wide range of non-contentious legal services including real estate transfers, simple wills, affidavits and more.

Notaries also put a high priority on community service, involving themselves in fundraising, social service, business associations, youth sports and recreation.

[1005]

Here for a visit today in the gallery are Wayne Braid, the CEO of the society; Tammy Morin Nakashima, president of the society, who practises in Steveston; and Rhoda Witherly, vice-president of the society, who practises in Prince George.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. A. Virk: The life sciences sector in British Columbia brings innovation to patients through diverse organizations, growth of a skilled workforce and development of a knowledge-based bioeconomy. The life sciences industry is embedded into the larger life sciences community in British Columbia, which brings together scientists, health institutions, hospitals and government.

That’s why it’s my pleasure that I introduce today in the House, from Life Sciences B.C., Paul Drohan, CEO, and James Hatton, chair of the board, along with Diane Finegood. And I see Chris Wagner up there as well. His other hat is Contextual Genomics, doing cutting-edge diagnostics in the cancer space. And I see John Walmsley.

I’ve had several meetings with this group over my time as Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizen Services, and I’d like to thank them for their contributions in the tech industry in British Columbia. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

KENNY BROWN AND CLARENCE SMITH

S. Fraser: As time slips by since the tragic boating accident north of Tofino that took five lives — one still missing — we’ve heard of so many people that have jumped to action, too many to name here. But I would like to focus on two men.

On Sunday, October 25, Kenny Brown and Clarence Smith, both from Ahousaht, were halibut fishing in a small boat off of Vargas Island. As fate would have it, a single flare caught their attention. Kenny and Clarence arrived to an unfathomable emergency — the largest whale-watching vessel in the area all but sunk and all 27 passengers and crew cast overboard into waters so cold that survival is measured in minutes. And it had taken Kenny and Clarence minutes to get there.

The Leviathan had tipped over so quickly that there had been no time for a mayday call. Miraculously, Jamie’s staff operating the Leviathan that day had managed to fire a flare, but only Kenny and Clarence were there to see it. No one knew.

Realizing the magnitude of the disaster, Kenny Brown called in on the VHF, hoping that more would come to help and arrive soon. Then Clarence and Kenny went to work pulling in passenger after passenger out of the freezing water, off of the rocks. Thirteen injured and freezing survivors pulled into a six-metre boat in big swells is a risky venture in the extreme.

They put themselves at great peril to help those in need. Because they called it in, others soon arrived. Others from Ahousaht, Opitsat, Tofino Coast Guard and whale-watching companies all played a critical role and should be recognized.

What would have happened if Clarence and Kenny had not been fishing that reef that day? How much worse would this tragedy have been if Kenny Brown and Clarence Smith had not put their own safety aside to save the lives of so many?

Clarence Smith and Kenny Brown and many others are true heroes in every sense of the word.
[ Page 9996 ]

SITE C POWER PROJECT

P. Pimm: Today marks the 100th day of construction on the Site C project, and I’d like to give a short project update.

This project is less than seven kilometres from my residence, and once built, Site C will help meet our province’s energy needs by producing clean, renewable and affordable electricity for more than a century. We’ve shown great vision by moving forward with this legacy, a public asset that will benefit generations of British Columbians for years to come.

Its construction will provide enormous benefits to B.C.’s economy for almost a decade, and we’re already seeing it in the first 100 days. The first concrete pour took place in October for a 1,600-person worker accommodation camp. About 100 modular trailers have been set up to provide temporary housing for the workers while the 1,600-person camp is being worked on.

Fifteen kilometres of access roads are under construction at the dam site. More than 13,000 cubic metres of timber have been provided to local mills for processing. The 240 and 269 Roads that provide access to the worksite are being paved and upgraded. There are now more than 600 workers on the project, and thousands more jobs are created over the construction period.

[1010]

One of my major commitments was to fight for locals to work on the project, and I’m pleased to see that many local contractors have already landed opportunities, with many more to come.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

P. Pimm: Some of these include Paul Paquette and Sons, a construction company from Chetwynd, and Petrowest Construction from Charlie Lake. WSP Canada surveying, northern Geo-inspectors and Helical Pier Systems for pilings are all from Fort St. John, along with A.L. Sims and Son road builders from Prince George. My most recent discussions with B.C. Hydro tell me that approximately 80 percent of the workforce are from British Columbia.

Together, B.C. Hydro and its contractors have made great progress in the first 100 days of construction and look forward to even more progress in the next 100 days and beyond.

JOHN R. TAYLOR

D. Eby: One of the pleasures of representing the beautiful constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey is the simply remarkable people who live in our neighbourhoods. One of these is my neighbour, John R. Taylor.

John is an actor, an art director, a set designer and a film director who has won many, many awards for his work. He has acted in principal and lead roles in The X Files, Supernatural, Stargate and The Killing. He has worked opposite De Niro and Nicholson. He has been directed by Sean Penn.

I don’t want to recognize Mr. Taylor for his high-profile roles, blockbuster titles or the stars he has worked with. Nor do I want to focus on his award-winning work as writer and director of his own short film, Says Who, in 2012.

What I’d like to recognize Mr. Taylor for is his tireless work supporting and developing young acting talent in Vancouver for more than two decades. John has personally built sets for over 50 independent theatre productions throughout the city and has art-directed over 40 short, independent local films. One of these films, titled Backward Fall, in which John starred in 2013, won UBC student director Andrew Pollins more than a dozen awards, with two awards, for good measure, for John as best actor.

Beyond his ongoing work with UBC students, John has built and art-directed sets for high school students at Kits Secondary, West Point Grey Academy and Crofton House for many years. He is the go-to set builder for the Jericho Arts Centre’s United Players acting company as well.

It’s no wonder that in 2013, the Union of B.C. Performers recognized Mr. Taylor with their Sam Payne Award. This award is for “humanity, integrity and encouragement of new talent.” I could not have said it better myself.

Thank you, John, on behalf of the residents of Vancouver–Point Grey, for building a thriving community by directly and so personally supporting new acting and directing talent. Our community and province are a better place because of your generosity.

ABORIGINAL YOUTH DECLARATION
ON SPORTS AND RECREATION

G. Hogg: Driven by a desire to improve the health and well-being of B.C.’s aboriginal peoples, the aboriginal youth have, with confidence and passion, articulated a thoughtful call to action. Their B.C. Aboriginal Youth Sport and Recreation Declaration reads:

“We, the aboriginal youth of British Columbia, are committed to improving the health and lives of all aboriginal people through aboriginal and mainstream sports, recreation and traditional physical activities within our communities.

“We, as aboriginal people, hold dignity, survival and well-being as the foundation of our culture, and we have the inherent right to live active and healthy lives.

“We are a strong, healthy and resilient people that are connected to our lands and culture through the teachings and wisdom of our elders.

“We will:

“Improve the health of our people, reduce the number of suicides amongst our youth and strengthen our families and communities through increased sports, recreation and physical activity.

“Counter the inequality that exists in our society in the areas of health, violence, addictions, racism and poverty by increasing our health and strength through sports, recreation and physical activity.

“Play our traditional aboriginal sports and recreational activities and nurture our mental, physical, emotional and spiritual health.
[ Page 9997 ]

“Create more opportunities for our youth to participate in healthy and fun activities….

“We call on the federal and provincial governments to work with the aboriginal youth of British Columbia to implement the spirit of this declaration.

“We call on our First Nation governments to lead the way in building a healthier future for aboriginal youth by making sports, recreation and physical activity a priority.

“We call on all governments and aboriginal organizations to work together to support and implement the spirit of this declaration.

“We call upon ourselves, the aboriginal youth of B.C., to implement this declaration, to strengthen our nations and to create a healthier future for our people.”

They and we have all been inspired by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission statement: “The truth of our common experiences will help set our spirits free and pave the way to reconciliation.”

Please extend the gratitude of this House to the aboriginal youth for their clarion call to action and to the aboriginal leaders and governments for the development of this Sport for Life plan in response to that call.

[1015]

VANCOUVER ISLAND ECONOMIC SUMMIT

L. Krog: Last week, on Wednesday and Thursday, Nanaimo hosted the Vancouver Island economic summit. It was a great gathering of leadership from all over Vancouver Island.

