Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee debate on Bill 13, Employment Standards Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Ministry of Education estimates.

In the Birch Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:25 p.m.

On clause 2 (continued).

G. Kyllo: It is good to be back and to continue committee stage debate on Bill 13.

There’s a reference in section 2 that identifies under “a prescribed circumstance.” I just wonder if the minister can provide some clarity. I looked in the definitions of the Employment Standards Act, and the term “prescribed circumstance” does not seem to appear in the definition table at the front.

I’m just wondering if the minister could share with this House what the term “prescribed circumstance” references and how anyone would be able to determine what, specifically, a prescribed circumstance would be.

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member may remember that we passed a similar bill that deals with a vaccination leave of up to three hours.

[2:30 p.m.]

What this means is calculating an employee’s wages. I think if you look at…. In that same section, it talks about how to calculate an employee’s wages so they reflect the money that person would lose when they take that day off.

Now, we tried to capture every possibility that is there in order to ensure that every worker will receive the wages that they are entitled to for the day that they take. But there may be circumstances….

It is in other parts of the legislation or the employment standards that I mentioned earlier. In the event that we missed out any real situation where an employee, based on the formula, may not receive the full wages and there is a dispute, then the regulations can be drafted to address that issue — for example, employees whose earnings fluctuate daily, weekly or monthly, such as a commissioned salesperson. A regulation could be considered that provides a formula that calculates an average day’s pay over a longer period of time.

It’s just to come up with a formula through regulation if the situation isn’t captured under our current situation. Then we could draw up a regulation to ensure that the worker doesn’t lose my money.

G. Kyllo: Specifically, the clause reads: “An employer must pay an employee in a prescribed circumstance who takes leave under subsection (1) (a) an amount in money equal to at least the amount calculated in accordance with the regulations.”

The term specifically, prescribed circumstance, is not included in the definitions under the current Employment Standards Act. Prescribed circumstance — I have no idea what that specifically references. The importance of a new piece of legislation, or bills before this House, is to provide certainty and specificity.

One more time to the minister: can the minister please provide some form of rationale or definition on what specifically a prescribed circumstance is or is not?

Hon. H. Bains: Let me try that one more time. I tried to make it clear.

First of all, this exact language exists elsewhere, in situations that are not contemplated at this time, in order to calculate someone’s salary to be paid in those circumstances. Now, the legal meaning behind it, I’m advised, is to be set up through regulations. So it is enabling language that in the event that specific regulations may not be contemplated at this time….

This enabling language will give the employment standards branch authority to come up with a formula to reflect the true salary or the wages of the person that we’re talking about in this bill for that particular day.

[2:35 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Well, that provides absolutely no clarity whatsoever. There is no clarity with respect to section 2, with respect to the number of days of sick pay that workers may be eligible for when the permanent sick pay legislation comes into place, which we have identified. The self-identified date for implementation, as imposed by this government, is January 1, 2022.

So there is no certainty around the number of days. There is no certainty — and certainly no certainty for businesses — with respect to the amount of pay that would be required to be paid. There is no indication whatsoever with respect to whether the full costs will be straight onto the backs of already struggling B.C. employers, or if government will provide any assistance with a sick-pay policy that is yet to be developed.

Now, when it comes to the terminology with respect to how government is going to determine what that pay rate is, yet again, there is no clarity with respect to this legislation.

Mr. Chair, with all due respect to the minister, I, and I think, many businesses across the province are increasingly concerned of the lack of information that is actually pertaining within section 2.

It’s certainly not lost on myself or employers around the province that even five days of paid sick leave is the equivalent of about 2 percent pay. We all, I think, recognize that holiday pay in this province at 4 percent equals two weeks — the average employee in the province works about 50 weeks. So 4 percent of 50 is 2. Two weeks — 4 percent. There is certainly the potential…. And I know that the minister has indicated: “Hey, trust us. We’re going to go out and consult with the business community and just leave it to the Premier and the cabinet to make the determination on what businesses will actually have to pay and what the cost burden that will be transferred onto employers will be down the road some time.”

Mr. Chair, businesses require certainty. Many business organizations around the province have indicated, especially in light of COVID: “Do no further harm.” Do no more harm. But nothing could be further from the truth. Even the temporary paid sick leave provisions under this legislation will put considerable cost burden on the backs of B.C. businesses.

The minister has actually agreed with that comment. Any employer that’s paying an employee over the $200 a day of the additional cost of paid sick leave will be borne by the employer. I tried two days ago to ask specific questions of this minister with respect to additional cost burden that will be transferred through this legislation onto the backs of already struggling B.C. businesses — if those costs will be reimbursed, or any portion of, for a business that already has a partial paid sick leave program? And the minister refused to answer.

The specific example I gave was a small clothing shop that has had their revenues decline by over 45 percent. They have consumed all of their life savings to try and keep the business afloat. They have a paid sick leave program available for full-time, year-round employees. They do not have a program that currently provides sick pay for their part-time employees. But this particular business that I referenced a few short days ago, where they have two permanent full-time employees and seven part-time employees, the additional cost burden by that business for those additional seven employees could equate to as many as 21 days, even under the temporary provisions of this program.