I want to particularly recognize that the members from Comox and Nanaimo and for Parksville-Qualicum and Powell River–Sunshine Coast were all in attendance. It was well covered by local media. Of course, I shouldn’t neglect to mention that a member from Kelowna showed up, as well, for an appearance.

The mood was tempered, though, by the presence of Mayor Josie Osborne of Tofino, reminding all of us who are native-born islanders that the power of the sea is still very much something to contend with, as the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim well recognized earlier today.

There was an upbeat spirit. Over 500 leaders from up and down Vancouver Island — aboriginal, political, business, community leaders, successful entrepreneurs and those hoping to learn a few tricks of the trade — were all there, attending numerous and various panels relating to a whole series of topics, a sense of optimism and a sense of camaraderie. All of those there assembled in the best interests of Vancouver Island and its economic future.

Having said that, I have to tell you that in a community like Nanaimo, we’re always delighted to welcome people. It has always been a very welcoming community. Indeed, that camaraderie extends to the former member for Parksville-Qualicum, who, in the spirit of friendship, caught a ride home with the member for Nanaimo, who happens to be his MLA.

There was a passel of other politicians there as well, of course — newly elected members for the three central Vancouver Island new electoral districts: Courtenay-Alberni, Gord Johns; Alistair MacGregor, Cowichan-Malahat; and, of course, Sheila Malcolmson, the new MP for Nanaimo-Ladysmith. All put in an appearance and were surrounded by a lot of people hopeful to get in on what we hope will be the Ottawa gravy train to spend some money on Vancouver Island and help with our economic future.

Special thanks to George Hanson and his team. They did a great job.

AGRIFOOD INDUSTRY

D. Bing: Today has been proclaimed B.C. Agrifoods Day.

B.C.’s fertile lands and rich oceans produce some of the world’s highest quality food. We are lucky to live in a place where our province’s unique growing conditions enable farmers to produce more than 200 commodities across B.C. and where our oceans produce over 100 species of fish, shellfish and marine plants.

Agrifoods in B.C. play a vital role in B.C.’s food-supply security, and our agrifood strategy is working. We have seen over $1.8 billion in sector growth in the last four years. That is 1.8 billion new dollars in the hands of British Columbia farmers and food companies, and we will keep building on that.

We’re helping to build the domestic and export markets for B.C. foods. The $6 million Buy Local program helps B.C. farmers and food processors promote their products and has helped B.C. companies find new customers locally. As well, combined with our network of 13 international trade offices, our B.C. trade missions and innovation in market development funding have all played roles in growing B.C.’s exports.

This five-year strategy builds on our worldwide reputation for producing innovative, safe, high-quality and great-tasting foods, and I’m happy to say it is working.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING AND
POLICIES ON TRANSITORY INFORMATION

J. Horgan: Ten days ago the Information and Privacy Commissioner released a scathing report looking into the activities of three areas of government: the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Advanced Education and the Premier’s office.

Since that time, the official opposition has been raising more and more examples of government officials disregarding the freedom-of-information act and disposing of documents under the guise of having them called “transitory.” Yesterday we learned that the Ministry of International Trade regularly labels documents as transitory to allow them to be deleted without much concern.
[ Page 9998 ]

My question is to the minister responsible for the freedom-of-information act. Does he support the practice of public servants destroying e-mails because they say transitory?

[1020]

Hon. A. Virk: The report completed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, put forth some ten days ago, made a number of findings. The report made a number of recommendations. I stood in this House, in and outside this House. The government is committed to take action on all of those recommendations.

Just yesterday I confirmed that Mr. David Loukidelis, a respected former Privacy Commissioner, has been retained to provide guidance and counsel on the manner in which to take action on each of those recommendations. I also indicated that that report from Mr. Loukidelis is due by December 15, and it will be made public.

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

J. Horgan: Again, regardless of what the question is, Mr. Loukidelis seems to be the default position for the minister responsible. When I ask him what his personal view is on documents being destroyed by public officials, he defaults to Mr. Loukidelis, who will be arriving with the cavalry any day now.

But to truly appreciate how deep this culture of delete goes, you have to take a look at the signature stamp for the director of international operations and logistics within the Ministry of International Trade. Now, this is a key player. The Premier is away on travel junkets all the time, trying to drum up trade, and that’s a good thing. But that’s creating public policy. That’s determining budgets. That’s determining what the messages will be as we travel.

I would suggest that should be public information. But the director of international operations and logistics on his e-mails says in bold, all capitals: “Confidential and transitory.” Clearly, if it’s confidential, it’s not getting together for a cup of coffee, so that wouldn’t make it transitory.

I’m wondering if the minister can help me out here. I appreciate that some public officials would want to have that “get out of jail free” card of saying: “This is really important, and it’s also just passing through.” But can the minister — without mentioning Mr. Loukidelis, who has not yet arrived — tell us about the practice in government before Ms. Denham’s report came down, before the scandal emerged? Can he tell this House how you can be confidential and transitory at the same time?

Hon. A. Virk: I find it….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Minister, just wait.

We’ll proceed when the Chair can hear the answer and the question.

Hon. A. Virk: It’s interesting that, of course, when our Premier engages in expanding trade options for British Columbia to bring more options to British Columbia, the Leader of the Opposition likes to equate that as a junket. This is the “no” party, and they don’t approve of us extending opportunities overseas. But the suggestion that senior public servants work against the act is absolutely incorrect, and the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition is just fundamentally wrong.

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

J. Horgan: Again, the minister never disappoints. He never disappoints. Just when you think there would be an opportunity to say, “Well, I disagree with that practice,” the minister comes up with something else to say.

Good on you, Minister. I give you full marks for that.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

J. Horgan: I want to draw your attention to a document that was created and sent to all staff in the Ministry of International Trade and investment. Well, gosh. Now it’s two years ago, hon. Speaker. It said: “This notice is intended to provide some guidance around what documents we can destroy.” I would suggest that’s a useful piece of information for ministers of the Crown as well, and certainly for those in the Premier’s office. This document says the following. The rule is: “Remember, writing the word ‘transitory’ on a document does not make it transitory.”

Now, I appreciate that the minister read chapter and verse, one chapter and one verse, from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act yesterday. But this is coming from someone responsible for freedom of information in the province of British Columbia, saying to the staff in the ministry: “You can’t just call it something and make it so.” It’s kind of like everything that the Liberals do.

[1025]

So my question, hon. Speaker, is to the minister who’s just hired David Loukidelis to make this all good. How is it possible that people in the province of British Columbia are stamping “transitory” on confidential documents so the public can’t get eyes on them? Those documents, as you know, belong to the people of B.C., not the minister.

Hon. A. Virk: The Leader of the Opposition is incorrect. I draw the Leader of the Opposition’s attention to page 49 of the report done by the Privacy Commissioner. “Transitory records are convenience copies, unnecessary duplicates, working materials and drafts.”
[ Page 9999 ]

I referred, in the House yesterday, to the government’s transitory record schedule, approved by both sides of the House. The suggestion that all e-mails are government records is fundamentally incorrect. I expect all members of core government to operate under legislation.

TRADE MISSION INFORMATION AND
GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING

D. Routley: We looked into the results of yet another FOI package from the Ministry of International Trade. Let me quote from the e-mails sent by senior staff planning the Premier’s trade missions to China and India.

On April 11, 2011, the former assistant deputy minister, Shom Sen, sent a note to his colleagues saying: “Again, please take note that this is sensitive ‘cabinet confidential’ information. Please share only in hard copy and treat as transitory.”

The remarkable part of that note is how contradictory it is. “Sensitive cabinet information are important records that must be preserved and appropriately redacted, if released. They are not transitory.”

My question is to the minister. What is it about the Premier’s trade missions that his government is so desperate to keep secret?

Hon. A. Virk: Now that we have firmly confirmed that the members opposite are against opportunities of expanding trade opportunity…. They’ve firmly committed that.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Virk: I’m going to refer…. Of course, the members opposite don’t want to understand this, but page 49 is quite clear in the report. It refers to drafts. It refers to working material. It refers to convenience copies, unnecessary duplicates. I expect government records to be kept within the ministries. The suggestion that every e-mail is a government record is fundamentally incorrect.

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

D. Routley: You might want to delete that answer.

This FOI package is littered with examples of how staff are embracing the Premier’s culture of delete.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member. We’ll just wait until we can hear the answer and the question.

Please proceed.

D. Routley: On February 29, 2012, Mr. Sen e-mailed a document containing meeting minutes to a colleague. He labels it transitory. On March 24, 2012, Mr. Sen e-mails a note to his deputy minister outlining key points she will want to consider in an upcoming meeting on an ad campaign supporting a trade mission. He labels it transitory. Again and again, this government calls records transitory when they are clearly not.

My question is to the minister. What is government trying to hide about the planning of the Premier’s trade missions?

[1030]

Hon. A. Virk: The “Say no to trade” party will continue to put forth the incorrect assumption that e-mails are the place where government records are retained. Once again, copies, convenience copies, drafts are not government record. I expect the government records to be retained all across ministries that record key decisions, key policy decisions, and I expect all to follow the legislation.

HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION
INFORMATION AND
GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING

J. Shin: Last week we asked the Premier why her deputy and the Deputy Health Minister had no records on this government’s ill-fated firing of health researchers. This government smeared the lives of eight public servants, one of whom took his own life, and apparently there are no records, no cabinet submissions and not even a Treasury Board submission explaining how they settled these wrongful terminations. The Premier could not explain why our FOI request to her government produced no records except that they kept no records.

My question is to the minister. Why did the FOI request we made one year before the Ombudsperson’s review come back with nothing? Does he stand by the Premier’s claim that such records are not the responsibility of the government to be kept?

Hon. A. Virk: We recognize the public’s desire to fully understand the broad details surrounding this incident. That’s why the matter has been referred to the Ombudsperson. The Ombudsperson’s review, I understand, has begun. It has a broad scope.

As far as the release of records, there are some 4,500 pages that have been released, of which 200 pages have already been posted on line. As the Ombudsperson’s investigation continues, I expect more information to come forward. Those documents are there. They’re released, and more are going to be released.

Madame Speaker: The member for Burnaby-Lougheed on a supplemental.
[ Page 10000 ]

J. Shin: Well, the inquiry was one year ago, and at that time, we were given nothing. That was what the question was about, but obviously, the minister chooses to again ignore that particular question.

Unfortunately, it does look like the staff know more about the FOI policies than the minister. In an e-mail dated February 21, 2013, the FOI coordinator for the Ministry of Trade wrote the following: “Any and all records related to the cabinet submissions must be sent to the deputy minister. It is the policy of cabinet operations that substantial drafts are to be kept in the deputy minister’s or the minister’s offices. These are the offices of primary responsibility.”

Again to the minister, according to his government’s own policy, the deputy minister’s offices are required to keep records. Why did the Premier’s deputy or the Deputy Health Minister claim no records when the inquiry was made one year ago on the firing of the health researchers?

Hon. A. Virk: The members opposite suggest that government produced no records, but in fact some 40 packages containing 4,500 pages have been released under FOI to the requester. Of this — there are 28 packages — some 2,000 pages were actually posted on line in open information. Understandably, some of these packages contain personal information. The members opposite certainly understand that personal information cannot be posted on line.

MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT
PROJECT INFORMATION AND
GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING

V. Huntington: In September 2013, the Premier announced at the UBCM Convention that a bridge would be built to replace the Massey Tunnel. You might be mistaken for thinking the Premier had been briefed on that decision before making her announcement. But when a constituent of mine FOI’d the Premier’s office for any records supporting the announcement, he was subjected to B.C.’s mantra: “Although a thorough search was conducted, no records were located.”

[1035]

Every Post-it Note was overturned. Not even the Premier’s speech was found. Can the minister responsible for freedom of information explain how a Premier can make a decision to spend $3 billion with no supporting information?

Hon. A. Virk: As we’ve noticed, the member for Delta South has joined the “Say no to the opportunities” party now — joined the “Say no to infrastructure,” “Say no to bridges,” joined the member from Newton who stood up many times and said that the bridge should have never been built.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. A. Virk: Now that we’ve confirmed — “Say no to the Alex Fraser Bridge,” “Say no to the Port Mann Bridge,” “Say no to every project all across B.C.” We have confirmed that — the “No, no, no” party.

I expect all documents that record key decisions of government to be available and to be submitted forward when the request comes. But the “Say no” party will continue to do that.

Interjection.

V. Huntington: You know, Madame Speaker, sometimes I just wish you could bop the members opposite on the head.

I think we have a right, and the people of B.C. have a right to expect that a $3 billion decision has a paper trail.

Madame Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a moment, please.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

I will caution all members. The proceedings in this House carry forward with mutual respect and regard. If the member wishes to withdraw that comment, that would be so appreciated.

V. Huntington: I wish we could kiss the member opposite.

Madame Speaker: The member for Delta South will withdraw.

V. Huntington: I withdraw, Madame Speaker.

Following the Premier’s announcement that a bridge would replace the Massey Tunnel, I asked Transportation for the business plan, the cost-benefit analysis for the bridge — a document that any competent decision-maker would require before committing to a multi-billion-dollar project, but there was nothing, nada. In fact, I was told the ministry was in the process of building the business case.

Is that how the government does business? It creates the evidence to back up the Premier’s decision? And if that is not the case, will the Minister of Transportation provide the records that supported the Premier’s multi-billion-dollar announcement?

Hon. A. Virk: The member opposite’s question in relation…. It’s clear her view on infrastructure projects certainly joins the “No” party in terms of her opposition to infrastructure projects.
[ Page 10001 ]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–West End will come to order.

Hon. A. Virk: Well, I’ve certainly hit a raw point on the “No” party.

When freedom of information requests come in, I expect the appropriate records to be kept, and I expect that when those requests are made, the applicable FOI process be enacted and the information be released.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION ON
HIGHWAY 16 TRANSPORTATION SERVICE
AND RELEASE OF RECORDS

M. Karagianis: Let’s remember that this whole triple-delete scandal was exposed because we in the opposition asked for records on the Highway of Tears. And then, of course, Tim Duncan blew the whistle on this government for breaking the law and forcing him to destroy some of those very records. When we asked this government why they were refusing to act on the urgent recommendations from the Oppal report, the minister told us that people in the northwest said it was the wrong approach and they didn’t want a bus.

[1040]

Of course, we knew this couldn’t be true because my colleagues and I drove that highway, met with community members along that highway and were told firsthand the very opposite of what the minister has said. Now, after an FOI fight that has taken a year, guess what. We were correct. The FOI shows that the people in the northwest actually did tell this government that they wanted public transportation.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Why is this government continuing to suppress the voices of the murdered and missing women and their families along this highway by refusing to take action on public transportation?

Hon. T. Stone: First off, I will say this. The commissioner, in her report, indicated that the original request, the 36 pages that were requested of the Ministry of Transportation…. The scope that was applied to that request was too narrow. We agree with her finding. As a result, we said, immediately upon receipt of her report, that we would endeavour, as quickly as possible, to release those records.

Those records were released to the opposition last Friday. They were loaded onto open gov yesterday. In addition to that, we also released almost 600 additional pages of information, records, pertaining to Highway 16, which represents the culmination of records requests dating back to 2012. Those records were also provided to the opposition, as a courtesy, on Friday. They have all been uploaded to open gov as well.

I will also say this. The member will see, through those records, as I have stated in this House and outside this House, that this government has been working very, very hard with communities along Highway 16 — First Nations, in particular — to identify strategies to make the corridor safer. We will continue with that work. At the end of the day, we all want to ensure that folks who live along Highway 16 can do so knowing that that corridor is as safe as it possibly can be.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: For a year, we have fought in this House with this minister, who has intentionally hidden the records until 24 hours ago, when it was made public. In fact, those records say the complete opposite of what we have been hearing from this minister and this government time and time again.

Let me quote from this freedom of information that was dumped into the public domain yesterday. It directly contradicts the minister’s spin lines. Here is what the note said, from these meetings — what the stakeholders actually said when they were consulted. Here is a quote: “There might be opportunities to create an interconnected network through which passengers might travel from Prince Rupert to Smithers, for example, and then connect to another bus.” Another quote: “A need to develop B.C. Transit in smaller communities.”