When I asked the minister if he could provide some clarity, some certainty for B.C. businesses that are already struggling — if the reimbursement program would pro­vide extended coverage to businesses for the additional cost burden that these businesses will now incur on account of this new legislation — the minister refused to answer that.

It is absolutely paramount that in this chamber, in this House, when government has the opportunity to provide clarity and confirmation to businesses with the specificity with respect to what they’re proposing…. But clause 2 gives government free rein to do whatever they choose. Whatever they choose. That is scary.

[2:40 p.m.]

There are specific provisions that do not allow government to set tax policy through regulation. If government chose to increase the provincial sales tax by 1 percent, they are forced and obligated to come to this chamber, which allows the scrutiny of this House, allows opposition members the opportunity, in the people’s House, to ask specific questions about the true impact — what data has been derived, what the potential costs may be.

But when it comes to the opportunity for government to put upwards of $2 billion to $4 billion of additional tax burden on the backs of B.C. employers, they choose to throw their hands up in the air and say: “Hey, it’s all good. Don’t worry. We’re going to consult the Premier and his cabinet. We’ll sit around a cabinet table and make our own determination about the success or failure of many businesses, going forward.”

It has been shared in this House that 8,000 B.C. businesses have closed and shuttered their doors on account of COVID. There are an additional 25,000 businesses, representing 300,000 workers, that are at risk of closure. In a time of a pandemic, when businesses are struggling and businesses look to their government for support, direction and clarity with respect to cost impositions that government is giving consideration to, this is the way this government responds? “Nothing to see here, folks. We’ll figure it out.”

Businesses don’t know how many days. They don’t know the percentage of costs that they will bear. There’s no certainty for those businesses. In my view, that is ab­solutely offensive.

This piece of legislation, the minister has indicated, has been in the works for 15 months — 15 months. As recently as last May, when WorkSafeBC came out with clear direction to businesses around a COVID safety plan, government was fully aware that there was a need to provide interim protection for workers. The minister has said repeatedly how workers should not have to choose between a paycheque or potentially going to work sick. And for 15 months, what did this government do? Zero. Nada. Nothing. Not a thing. They knew there was a problem. They had the financial ability to act, and they did nothing, absolutely nothing.

I know it’s not just businesses that are concerned. Workers across the province are concerned about the delay and the stalling of this government and moving forward with the provisions, even of the temporary provision, of this legislation, which provides partial funding for sick pay for workers for up to three days between now and the end of this year.

This legislation was so rushed out the door that there has been no real, solid consideration of the true impacts. I raised in this House, just two days ago, the inequity that exists within this legislation. The legislation that is put before this House identifies that the three days of paid sick leave is available to both part- and full-time employees.

When I asked and canvassed the question of this minister if it was the intention of the minister to create an inequity by providing the opportunity for a part-time employee that works for three different employers to be eligible for three days from each of those three employers, for a total of nine days — if it was the intention of this minister to provide nine days of paid sick leave for an employee working three jobs, yet only three days for an employee that has full-time employment with a single employer — the minister refused to answer.

When I provided the minister with the opportunity to provide further clarity to this bill, to provide an annualized cap between now and the end of the year, which would provide equity — clarify the fact that, whether you’re a part-time employee or a full-time employee, each of those employees would be only entitled to three days of paid sick leave under the provisions of this bill — the minister refused to take that initiative.

The provisions of this bill create not just inequity; it’s discriminatory. A full-time employee is only entitled to three days where a part-time employee, working for two employers, is entitled to six. A part-time employee that might provide part-time services to three businesses is entitled to nine.

[2:45 p.m.]

I fail to understand how this government, this minister, with the support of 30,000 paid bureaucrats that I know are intelligent, that are able to provide the level of detail and information…. I can’t for the life of me believe for a second that this minister actually relied on many of the services that are available to government — Treasury Board analysts or otherwise.

This bill appears to be thrown together on the back of napkin. It creates inequity and certainly no clarity, no certainty for businesses. That causes me great concern. Under this government, we have seen the competitiveness of B.C. businesses continue to erode.

I’ve shared in this House the corporate income tax rate in B.C. is now 50 percent higher than our neighbouring jurisdiction of Alberta. In Alberta, it is 8; in B.C., it is 12. That is just the provincial portion. Now, people listening from home might think: “Ah, 4 percent is not a lot.” Most businesses operate on the anticipation of net profits between 4 and 7 percent. Yet this government chooses to have a corporate tax rate that is a full 50 percent higher than our neighbouring jurisdiction of Alberta. Since coming into power, they put an additional $1.9 billion of new taxation on the backs of B.C. businesses, through employer health tax.

I agree with and support the need to provide sick pay for workers across the province. However, the manner in which it’s being undertaken by this secretive and backroom-dealing government causes many extreme amounts of concern. I just don’t know where to start. It is extremely, extremely unfortunate that we are at this juncture at this time.