People on this corridor have been asking for exactly what the missing and murdered women’s commission recommended — an enhanced public transportation system along Highway 16 — which this government has denied time and time and time again.

I’d like to know why the minister misrepresented what those community leaders had told him — and, in fact, has dishonoured the victims and their families and has continued to deceive the public.

Hon. T. Stone: It continues to disappoint many that the member opposite and her colleagues continue to opt for politics over policy with respect to Highway 16.

Our government has been working extremely hard with communities and First Nations to identify practical….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. T. Stone: We are continuing to work very hard with communities, First Nations, local government
[ Page 10002 ]
leaders and others up and down Highway 16 to identify practical options that will improve the safety along that corridor.

[1045]

As I’ve also mentioned, the highway is safer today than it was five years ago, ten years ago, 15 years ago because of investments that this government has made in transit connecting communities, in a Northern Health bus, in expanding cellular coverage across the region. We’ve also provided dollars to the Carrier-Sekani for driver education and training. We’ve set up a web portal to better connect all of the resources that are available.

We’re going to continue to do the work. There is a symposium that we are co-sponsoring with the First Nations Health Authority that will be held in Smithers in only a matter of weeks, where local government leaders and First Nations will be coming together with the ministry and with the First Nations Health Authority to continue the discussion to identify further strategies to make this corridor even safer.

J. Rice: The only reason these documents are released is because we fought for them. Last year we requested these documents. In February of this year, after two extensions, we were told they didn’t exist.

They do exist, and what did they tell us? They tell us that communities, First Nations and families of the murdered and missing want public transportation along the Highway of Tears. Does the minister think hiding these documents because they contradicted his spin was the right thing to do? How can this minister explain this?

Hon. T. Stone: First, I would like to correct the member, for the record. The Ministry of Transportation has actually released almost 600 pages of records since 2012. There have been six….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Stone: Since 2012 there have been six responsive FOI requests related to Highway 16, three of which represented records which were posted on open gov — some of which date back many, many months. The other three requests were provided directly to the requesters.

This suggestion that there has been any attempt to not provide information is simply not true. Now, I’ve addressed the 36 pages. We agreed with the commissioner’s finding that the scope of that request was too narrow, and we have since disclosed the information.

The important thing here, I think, for people on Highway 16 is that we continue to focus on how we can make this corridor safer. That’s the work that I am pouring myself into. That’s the work that my officials are putting their shoulders into. We’re going to continue to do that important work to make that corridor safer.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: Communities were clear: they wanted a shuttle bus system. They needed it to be safe, to get groceries, to go to work. The minister tried to say communities didn’t want this. The documents say the complete opposite.

How could the Minister of Transportation get up in this House time after time and have such disregard for First Nations communities, the families of the murdered and missing along the Highway of Tears?

Hon. T. Stone: I’m going to continue to do the work that’s required with communities and First Nations along Highway 16 to identify safer transportation options. This is work that has been underway for a number of years now, and we’ll build upon what is a foundation along Highway 16 that the members opposite choose to ignore.

There is a transit service connecting a number of communities today. That’s because this government invests $1.5 million per year in B.C. Transit service. We invest $2 million per year in the Northern Health bus. We are aggressively continuing to expand cell coverage to make this corridor safer. We are working with First Nations on driver training and education services.

Through this symposium coming up in a few weeks in Smithers, which we’re co-sponsoring with the First Nations Health Authority, there will be more discussion on other strategies to make the corridor safer. This is hard work. This is complex work, but we are committed to doing everything we can to make this corridor as safe as it possibly can be.

[1050]

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

L. Larson: I have the honour to present the interim report of the Select Standing Committee on Health for the fourth session of the 40th parliament.

I move that the report be taken as read and received, and in doing so, I would like to seek leave to make some brief comments.

Leave granted.

L. Larson: The Select Standing Committee on Health is busy reviewing the many submissions it has received during its consultation on ensuring sustainability in British Columbia’s health care system.

As part of our consultation as it relates to end-of-life care, the committee received a substantial number of
[ Page 10003 ]
submissions, likely due to the decision of the Supreme Court to strike down the existing law that addressed the topic of assisted dying. They are represented in this interim report.

The committee recognizes the difficult nature of this topic and the varied perspectives of British Columbians and that the new federal government needs time to address the issue.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the subcommittee and the whole committee for their work on this difficult topic. Special thanks to the Deputy Chair, the member for New Westminster, for her work and support.

I look forward to continuing to work with the members of this dedicated committee as we consider ways to improve end-of-life care for all British Columbians.

With that, I move the tabling of the report.

J. Darcy: As Deputy Chair, I also seek leave to speak to the report.

Leave granted.

J. Darcy: As Deputy Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Health, I would like to add my comments to the report on dying with dignity.

This thoughtful report reflects what we heard from hundreds of British Columbians. It reflects the difficult questions they put to us and the difficult challenge we faced in coming to recommendations because this is, without question, a difficult and emotional issue for all of us. But it also reflects the soon-to-be-enacted law of the land.

In February 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decision on dying with dignity comes into effect. British Columbians need to know that governments are taking leadership on this critical issue. I want to express my profound disappointment that the government side is not moving adoption today.

This report is the work of the Select Standing Committee on Health. It has been endorsed nearly unanimously by that committee. It is the view of this side of the House that the Legislature should endorse the report as well, as would normally happen with a committee report and as the committee itself recommended.

British Columbians are looking to this House for leadership. Not adopting this report does not show leadership. It concerns me and it concerns this side of the House because within three months, patients and doctors may be faced with the most heart-rending decisions of their lives, with no government light to shine the way, no guidance — not even support for the very basic principles in this report.

It concerns me. It should concern all members. I urge everyone in this House to support this report.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Darcy: I rise and seek leave to move adoption of the report of the Select Standing Committee on Health.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued second reading debate on Bill 42.

G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: This morning some 86 students from South Surrey got up a little earlier than they usually get up to make the trek over here to the Legislature to watch the proceedings and learn about the works that we do here.

[1055]

I’d ask the House to welcome the teachers Beatrix Knoll, Wendy Metcalfe and Sandy Kostur from Ecole Laronde Elementary School in South Surrey. Welcome to the Legislature.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

(continued)

A. Dix: It’s an honour to rise and speak to second reading of Bill 42, the Electoral Districts Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This is, really, a process that goes on every two election periods here in the Legislature. It’s an important process because it establishes the basis of our representation here in the Legislature, which is our constituencies. In the system of election that we have, this is fundamental, and changes in those constituencies, as many members of the House are facing, are heartfelt and important.

The district of Vancouver-Kingsway that I represent saw, in this round, no changes. But in fact, of course, the electoral district of Vancouver-Kingsway has a relatively short history as a provincial constituency in British Columbia.

That’s because through much of the history of the province, this area of East Vancouver was represented in an old double-member seat, which was Vancouver East. It
[ Page 10004 ]
was not until the electoral boundaries process and the electoral boundaries report and the electoral boundaries legislation in the late 1980s, which set out the change in that — in fact, into the 1990s — that was first seen in evidence in the election of 1991 — a particularly good election, I might say, for the people of British Columbia — that the constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway, the single-member constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway, came into existence.

Since that time, the constituency has seen, largely, some small reductions in its size. That’s because in our part of Vancouver, in East Vancouver, we’ve seen a fairly significant increase in density. The area of the riding hasn’t increased, but it’s the increase in density in the area. The number of people living there and the density of housing and accommodation has meant that the electoral district of Vancouver-Kingsway has continued to increase in population, even though in both 1999 and then again in 2008, we lost parts of the constituency.

In 2008 — you will recall, of course, hon. Speaker, because you watch these matters carefully — we lost about eight polls, or about 8 to 10 percent of the constituency in geography at that time, polls north of Grandview Highway on the north side and polls south of 41st, between Rupert and Nanaimo, on the south side, leaving us the constituency we have today.

The continuing increase in density in this area — in this very unique area, I would argue, in terms of the world — have continued since that time such that Vancouver-Kingsway is now the second-largest constituency in British Columbia in terms of population, second only to the constituency immediately south of it, Vancouver-Fraserview. I would expect, and we all expect, because of dramatically increasing density….

I’ll just give you an example. On Boundary Road, near Vanness, there is an enormous new development happening in terms of towers — towers 35 storeys high — that will itself increase the population of the constituency by more than 1,000. Numerous other developments are in process, and a general increasing of the density up and down Kingsway between Victoria on the north side and Nanaimo on the south side, increasing density along Kingsway, will mean that by the next round of redistribution — should that occur, should there not be a change in the electoral system in the intervening period — that Vancouver-Kingsway will be even more in excess of the average in British Columbia.

[1100]

As you know, hon. Speaker — because again, you in particular watch these issues with great care — Vancouver-Kingsway is 18 percent above the provincial average in terms of population now. I would expect that to approach 25 percent of the provincial population before the next round of redistribution.

This is a significant fact, one that my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey has raised — namely, that people in Vancouver-Kingsway who care passionately about their constituency and community…. Their voice, their relative voice because they are in the largest constituency, is slightly less. That means that, as MLA for Vancouver-Kingsway, I have to speak with a louder voice, in part to make up for that.

What we have, therefore, in Vancouver-Kingsway, established in the Electoral Districts Act… For people watching on TV to understand the act, we are adopting the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. In the schedule of the act, if people go to that on the Internet, they’ll find both the names of the electoral districts and then, in schedule 2, the areas and boundaries of the electoral district.

This constituency, the constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway, goes along Grandview Highway — some people would say that’s East 12th — between Boundary and Victoria. It comes up Victoria to Kingsway. It juts over to Nanaimo, and then it goes south to 41. It then goes along 41 to Rupert Street, south to 45, along 45 to Boundary and then back up Boundary Road to Grandview Highway. That’s the constituency. That’s how it’s constituted now.

As I said, over the last 15 years, it has gotten slightly smaller geographically as the population density and the population of the area has increased and been transformed. By “transformed” I mean that we have a constituency in Vancouver-Kingsway that is, in its majority, first-generation immigrants to Canada — people who have chosen Canada, who have come to Canada for a variety of reasons, who have made Canada their home and contribute enormously to the province such that less than half of the people in Vancouver-Kingsway speak English as their primary language at home. That is, I think, unusual and, in fact, makes it unusual in both Canada and in British Columbia. There are very few constituencies that can say that.

It is an enormously diverse population — people coming from all places in the world. Most recently, the largest group in the last five years of people immigrating to Vancouver-Kingsway have been from the Philippines. They continue in their community activity and organization to transform our community, just as other communities that came to Vancouver-Kingsway and have now…. In many respects, we’ve seen a decline in population of people coming from other parts of the world who became citizens in Canada over the last number of years.

We see, obviously, a very significant and growing increase in immigration from the People’s Republic of China. As well, there is a very significant and thriving Vietnamese-Canadian community, not of recent immigration, because there’s very little — it’s in the hundreds — immigration into our constituency from Vietnam presently. But of course, as you know, tens of thousands of people came from Vietnam in the early years after the Vietnam War in response to political repression against them by the government of Vietnam. They came to this country.
[ Page 10005 ]

You know, this past weekend, I attended…. Just to give a sense of the contribution of people in the constituency, Vietnamese Canadians in the constituency have worked hard with provincial representatives and with the city of Vancouver to establish a commercial area of business along Kingsway called Little Saigon but also contribute enormously in other ways to community life and community health.

I was enormously moved this weekend that some of the community leaders in my constituency…. We actually had the event in Surrey, in the constituency of the member for Surrey-Newton. Members and leaders in our constituency held a fundraiser because they understand, I think, better than anyone the circumstances of what is happening in the Middle East and what is happening in Syria now. They held a fundraiser this past Saturday that I attended on Halloween.

It was a full house of people who raised money. The fundraiser was called Boat People to Boat People. It was Vietnamese Canadians raising money in support of Syrian refugees. It is profoundly moving, and it tells us, I think, something very important about both the nature of immigration and the nature of Vancouver-Kingsway.

[1105]

We have people who come from all over the world, but the largest groups come from China, the administrative area of Hong Kong, the Philippines, Vietnam, India. They come together from these enormously diverse places and work together to establish a community that responds to issues not in a selfish way but in a community way. They respond to some of the most difficult issues one could possibly imagine.

Our public schools, our outstanding public schools in Vancouver-Kingsway, display this in, I think, inspiring ways. At Gladstone, students came together. At Gladstone, in this past federal election campaign and in previous provincial election campaigns, we had significant debates. Not everybody showed up for those debates. Some political parties choose to not show up to debates. But we’ve consistently had significant debates at Gladstone.

A teacher named Todd Ablett and students have established and put together a robotics program that has won internationally, has won world championships in our constituency — for Gladstone but also for British Columbia and Canada. What is inspiring about that and what you see about that and what’s important about that, it seems to me, for public education — because this could not have happened without that teacher and without the public education system — is how people who graduated from Gladstone feel a connection back to the community and continue to support the robotics program there.

There is nothing in the abstract about Gladstone that would make it an international centre for robotics. It was the students and the teachers and the parents and community that rose together to support them that made that possible.

Equally, at Windermere High School, in the constituency, you see the same circumstances. Hundreds — not tens — of students at Windermere volunteer at the catchment area elementary schools to provide supports to programs in the community. They establish events in the community, food security in the community. Students at Windermere are equally involved and feel that connection back to the community. Even when elementary schools in the community were threatened with closure, those students mobilized and supported those elementary schools and supported the community.

You have in our community, from young people to seniors, an effort to engage in difficult community events, in difficult things happening in the community — not complaining and not whining but seeing the possibilities for change that their very existence as a community demonstrates. For example, our business improvement association, our neighbourhood house and our community policing office, led by the remarkable Chris Taulu. Those offices came together in Renfrew-Collingwood to deal with and support individuals involved in the difficult issues around the sex trade.

The business community along Kingsway did that, and the neighbourhood house and the community policing association. We all learned in that process. They didn’t shy away. The fact that politicians and governments in every jurisdiction shy away from dealing with those fundamental issues…. They didn’t say: “Oh, we’re going to not engage in it.” Instead, they did. They provided supports to women. They made life better in the community.

They addressed issues around it, including issues as mundane as garbage. They made community life better such that that area along Kingsway, while still facing some of the difficult issues around the sex trade, which are some of the most difficult issues facing both policing and community…. They continue to exist. They made things better even in the absence of federal and provincial leadership on those questions. That tells you something about a community which challenged their own views and their own understanding around the difficult issues of the sex trade and made things better.

If you go to our community policing office, in the heart of the constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway that is established here in the Electoral Districts Act, it serves the entire community — that office led by Chris Taulu. You’ll find people, volunteers and members of the communities, from every part of the world, including people who grew up within blocks of that office and who every day go out in the community and provide safety and support to people in the community.

[1110]

Again, they have addressed difficult issues around grow ops in the community and community safety, and go out and engage with communities on difficult issues like the establishment, which sometimes happens — and it is often controversial — of homes in the community
[ Page 10006 ]
to support people recovering from addiction. They don’t shy away from the issue, and they don’t call people names. They work and solve the problem — people coming from all over the world. I am so proud to stand in this House and represent them, for that very reason.

You think of the place just next door to the community policing office, where the Collingwood Neighbourhood House receives no stable funding. It is not a community centre. It was established as an idea and a partnership between the business community, which was increasing density in the neighbourhood — including, especially, the company that eventually became Concert Properties — and the city and the community. But it started as a house. It started with a woman in the community named Terry Tayler, who thought it was a good idea and brought people together.

Now it is a thriving centre with a myriad of programs, but always facing the challenge of having its funding established based on 50 or 60 funding sources and not having a stable funding source. Yet they make it happen. You look at the board of that neighbourhood house and those that benefit from its events, and you see an organization that has built something, without the normal benefits one would get from a community centre and without the stability of funding that one would expect, into something extraordinary that provides child care and fitness programs.

Everything from child care to Jazzercise and language programs happens in that constituency, and people who come to the constituency get engaged and get integrated. Indeed, they vote at the Collingwood Neighbourhood House. We vote. It’s my neighbourhood poll in most elections. They vote there as well. That is something that we’ve achieved together, and that’s unique in the world, I would argue.