Government is currently sitting on a $3.1 billion COVID surplus. That’s $3,100 million. The minister, in his own estimation, estimates the cost of this temporary program at $320 million. That’s barely over 10 percent of their COVID recovery. Government could do more. Government can do more. They have the opportunity to do more. They certainly had the opportunity to act many months prior to now.

When posed with the opportunity to provide a temporary paid sick leave program in the summer, we didn’t see anything. When provided with the opportunity to bring something forward in the fall in the typical fall legislative session, nope. What did government do? Called a pandemic election. Put their own self-serving political interests ahead of the health and well-being of British Columbians. And when we reconvened the Legislature in December, a bill as simplistic as this — nope, we didn’t see it then.

Then when we sat for the second sitting of the 42nd parliament on March 1, where was this piece of legislation? Nowhere to be seen. And we sat, and we waited in March and in April. Not until May, two months into the sitting of this Legislature, do we finally see this ramshackle bill that creates inequities within it.

I am extremely concerned with where this government is going. The Retail Council of Canada — I’ve seen a letter that was just penned today — raised many of the same concerns that I raised with the minister in this House, seeking clarity, seeking some form of confirmation from this minister that as they look to develop the reimbursement program — to provide those additional supports for small businesses that will bear a significant cost burden in association with this legislation. But what did we hear from this minister, who had an opportunity to provide some clarity, some confirmation to businesses? Crickets. I am extremely, extremely concerned.

[2:50 p.m.]

Back to the question that I had posed. Can the minister please provide a bit of clarity with respect to who will actually identify and determine what the definition of “prescribed circumstance” will actually entail?

Hon. H. Bains: I could answer his rant with another rant. A nonsensical speech that he made, not backed up by facts and full of errors. It’s such a level that I will not go there, in order to respond to the way he was ranting.

But I will try to do this again. Let me read it to the member once again so that he will understand. Subsection 49.1(4) allows for regulations to cover employees for whom the formula for permanent paid leave, basic leave, in subsection 49.1(3) does not fairly represent an average day’s pay. Okay?

A similar provision is included in the Employment Standards Act for paid domestic or sexual violence leave and is also set out in section 3 of this bill, regarding paid COVID-19 sick leave. For domestic and sexual violence leave, no regulations have been enacted to date.

[2:55 p.m.]

So it is just to cover a scenario, a situation, that may have been missed — how to calculate someone’s wages so that we could, through OIC, come up with a regulation to reflect the true loss of wages or calculate the true wages for that day for that employee, to be fair to the employer and to be fair to the employee. It is in the Employment Standards Act, in other parts of it.

We had that debate before when we were debating those bills here in this House not that long ago. Obviously, the member is likely to just drag it out with the speech that he made a little earlier without any sensible questions. That’s his prerogative.

I think what is offensive…. He talked about…. The of­fence is to the employer who is looking at a situation where when one of their employees is sick and would be able to afford to stay home so that they don’t bring the illness to work and help transmit the virus in the workplace.

It will help to keep those operations open, and it will help to keep those workers healthy. That’s the purpose be­hind it. I think it’s in line with our focus all along and ever since this pandemic hit us — to make sure we keep our population healthy, to make sure we keep our workplaces healthy and safe and to make sure our workers are safe in the workplace. It’s in that spirit that this bill is here.

Workers all across Canada are asking for action. We have been working for the last 14 months. We worked with the federal government and took a number of initiatives on our own to help the workers, to fill the gaps and to help the employers at the same time.

If he’s really looking for meaning…. We’re not reinventing the wheel here today. It is already there. This language already exists in the employment standards. All this member has to do is a little bit more homework. They’ve got a research department downstairs. If he doesn’t know how to do it, he could just go there and ask them. They’ll tell him that this language exists all over in the employment standards.

I tried to do the best I can to explain to the member. I will try to continue to answer the questions that the member wishes to have, but I will not match his political rhetoric with political rhetoric.

The Chair: Shall clause 2 pass?

Division has been called on clause 2. There will be a vote on that tonight pursuant to the sessional orders. Tonight is Wednesday. So that means it’ll take place around 6:30.

Thank you, Members, on clause 2.

Shall the title pass?

Interjection.

The Chair: We will deal with the title after we deal with clause 2. Of course, that’s appropriate.

Thank you to our Clerk’s staff for that.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:58 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call the committee on Bill 5.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — InBC INVESTMENT CORP. ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 5; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3 p.m.

The Chair: Thank you, Members and Ministers. I would like to call a short five-minute recess so that we can prepare for the next bill.

The committee recessed from 3:01 p.m. to 3:08 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 7.

T. Stone: I wanted to ask one question here in this section, and then we’ll be able to move on. I’m wondering if the minister could confirm that the board of directors positions, which he has announced…. Were those positions actually posted on the board resourcing office website, which is typically standard practice?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, I think we canvassed this yesterday. The BRDO has a standard process, which is that anyone can apply, and even apply and say that they want to apply for a specific board. Anyone can apply for any position, obviously, and people can post their résumés as per the CABRO process, and that’s the process that was used here.

T. Stone: I think the question that I’m trying to get at is…. I’m well aware people can just proactively submit a résumé and reach out to the BRDO office. But the board resourcing and development office also posts…. It’s a typical practice that they actually post descriptions of vacant positions or positions that the government will be looking to fill.

So my question is: did the ministry actually have a posting, irrespective of whether people proactively applied for a director position with InBC? Did the government actually have a posting for these director positions up on the BRDO website? And related to that, was there any competitive process whatsoever insofar as going out there to try and find the best people possible for these positions?

Hon. R. Kahlon: My answer is still the same, which is: we followed the standard BRDO process, which is that people can apply. My assumption is that BRDO went out and actually found people. In fact, they must have, because many of these board members I’ve never met with and don’t know them. But their résumés are quite impressive.

As the member will know, they often do the work of searching for people with these unique skill sets to serve on the board, and that’s what’s happened here.

Clauses 7 to 10 inclusive approved.

On clause 11.

T. Stone: This is the section that deals with the duties and powers of the board, so I’m just wondering what type of influence the board will have over investment policies. I think that’s a pretty critical piece that British Columbians, I think, would like the minister to walk through. As part of that, can a board terminate the CIO’s employment?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll go backwards with the questions from the hon. member. The CEO, with consultation of the board, can terminate the chief investment officer. The CEO, with consultation of the board, can hire a chief investment officer. But it’s done through the CEO so that the board doesn’t have to directly speak with the CIO.

The question the member had around the role of the board…. The board has responsibility of selecting and approving a CEO and a CIO and monitoring performance accountabilities, reviewing and approving annual corporate financial statements, having oversight of policies that relate to InBC’s mandate and holding the executive to account for their accountabilities with respect to InBC’s mandate, oversight of InBC’s operation, and selection and appointment of InBC’s auditor.

T. Stone: Well, if the board can provide advice to the CEO, who has the rights to hire and fire the chief investment officer, that means that the board actually can exert some influence. We have asked many questions and had lots of discussion around the minister’s assertion that there is true independence at play here. I would suggest this is another example of that not being the case.

The board, which we canvassed yesterday, has a majority of people on it that are aligned with this government, and they actually will have the ability to influence the selection of the chief investment officer and that person’s termination. So I would suggest that that doesn’t qualify to the standard of independence, certainly not that’s been put out there.

The minister can respond to that if he wants, but I don’t have any further questions on this section. I’m ready to move on to the next one.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’d just say that, of course, I disagree with the assessment from the hon. member. Again, as per our conversation yesterday, all the board of directors…. Certainly, we highlighted the two deputy ministers who served the people of British Columbia for over 20 years in different governments. Some of them worked with the hon. member asking the question. We have a CEO that’s the chair of the largest credit union in North America and one of the largest credit unions in the world, who has incredible impact investment experience.

We’re proud of the board, and we do think that they will do a good job of ensuring the accountability. But again, there is independence from the board, from the chief investment officer, for making decisions.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

T. Stone: Clause 12 deals with board remuneration. I’m wondering if the minister could advise the House how much each board member will be paid on an annual basis. What would the total compensation be for the board on an annual basis? And thirdly, and importantly, with respect to one of the board members, Carole James….

[3:20 p.m.]

Unless this is no longer the case, and the minister can indicate as such, my understanding is that she’s acting as an adviser to the Premier, the Premier’s office, at the cost of $1 per year.

I think it’s a relevant question here to ask: will Ms. James be compensated as per all other directors? What’s the total compensation for each director — total compensation for the entire board of directors together? Is Carole James still at the $1 per year that she had signed on with the Premier’s office, or is she going to be paid as all other directors are paid?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The provincial Crown corporation board remuneration levels are prescribed by Treasury Board directive. Remuneration levels for each Crown are assessed against these directives and authorized by the government’s appointee remuneration committee, which is chaired by the Minister of Finance.

The board members from outside the public service will be remunerated for their service. The board chair receives $30,000 a year, and the directors, except for the two public service employees, will receive a retainer of $15,000 a year. The board chair and directors will receive meeting fees for full-day meetings if they have full-day meetings.

The question around Carole James. I don’t see why she wouldn’t be remunerated for the work that she does for this agency. I’m not directly sure of where he’s going with that question, but she is a board member and will be receiving the fees.

Clauses 12 and 13 approved.

On clause 14.

T. Stone: The question I have on clause 14 is this. In acting in the interests of the corporation, are directors bound by government policy, as laid out in section 4? If a government-policy-related investment is not in the best interest of taxpayers or the corporation, are directors bound by a government policy that would urge them to act otherwise?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Section 4, which we canvassed yesterday, clearly sets out the purpose of the corporation. Obviously, the section that we’re on now is about the duties of the officers: “(a) act honestly and in good faith, with a view to the best interests of the corporation; (b) exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent individual would exercise in comparable circumstances, and (c) act in accordance with this act and the regulations.”