We talk sometimes in the abstract about the value of multiculturalism. But it exists on the ground in Vancouver-Kingsway in a way that I think is profoundly positive for all of us. When you establish an electoral district like this, it presents some unique challenges as well. I want to say a couple of things about other parts of the constituency. Again, it shows that while we have a business community — a thriving business community along Kingsway, in Vancouver-Kingsway — the importance, the centrality, of public services is something that we’d remark.

If you live near Trout Lake, Trout Lake Community Centre is a place that you go. It’s a place you go for programs for your children. It’s a place you go for programs related to seniors. There’s a thriving seniors group there. It’s a place you go to exercise and to be with other members of the community.

Whether it be on Family Day or Halloween or Christmastime, you’re at Trout Lake Community Centre. It’s a public facility that people in the neighbourhood — I remember representing the neighbourhood — came out in their thousands to support both in terms of fundraising for the extras that were not provided when the new building was built but also to support the building of a new community centre at Trout Lake.

It’s an overwhelming success, both the skating rink and the community centre — everywhere. They came out in the thousands to support it, and they’ve come out in the tens and hundreds of thousands of visits every year, to show its value. That is the value of public services that cannot be imitated elsewhere.

At Renfrew Community Centre, we have, I think, the most active group of seniors in Vancouver, the Renfrew Chinese seniors. People come from throughout Vancouver but especially the immediate neighbourhood — again, thousands of members of the Renfrew Chinese seniors. And that exists. While it’s very important to recognize the role, the non-profit role, of the non-profits that operate within the family that is the Renfrew Community Centre, that doesn’t exist without public services.

I think you see that while there is a dynamic, entrepreneurial view amongst people who live in my constituency, they understand the importance of libraries and community centres and neighbourhood houses. That is reflected, I hope, in its representation. Those centres make the community go. They provide value in the community, as they have in previous generations.

[1115]

One of the things that I’m proudest of that the community did in Vancouver-Kingsway was to save Fire Hall No. 15, which was established in the first decades of the 20th century.

Just think of it. The reason that neighbourhood grew at that time wasn’t because of the public services we think of today but because we had a fire hall so that people were safe to establish houses in the neighbourhood. The fire hall preceded the growth at that time. That fire hall, which was built in 1913, was rebuilt 100 years later on the same basis and the same view. It was rebuilt and its heritage component maintained, because people in the community felt that was important. Its history, which they’re connected to, is important, and they did that.

This is what democracy is. There is a tendency, I think, to say that what we do in a democratic system is we have elections every few years and everyone goes away. We know — the member for Nanaimo knows, the member for Victoria knows, my colleagues from Coquitlam and Vancouver, who are here in the House, all know — that democracy flourishes because it happens and it exists in communities every day. That is particularly true, in my view, of the communities and the people that comprise the constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway.

What they are doing…. In a world that is beset by disagreement, by a lack of understanding, of an inability, seemingly, to communicate generation unto generation…. We have a constituency and a community — a majority, first time, in the community and many people who have lived there all their lives, who engage together to make it a real and living place.
[ Page 10007 ]

That is something that I am enormously proud of. It’s something that I think here in this Electoral Districts Act, in re-establishing this constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway, we have to recognize, which is that communities come together, form and establish and support great public schools, form and establish significant and important private schools in the constituency as well, and organize themselves in diverse communities but also participate in intercultural understanding. It’s why the most successful organizations in Vancouver-Kingsway are intercultural and not of a single cultural group, Collingwood Neighbourhood House and the community centres and the business improvement association — all intercultural organizations that reach out and bring people into the community.

It’s why I think that participation in the community in an election by people is so important and of such value. I think that’s what we’ve done in Vancouver-Kingsway, and that’s why I am happy to stand in this House and support this Boundaries Commission report, which maintains the geographic integrity of this riding and this process. I think it’ll probably be the last time we do that — either, as I said at the beginning of this speech, because the electoral system may change or because the community is simply growing.

It’s a desirable place to live, and it will face, strongly and together, the challenges involved in the increasing density that will occur. Ours is not a community that has ever said on a significant issue: “Not in my backyard.” I don’t think there are a lot of communities that can say that. People have come from throughout the world. They invest enormously — it is incredibly expensive to buy a house in Vancouver-Kingsway, as it is everywhere in Metro Vancouver — to be in the community, but they do not reject other people from engaging and becoming part of the community.

In the last year, the old Ramada hotel in Vancouver-Kingsway, beside the Safeway at Kingsway and Tyne, was transformed into social housing. It was the Continental downtown; it became the Kingsway Continental. And people came into the community. It was supported by the community.

In the initial phases, community members participated in the events, including bringing welcoming baskets to people who moved into the riding and who, because their ability to access this housing basically involves the threat of homelessness, had very little. The community has participated with the people living at the Kingsway Continental in joint community activities.

[1120]

How many communities do you see that happen in? How many times do we see news stories about people in other communities not engaging in that sort of way — and how inviting and positive the community in Vancouver-Kingsway is? People who came to our country — wanted to come to our country, immigrated to our country — and people who have lived all their lives in Vancouver-Kingsway joined together to invite other people to be part of the community. How many places on earth can we say that and can we see that happening in such an inspiring way?

In conclusion — because I know my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake has important things to add to this debate — I wanted to say, as the MLA for Vancouver-Kingsway over the last ten years, I have been very proud to serve, to be elected and re-elected in three elections and to serve this constituency that is re-established in Bill 42.

I look forward to doing that over the next 18 months as we continue to try and achieve together something special on the eastside of Vancouver, a community where people have come from all over the world but have created something new and extraordinary.

L. Throness: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

L. Throness: I’ve had the good fortune today to run into a couple of constituents who I’ve never met. They’re from Chilliwack. It’s Tina and Peter Swetlishoff. We’re so pleased to have them in the House. They are accompanied today by Gerda and Frank Gross. Gerda is Tina’s sister. They’re together for a week here in Victoria having a vacation. This is their first time in the House. Would the House please warmly welcome them.

Debate Continued

R. Fleming: I’m pleased to say a few words here in the tail end of debate, I think, on Bill 42. So many members have spoken and talked about what it’s like to represent their constituencies and what are some of the elements of this great diverse province of ours — rural communities that members here represent and suburban and urban communities. I’m somewhere in between, with an urban and suburban constituency myself.

I’d like to talk about the history of the evolution of Victoria–Swan Lake over many Boundaries Commissions to arrive at what will be cemented by Bill 42 going forward in the next two general elections, 2017 and 2021. But I think I would like to begin my remarks by just following on what other members have done with their time in this debate, and that is to both commend and thank the commissioners, the three-member panel that went out and heard from British Columbians.

They had a very difficult job looking at the population distribution in British Columbia, looking at Bill 2 that was passed in this House in 2014 that put some parameters around what they could recommend to the House and what is, in fact, contained in the bill we have before us today.
[ Page 10008 ]

It was not an easy job, and one that I think we can all say — and I have heard nobody say anything contrary to this — was a job that was done successfully, a job that was well done, that engaged the public. Given all of the constraints…. You could use that word. I don’t think it’s too harsh of a word. Given all the difficulties placed upon them by Bill 2, I think they came up with a map that I couldn’t imagine being done in a fairer manner.

Now, others have talked both in the House and outside of the House about the challenges that British Columbia faces. We have areas that are facing depopulation and shifts. We have fast-growing regions of this province that require additional and new representation. We also have some instruction — not absolutely clear instruction, but some jurisprudence — from the courts that advises what a commission must or must not do.

At the end of the day, here in Bill 42, when it comes to one of the primary considerations that the commission must make…. That is the question of representation by population, one of the oldest democratic principles, balancing those population shifts in British Columbia, looking both ahead and looking behind a decade or eight years at what has occurred.

[1125]

In Bill 42, the commission has managed to not go over the 25 percent deviation, plus or minus, of the average size of a constituency, which I think is around 53,000 or 54,000 constituents per MLA. They’ve managed to do that in ten out of 85 cases.

It could have been much more, given that in respecting the principle of representation by population, they must also look at what constitutes a natural community and what is a reasonable size of a constituency in British Columbia for one member to be able to represent in terms of travel.

We often talk about Skeena, for example, being the size of several European countries combined, and that is in fact true. I know that there are MLAs in rural and northern communities in British Columbia who must, in order to do constituency outreach, use private planes where there are no roads and be able to schedule their time so that they visit as many small communities as they can so that they see their MLA, so that they can raise what concerns they have around the province of which we are all citizens here in this House.