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

[3:25 p.m.]

T. Stone: I would like to ask a few questions about the chief executive officer that’s contemplated in this section. I would like to know first if a CEO has been chosen yet. Secondly, can the CEO and the CIO be the same person? That has been the case in other investment companies that I’m aware of. It doesn’t happen very often, but I would like to know what the government’s plans are around that — if there is a hard line that that cannot be the case.

How much will the CEO of InBC be paid? What does the minister believe the total compensation will be for the CEO of InBC?

Hon. R. Kahlon: So three questions there. I can confirm that the search for a permanent CEO has not started yet, so no CEO has been chosen. No, the CEO and the CIO can’t be the same person as the structure is laid out here. And currently, the work around compensation for a CEO and a CIO is still under development. We don’t have all those things finalized yet.

T. Stone: In response to the minister’s response, I would ask this: has the minister got any sense of a timeline as to when the CEO search would begin? Much has been made about a $500 million fund here that the government says it intends to see deployed as quickly as possible. If the CEO can’t be the same person as the CIO…. I mean, the organization can’t function without that chief executive in place, as per the minister’s previous response.

So when is that search going to begin, and what is the timeline that the minister has in mind for the actual selection and announcement of a chief executive officer?

I have one more question after that.

Hon. R. Kahlon: An RFQ process has begun. There are four executive search firms that have been sourced to help find the potential CEO.

[3:30 p.m.]

T. Stone: In a previous response, the minister indicated that he wasn’t available at this time to provide any details on the compensation level for the chief executive of­ficer and that that work is under development, I believe were his words.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I just want to know how the minister squares that with the service plan, which actually does provide for a line item called salaries and benefits for InBC. This is page 13 of the service plan. Presumably, we’re talking about a cumulative expenditure of the CEO compensation costs, the CIO and whatever team of supporting individuals there are in InBC. But we’re talking about how the service plan lays out $1.5 million for the ’21-22 fiscal year; $3.37 million for the ’22-23 fiscal year and then $3.98 million for ’23-24. So it’s actually a cumulative cost of $8.88 million over those three fiscal years.

Having been to Treasury Board many times in my car­eer, previously, in government, and understanding how these service plans work, these numbers weren’t pulled out of thin air. They’re not rolled-up numbers that might suggest that they’re estimates. They’re very specific numbers, so that would tell me that the ministry actually has done some work to provide an allocation, a number that it believes is a reasonable cost estimate for salaries and benefits.

Again, with that context in mind, I’d ask the minister to please share with us what he contemplates the compensation to be for the chief executive officer of this corporation.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member referenced the service plan, page 13. That reflects the staffing costs over a three-year period. It’s a broad-brush estimate of those costs. The compensation plan is still under development.

T. Stone: Broad-brush. Again, I think this is another reason that we would be concerned that the government is moving forward with this $500 million risky investment fund scheme — that they can’t even, to this point, provide a clear statement of numbers in the service plan for InBC. These are very specific numbers that are contemplated here.

Is the minister not prepared today to provide us with the component of the salaries and benefits line item for each of the three fiscal years as noted on page 13 of his service plan or the service plan he’s responsible for at InBC.? Is he not prepared to break out for us today what component portion of the salaries and benefits line item for each of those three fiscal years relates to the compensation of the chief executive officer?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: In terms of pay, we’re working with an external HR consultant to develop the compensation plan that will balance, obviously, attracting a strong, qualified candidate with the principles of public sector compensation. I’ll say that it’s vital that we secure the right talent for InBC. InBC executive salaries will be publicly reported on an annual basis, consistent with Crown corporations, to disclose their salaries.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

T. Stone: Clause 16 deals with the chief investment of­ficer, arguably the most important individual that will be associated with InBC.

Again, similar to the questions I just asked about the chief executive officer, I’m just wondering if the minister could confirm whether or not a chief investment officer has been selected or if there is a search process underway for that position.

If a search process hasn’t initiated, as per his comments on the CEO position, for the CIO, would he please advise when the search process for the CIO position is set to start. How much will the CIO be paid at InBC?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No, the chief investment officer has not been hired. The HR consultants that we will bring in will run a parallel search for talent.

Then the last question the member had was…. Again, InBC executive salaries will be publicly reported on an annual basis, consistent with how other Crown corporations disclose their salaries.

Clauses 16 and 17 approved.

On clause 18.

T. Stone: The minister has said in comments: “For ex­ample, if someone sitting on the InBC board of directors came across a good investment opportunity and they wanted the chief investment officer to consider it, that director cannot call them up and ask them to look at it.”

I’m well aware that this section provides for there being no direction provided to the chief investment officer. But I’m wondering if the minister could point to where in section 18 it actually forbids suggestions.

[3:40 p.m.]

Before I’m accused of splitting hairs here, there is a big difference between directing someone to do something, especially if you’re on the board of directors or you’re the CEO…. I understand the minister’s comments around…. Independence is provided for here because no one can direct the chief investment officer to do one thing over the other. What’s preventing, in this section or anywhere else in this bill, anyone from making suggestions to the chief investment officer?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There will be a single stream, a single process for any business that’s looking for investment. There will be clear directions on the website of the process. So there will be no special entries. It’ll be one process set out, and everyone is required to follow that one process.

T. Stone: Well, with all due respect, I’m not referring to the formal process, which the minister has referenced a number of times now. And fair enough. There’s a process, presumably, for companies that are seeking investment through InBC to submit their requests or applications for consideration for investment. What I’m talking about is that this section specifically uses the phrase “not subject to direction.” It uses that phrase in three different places in subsection (2) and subsection (3). It does not provide for, anywhere in this section or anywhere in the bill, any protection from other types of interactions which this chief investment officer might have.

I think it’s a fair question — not the formal application process, but where influence will take place. If it takes place, its going to be around the water cooler. It’s going to be over…. When we can get back to having meals with each other, it’ll be in a restaurant during lunch. It won’t be documented in a formal application process.

Again, where in this section, and if not in this section, where in the bill, does that independence that the minister speaks about actually exist? Again, I’m talking about that…. For the minister to essentially say, “Well” — wink, wink — “there’s not going to be any influence here because it’s going to be done all through an application process,” I think is a pretty weak response here. This, to me, seems to be a significant hole, a significant flaw in this legislation that cuts right to the core of what we’ve been saying around independence — independence of investment decisions.

Again to the minister, where in this section or elsewhere in the bill is there protection against the chief in­vestment officer being influenced through suggestions and conversation and whatnot? How is that prevented from happening?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll say to the member that people will need to be extremely careful. Within the legislation, on section 18(3), it says: “For certainty, in making investment decisions on behalf of the corporation, the chief investment officer and an external fund manager are not subject to direction from any of the following: (a) the government; (b) a minister; (c) the board or a director; (d) the chief executive officer; (e) any other public officer.”

At any point, the chief investment officer can point to this specific legislation as proof of their independence. Again, the people we have on the board are of the highest integrity. We expect them to live by the rules within the legislation.

T. Stone: Well, I don’t share the minister’s enthusiasm for the independence which he is suggesting is in place here. I don’t believe the independence is there.

There are a myriad of other words that could have been chosen for this section, but they went with the word “direction.” Direction is a very deliberative act. There is no provision here for the wink, wink and nudge, nudge that takes place at water coolers or at lunches and that goes undocumented.

Furthermore — I’ll deal with it at this point instead of later on — section 29 of this act, which deals with the Offence Act, basically says: “Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this Act or the regulations.” That would tell me that there are actually no penalties for any contravention of this investment independence that is addressed in section 18.

Could the minister, in light of the fact that there appear to be no penalties…? The Offence Act doesn’t apply. He’s opted to go with the word “direction,” which is very deliberative. It doesn’t capture those more casual interactions.

[3:50 p.m.]

When there are no penalties and there’s no provision in this section for those other types of interactions from taking place, how are British Columbians supposed to believe that this corporation is truly going to operate in an independent fashion, with independent investment decisions being made, independent of influence from the board of directors and others?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. I think the member, maybe offline, has to explain to me what he means by wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

What I will say is that we did an extensive market sounding. In the market sounding, the CPPIB and the BCIMC both recommended this type of structure and to put it in legislation in this clear way so the chief investment officer has the certainty that they have that independence. A chief investment officer, at any point, can point to legislation — that it’s in legislation that they have that independence and clearly in writing for all the officials that cannot give any direction to a chief investment officer.

[3:55 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: This clause talks about independence, and I think the official opposition critic has asked a number of questions on that. But what I’m wondering about is just clarifying of the reporting structure generally.

So the chief investment officer is independent from direction from the board. But who is this person ac­countable to? How are they held to account for investment decisions? And what is that structure of accountability in this legislation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The chief investment officer is res­ponsible for carrying out all the duties related to the management of the funds and overseeing the work of the investment team. Now, while the chief investment officer is independent in investment decision-making, the chief investment officer is accountable to the board for compliance with the requirements of both the mandate letter direction, provided by the government, and the investment policy statement.

The investment policy statement will be developed by the board in collaboration with the chief investment officer. It will serve as an accountability document for the board to hold the chief investment officer responsible for the chief investment officer’s execution of the investment policy.

S. Furstenau: Just some clarity on that. Is that typical that an officer and a board would work together to decide on the accountability of the officer? I’m thinking about local government — for example, a board and a chief admin­istrative officer. That seems a bit unusual. Is that a typical approach to accountability structures?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Through the market sounding, this was suggested to us — that it’s typical for a chief investment officer to be engaged in the investment policy which, ultimately, they will be held accountable on.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

[4:00 p.m.]

T. Stone: On section 19 here, I wanted to ask this. When the government launched InBC, it made some very strong statements — and has continued to this day — relating to InBC having “the highest standards of transparency and accountability to the public.”