In only two cases of the 85 — now 87 — constituencies are there constituencies where there is a plus or minus deviation from the standard size of a constituency that is greater than 50 percent. Now, ideally it would be zero. There is some court instruction that there is grey area that would probably be defensible within a constitutional challenge between the 25 and 50 percent.

It must be said that British Columbia would not be unique or alone in adopting this map in Bill 42, the boundaries that we would have for the next two general elections. We have exceptions in places like Quebec, where I understand there are a number of exceptions to the 25 percent variance, including the Iles de la Madeleine, which is out in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and therefore falls below the standard deviation.

Nova Scotia took a different approach and could, given its geography. It mandated that there be a 25 percent variance applied to the entire province, and they capped the number of seats in their legislature at 52 — so different than ours.

The government set the marching orders at a maximum expansion of this place to two additional seats and red-circled, if you will, 17 constituencies that were deemed rural. Some curious stretches of the definition of “rural,” when you had urban regional hubs like Kamloops being considered rural and other constituencies excluded from that definition. I think of Powell River–Sunshine Coast or the North Island or Alberni–Pacific Rim. Those were not deemed rural constituencies, although anybody who has spent any time in those constituencies would absolutely consider them to be rural.

Maybe the distinction is that they’re not government seats, but I think at this magnanimous stage of debate on Bill 42, I won’t go back to Bill 2 debate. We did raise those concerns. And again, the commission needs to be commended for probably hearing that debate and interpreting it and being able to, I think, meet the concerns that members on both sides of the House had in coming up with a boundaries map that I expect every single member of this House can live with, based on the debate.

So far, I have heard nothing but an indication that there will be unanimous approval for Bill 42. That is a very good thing, because it’s a vote of confidence in the process that has evolved in British Columbia. It wasn’t always this way, as we have discussed in debate here and in the motion that preceded it. It’s a vote of confidence in the independent system that we have arrived at to draw boundaries.

I think we have made the point — I certainly have — that on the continent of North America, the norm is not for independent commissions that invite public submissions to be the bulk of the input that they consider. In most parts of this continent — state legislatures in the United States come to mind, the drawing of congressional districts in the United States — it’s done by politicians.

[1130]

We can well imagine the self-interest and the temptation and the partisanship that infects that process down there. We are blessed in British Columbia to have finally arrived at a modern state — not perfect, but a much more modern and independent way of doing that than some other jurisdictions that would, no doubt, consider themselves to be more advanced than we are.

In this instance, and in other instances, I think we have done much better than our counterparts in other places where, really, you can actually talk about, in the 21st century, the ancient practices of gerrymandering still being in existence. In commending and thanking the commis-
[ Page 10009 ]
sion and noting that I think there will be a unanimous vote, I think that speaks volumes in and of itself.

I expect, actually, that there are some MLAs, both privately and, in some cases, publicly, who don’t actually like the boundaries that are in this report. I know there are some members in this House who disagree completely with what the commission has put before us, because they’ve said so on the record many, many times, or privately, which did not remain so privately. Word gets around in these corridors. But they will, having expressed those reservations or extreme concerns, animated concerns, vote for this bill, I expect. Again, I think that is something to observe that speaks to the credibility of what the commission has proposed.

There are changes here. Most of the province is exempt from serious changes. I think that reflects the patterns of change out there on the landscape in British Columbia, being concentrated in a few different parts.

The changes, in reality, when you look across British Columbia — adding two seats to this chamber and making changes, for example, of moving Hope into Fraser-Nicola or Princeton into Boundary-Similkameen, the Queensborough area of New Westminster into a new Richmond seat. Here on the Island, I can think of the most significant change, which is still minor in and of itself — to move Cumberland and that area out of the Comox seat into Mid Island–Pacific Rim.

Most of the changes are quite minor. Again, I think that’s a testament to the creativity of the commission. They wanted to minimize the impact of the changes and respect, as I said earlier, not just the principle of representation by population but to try and respect some kind of natural geography and communities of interest remaining within the same provincial constituency boundaries. They have largely succeeded.

There were MLAs, as I said, who I think had some serious problems with the new boundaries that are before us. Look, MLAs can get into this position where they talk about “their” constituencies and fall into a view that substitutes maybe the fondness and the pride that they have of their constituents and the communities and neighbourhoods within their constituencies with the temporary nature of this job that we do, that we are privileged to have as representatives.

It’s not about us. It’s about the Legislative Assembly as a whole and the democratic principles that we’ve laid out here in British Columbia. It is about things that will come long after us and isn’t about who occupies the seat itself but what the constituency should, in fact, look like individually but also in the context of an 87-seat legislature.

Because nobody can really argue with the process or the main thrust of the process that we’ve undergone, there is no move afoot. There is no hint that the Legislative Assembly, which actually has the power…. It has the formal power to amend the boundaries and the recommendations of the commission. There has been no attempt to do so. I think that that temptation has been resisted largely out of respect for the work of the commission.

[1135]

Now, some would say that like so many tensions within our parliamentary democracy which are necessary to make it work, the balance-of-terror principle has prevailed here and that it would be so messy and disruptive to give into temptation for those who don’t like the boundaries that have been drawn here. I think, no. I think, in fact, that it is respect that has won out over any such temptation in that regard.

To my own constituency. Having briefly touched upon the minor changes that we’ve seen out there in some of the constituencies in British Columbia, let me speak for a brief while on Victoria–Swan Lake. There have been almost no changes to that constituency. But I want to give some context as to why that may have been the case for the commission, why, in fact, neighbouring ridings or ridings on the south Island peninsula — like Saanich North and the Islands, like Saanich South and Victoria–Swan Lake — experienced almost no change. I won’t say no change because there are some minor tweaks. Why is that?

I think it’s because, primarily, 2007-2008 was the last time the commission made more substantive, bigger changes to the map that guided the general election of 2009. My own constituency, at that time, went from being Victoria-Hillside, which it had historically been for five general elections, to Victoria–Swan Lake.

The changes there were that the boundaries in the north end of downtown Victoria, which begin the constituency of then Victoria-Hillside, were moved out of Chinatown, out of the Rock Bay industrial area to be completely contiguous with Bay Street. The Saanich boundaries in my constituency were moved from streets in Saanich like Union and Lodge and Tillicum Road to McKenzie and Admirals, which is a more distinct and recognized, in some cases an arterial, route that forms a more natural boundary.

It changed the distribution of Victoria–Swan Lake, formerly Victoria-Hillside, from being about 60 percent composed of citizens of the city of Victoria and 40 percent of the district of Saanich to an approximately more equal distribution. Not quite 50-50 — a little bit of a majority, still, on the city of Victoria. But some of the changes have, I think, proven very wise. For example…. I’ll speak to two neighbourhoods specifically.

The Burnside-Gorge constituency has always been a key neighbourhood in the Victoria-Hillside and now the Victoria–Swan Lake area. That is a very active constituency, active in terms of new development like the Selkirk area, which has undergone intensive redevelopment from a very challenging brownfield site to a very well-studied and regarded mixed-use community that has both low-income, non-market housing to high-end, waterfront market housing.

It has literally thousands of jobs in commercial com-
[ Page 10010 ]
plexes in that area. It has recreational centres like the rowing club. It has become a gem of a neighbourhood and, really, I’d say, a new anchor point for the Burnside-Gorge community as a whole.

Now, Burnside-Gorge has always had a lot to do with Gorge-Tillicum, which had always been represented by the Saanich South neighbourhood and well-represented, I might add, by MLAs like Andrew Petter and David Cubberley and my colleague, the current member for Saanich South. And I think because that representation for Gorge-Tillicum was so strong and the link between MLAs in that community was so strong, there was concern that it would be moved to Victoria–Swan Lake, but I think it has been a plus.

[1140]

Certainly, it has been a pleasure, from my perspective, to work with members of the Gorge-Tillicum Community Association. I am very pleased that that community remains within the boundaries that are before us now. We continue to work on a lot of issues with Gorge-Tillicum, and they continue to be joined very closely with Burnside Gorge.