With that in mind, I would like to know if the minister is going to ensure that the business plan that was deve­loped and that led to the decision to move forward with InBC, the business plan that really speaks to the operations and the expectations of this corporation…. Will he make that business plan available to the public?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Over the last few days, we’ve been consulting with staff on the process to make the business plan available. That work is ongoing, and my hope is that sometime in the near future, we will make that plan available.

T. Stone: Can the minister be a bit more precise than that he’s hopeful that at some point in the future he can make this plan available? I think there is a public expectation that naturally flows from a government decision to invest $500 million of public funds into what, by the government’s own admission in their service plan, will be very high-risk venture capital investments. I think there’s an expectation from the public that the business plan that underpins the decision to move forward with this scheme will be made available and made available soon.

I’d ask the minister again: if he truly believes what the marketing material wrapped around the announcement on this said — that InBC will have the highest standards of transparency and accountability — when will the public of British Columbia be able to access an unredacted version of InBC’s business plan?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it would be important to note here that when the official opposition were in government, and they had a tech fund — $100 million — no business plan was released. In fact, we couldn’t get any answers on where the investments were going. The now Attorney General had to go through estimates several times to try to get answers on where investments were going, to whom, which companies were benefiting from that. We were not given any answers.

Multiple transparency measures are put in place with this legislation — yearly reporting, annual reporting, five-year audits — so that the public has a sense and understanding of where these investments are going. That being said, the member also knows that there is a process, when this type of disclosure happens, for reviewing documents prior to disclosure. That work of proactively releasing that is ongoing, and there’ll be more on that in the near future.

S. Furstenau: I’m listening to this exchange with some interest, but just noting that it is disappointing to hear a minister try to suggest that because a previous government behaved in a certain way…. That doesn’t preclude better transparency and accountability from his government.

[4:05 p.m.]

I think that always striving to be more transparent and accountable, particularly when it comes to half a billion dollars, is something that we should be hoping and expecting to see from this government and indeed from any government in this place. I just find the rhetoric around using past practices of the opposition, when they were in government, as a way to deflect from a legitimate question from the critic, about transparency, doesn’t build the kind of confidence that we want to have in government, their actions and activities. I hope that this minister actually will commit to the highest level of transparency and to releasing the business plan, as has been suggested by the official opposition critic.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Maybe I didn’t articulate my answer clearly enough. I was highlighting to the hon. member from the opposition that they also had a tech fund which had no public accountability, had no transparency on where the investments were going, who the investments were going to. The Attorney General questioned them several times to try to find that answer, to no avail.

I was just highlighting to the member the different ap­proach we’re taking here. In legislation, InBC will be re­quired, yearly, to put out a report; will be required, every five years, to have an independent audit, which will be made public. Everything will be made public here in this Legislature, and I confirm that we’re going through the process right now on a proactive disclosure of the business plan. It’ll be coming in the coming weeks.

With all respect to the member and the Leader of the Third Party, I was just articulating that we are building in transparency, and we do aim to be much more transparent than perhaps this chamber has seen in the past.

Clauses 19 and 20 approved.

On clause 21.

T. Stone: I could have picked, I guess, any section to ask this next series of questions, so there’s no particular rhyme or reason for this one. The minister has talked at great length about the transparency and accountability of this corporation and that that will be are reinforced and underpinned with independent investment decisions. I think we’ve canvassed that in debate yesterday and today. As the official opposition, we have some very serious reservations around just how independent those investment decisions are going to be.

This relationship between the chief investment officer and the board of directors is not clear and, we believe, affords a tremendous amount of opportunity for undue influence and lack of independence. The minister keeps pointing back to requirements for annual reports and for a review. The first big, independent review won’t be done for five years — conveniently after the next provincial election. All of this we take great issue with and, we think, is far from the highest standards of transparency and accountability that you can get.

It’s not just our sense on this that there are glaring holes in terms of accountability and transparency. The freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner wrote a letter that was delivered to the minister and his colleague the Minister of Citizens’ Services. The letter was written and delivered today. It was accompanied by a news release that was published by the commissioner’s office.

The letter is quite pointed, and it’s very clear as to how the commissioner feels about InBC and the lack of accountability that’s built in or lack of transparency that’s been built in, insofar as this government’s decision not to make InBC applicable to the requirements in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

[4:10 p.m.]

The minister said, in answer to several questions yesterday — I’ll just quote one of them; there were several questions on this topic: “In the legislation, there are many pieces that are important for transparency. Every year a report has to be made public, here at the Legislature, on the investments being made…. Every five years an independent audit needs to be done.”

We get that. But the commissioner, in his letter, again, dated today, says this: “It would be no answer to say that FIPPA coverage is unnecessary, because InBC will be required to release annual reports and be subject to external reviews. Its annual reports are to be in a form and manner specified by the minister, and external reviews will occur only every five years. These accountability mechanisms fall far short of what is needed and lack the ongoing transparency afforded through the access-to-information regime.”