As a matter of fact, just the other day, an issue we’ve been working on for a number of years with my federal and municipal counterparts around abandoned and derelict boats in the Gorge harbour — which is an area where there’s been tremendous voluntary efforts involving hundreds, if not thousands, of people over the years to clean up a very polluted waterway — faces new challenges.

It’s been so successful in the Gorge. This is an area that, because of an industrial presence and just general disregard for runoff and what goes into the storm drains and contaminants that were getting into the Gorge waterway, had gone from what was a very swimmable recreation area up until the 1930s into something that was virtually unusable by the 1970s and 1980s.

Beginning in the 1990s, this area was rehabilitated, and that’s where I think those two communities started to work together very strongly. All elements of the Gorge and the upper arm of the harbour of Victoria got to know each other a little bit better. Those communities will remain in the new Victoria–Swan Lake boundaries, and, as I said, I couldn’t be more delighted about that.

Victoria–Swan Lake — as I’ve said, the change that happened was in 2008-2009. There were a couple of neighbourhoods, including North Park — I mentioned Chinatown — that were moved into Victoria–Beacon Hill. Now, those were inner-city neighbourhoods, as they’re deemed, that I also knew very well from my former time as a city councillor and a liaison to some of these communities. I enjoyed representing them very much, but they’re very well represented by my colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill.

There were changes that were quite substantive in that commission report. But what didn’t really change overall was the nature of what Victoria–Swan Lake is like in British Columbia. We’ve had MLAs very eloquently describe their constituencies and some of their unique components of them. The reality is that there isn’t a typical constituency. Under the 85-member map that we have today and the 87-member map that we will have in the next two general elections, there isn’t any riding, really, that is quite like another.

There are similarities that we can draw. There are categories we can put constituencies into. But the qualities that I think of around Victoria–Swan Lake that make it unique, even just within the south Island and the capital regional district, are really how representative it is as a mixed community. This is not to brag or to speak ill of any of our neighbouring constituencies, but it’s just a fact, looking at the census and B.C. statistics, that of the seven constituencies in the lower Island, Victoria–Swan Lake is and will remain the most multicultural in this region.

There are new Canadians from something like 120 different countries in my constituency. There are 70 first languages spoken in the home that are neither of our two official languages. Incredible diversity — people from all over the world, immigrants and refugees.

There is a diversity in terms of educational attainment. The south Island, greater Victoria, has a high attainment, for example, of post-secondary education. That’s represented in my constituency as well. There are people from all kinds of income backgrounds in Victoria–Swan Lake. Even with inner-city neighbourhoods, as I mentioned, like North Park and Rock Bay moving into my neighbour’s constituency, it remains so.

Too much poverty, I might add. Working with those communities, working with individuals who are in vulnerable employment and facing the challenges that poverty brings upon one in daily life occupies the vast amount of time in my constituency. That’s what my constituency assistants do: help people who’ve been deprived of public services to be able to access them.

[1145]

That will remain the case going forward, for me or for anybody who represents Victoria–Swan Lake. There are a number of people — I think, roughly, 60 or 70 percent of my constituents — who are renters. Home ownership is far too impossible a dream for many, many people in the capital region, but in my constituency in particular, and poverty and employment insecurity are part of that reason.

We help people to the best of our ability. We will continue to do that. I’m proud of the work. I have to say that’s probably the most rewarding thing that we can do as MLAs, is to help reduce the frustrations and the barriers that are blocking people from leading a better life, to help people navigate the bureaucracy and get what is due to them, to be able to assist and be creative, to work with business associations and to work with civil society organizations and service clubs, to sometimes do it informally because the bureaucracy is impenetrable and unwilling to help.
[ Page 10011 ]

That’s what a lot of MLAs and my colleagues do, and that’s certainly a big part of what my job is like, and I expect that that will not change.

I’ve said a lot about a constituency, the one that I’m proud to represent, which hasn’t changed a tremendous amount, but that big change was a decade ago. I think that, beginning by looking at my own constituency and outwards from there, having reviewed the commission report in detail in every region where representatives from both sides of the House currently are the elected officials here in the chamber, I can say that this commission got it right.

They did a good and thorough job. I see all the evidence that the public was able to make presentations and have influence and have their considerations heard and reflected in the final commission report, the recommendations of which form Bill 42. Again, I would like to close by commending them for the work they do, and thank you for the opportunity to speak here this morning.

D. Barnett: On behalf of the constituents in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, I am proud to stand here for the second time and speak to Bill 42, the Electoral Districts Act. And I commend my colleague who just spoke, across the floor, for supporting the commission and supporting this bill.

I just finished reading Hansard a few minutes ago. On May 6, 2014, my colleague voted against Bill 2, which made this commission able to do the work that it has done. So I am so pleased that my colleague supports what this great commission has done for our electoral boundary change in the province of British Columbia.

Rural British Columbia is a huge part of the province of British Columbia, and without the changes and without Bill 2 last May, probably we would not have the great democracy and electoral change that we have today. My riding, for example, has been expanded. I now have over 44,000 kilometres with approximately 33,000 citizens.

I am in the gold rush era in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. The gold rush started in 1859, and three years after a fellow named Billy Barker started the gold rush, the world changed in rural British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

D. Barnett: Yes?

Deputy Speaker: Have you not already spoken on this bill before?

D. Barnett: Yes, I have.

Deputy Speaker: So you’re speaking a second time?

D. Barnett: Well, they told me I could. My apologies. I am only following….

Interjections.

D. Barnett: I’ve spoken already.

An Hon. Member: On the bill?

D. Barnett: Yes. My apologies.

A. Dix: I think the member was giving a speech, and I think, with unanimous consent of the House, she could have the opportunity just to finish her remarks and allow another member to speak. And I would say “Aye” to that assent.

Deputy Speaker: Does the House grant consent to let the member speak a second time?

Leave granted.

[1150]

D. Barnett: Thank you to my colleague.

I will continue on, on the importance of rural B.C. and the Gold Rush Trail and how the Cariboo-Chilcotin became such an important part of British Columbia back in the early 1800s. With gold. And with the gold rush came many other great things for the province of British Columbia: people, mining forestry, agriculture and communities.

In the Cariboo-Chilcotin, we have communities with rolling hills, rivers, lakes that inspire people to come as tourists, as opportunities, and to build their homes, raise their families and to enjoy a quality of life that you can only enjoy in rural British Columbia.

Forestry became a mainstay of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, and forestry has been one that has kept our communities surviving through many hard times with pine beetle and other disasters that were not created by man but were created by the environment. Our citizens are optimistic that their worlds will change in some way, but they will always have an economic opportunity and be strong and vibrant.

Many mines have opportunities still in the Cariboo-Chilcotin in the years to come. Agriculture is one area that we all must continually support. We find it hard in rural British Columbia to understand the urban centres. When we look at new entities such at LNG and mining and things like this, we have people from outside our regions come and say nay. But those inside say yes because we understand the environment, the economics and the social well-being of rural British Columbia.

We are a proud culture in rural British Columbia. We have stampedes all over the Cariboo-Chilcotin. We have the Williams Lake Stampede, the Bridge Lake Stampede. We have the Interlakes stampede. We have them in the First Nations communities throughout Highway 20, and they are some of the best stampedes there are anywhere in Canada.

In my region, the Cariboo-Chilcotin, we have a very strong culture, both First Nations and non-First Nations.
[ Page 10012 ]
I’m so proud that we have a young man named Carey Price who was born and raised at Anahim Lake, which is in my riding. He comes from the Ulkatcho First Nation, where his mother was Chief for many years. What a proud young man, and what an inspiration to all young people and particularly those in First Nations communities in rural British Columbia.

We have another famous man in my riding, and I’m sure that you are all well aware of him. He’s a wheelchair gentleman. And, you know, he has done so much for Canada and so much for those who are disabled. His name is Rick Hansen.

You don’t have to live in a big urban centre with huge populations to have amazing people, because in my riding the people are amazing. They’re proud. They’re strong. They understand why they live there. They understand the challenges, but they work together so strong.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

When we have challenges, we come together even better. It is wonderful to come from rural British Columbia. It is wonderful to have the opportunity for electoral changes from time to time.

I support this bill wholeheartedly, and I hope the whole House does.

D. Barnett moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone 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 11:55 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