I’d like to ask the minister why the decision has been taken, presumably by him and in conjunction with his colleagues, to not ensure that InBC falls under the purview of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Why was that decision not made?

He can point back as many years as he wants about successive governments and what different governments did and didn’t do, and so forth. He’s the minister. This government has been in power for four years now. He’s the minister bringing forward this InBC legislation. He’s the minister that’s asking taxpayers to feel okay — in fact, feel good — about $500 million of their funds being invested in high-risk venture capital investments.

These are his decisions. The public deserves to have access to InBC documents. The public has the right, or should have the right, when it comes to InBC, to access this material when the public sees fit, not when the government determines that they’re going to push some information out in a glossy annual report or wait for a five-year independent review. When the public wants to see the information, the public should have a right to see this information pursuant to FIPPA.

So the question to the minister is: why is the government not ensuring that InBC falls under the purview of FIPPA? Why is the government not following the very clear statements and the urging of the commissioner to make sure that that’s the case?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We were just starting to canvass this in question period today, and I’m glad we get a chance to talk about it now. The hon. member will know…. It’s convenient for him if I don’t remind him about how this structure was set up, but I think it’s important for context.

[4:15 p.m.]

The immigrant investment fund, which is now being shifted over to InBC, was created by his government at the time. It has $180 million in that fund. When they put the $100 million in for the B.C. tech fund, I presume they did it because of the concerns that we have as well, which is the chilling effect that could happen from the private sector to bring proposals forward.

In fact, Kensington Capital raised those concerns with them at the time and suggested that it would have a chilling effect. Especially companies that are on the cutting edge — their competitors, all in the B.C. market, may want to FOI some of their sensitive information and have it up for interpretation. I think that’s the reason why the member’s government chose to leave it out at that time. Of course, he can clarify if that’s not the case. But we are aware that Kensington Capital, at the time, said that there were concerns around sensitive information and how that can be shared.

Our office has been in touch with the independent of­fice. They had conversations last week. We saw the letter just a couple of hours ago. We’re going to continue to engage with the investment community to ensure that we get a sense from them on what this means — the sug­gestions from the independent officer. We will be responding to the independent officer once we’ve done some of that engagement.

T. Stone: Well, the minister would be wise to also en­gage with British Columbians on this. I mean, it’s British Columbians that are on the hook for $500 million. I will say it over and over again. Pursuant to the government’s own service plan for InBC, this $500 million is going to be invested in high-risk venture capital investments. We have huge concerns about that taking place, particularly with this government.

The minister keeps talking about corporate interests and so forth. The commissioner had something to say about that in his letter today as well.

“The business interests of InBC and parties with whom it does business can be fully protected by FIPPA’s robust access exceptions. This is amply demonstrated by the almost 30 years of experience of public bodies such as BCIMC, ICBC and B.C. Hydro in protecting their own business information and that of their business partners.

“Examples of the FIPPA exceptions that can come into play are sections 13, which is advice or recommendations; section 14, solicitor-client privilege; 17, financial interests of InBC or the provincial government; 21, third-party business interests; and 22, personal privacy of InBC employees and others.”

That’s the commissioner saying to this government that it’s a false argument to be making — that because of the worry around commercial interests, this government has no obligation, therefore, to provide public access through the Freedom of Information Act to InBC information. There is a whole broad range of other types of information that wouldn’t necessarily involve sensitive corporate information at InBC. So I think that’s a bit of a huge red herring that the minister is throwing out there.

The reality is that it appears that this government is, at best, going to drag its heels on FOI applicability to InBC. They really should make InBC subject to, as virtually every other public body in this province, including BCIMC and many others…. BCIMC manages a $173 billion asset portfolio. They’re subject to FOI. They have a heck of a lot of commercial interest concerns with those investments, but somehow it works. Innovate B.C. has third-party financial relationships and whatnot. Somehow Innovate B.C. is subject to the FOI requirements.

It’s unacceptable that this government didn’t just come right out of the gates and say, “We’re going to make sure that InBC is added to table 2 or schedule 2 of the FIPPA act, where all the other public bodies are listed” — which, by the way, can happen with the stroke of a pen. That’s done through regulation.

[4:20 p.m.]

The Minister of Citizens’ Services could do that today. She could sign a regulation today that would ensure that InBC is added to that list of public bodies in FIPPA. That would therefore assure British Columbians of access to InBC information, subject to, as I just read into the record, the series of FIPPA exemptions that are a part of the FOI process.

I say all of that….

[Interruption.]

You have to be very careful what you say — Surrey or sorry. Life’s embarrassing moments.

My question to the minister, in the context of everything that I’ve been saying is: why did this government, if they were in consultations with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner — who would have been, presumably, providing them with the same information that he wrote in a letter today…. Why did they not just trust British Columbians and say, right from the get-go: “We’re not just going to talk about the high standards of transparency and accountability. We’re actually going to ensure that that’s embodied in the actual establishment of the creation of InBC right from the get-go, by making sure that the FOI legislation that we have in this province applies to a corporation that is going to engage in investing $500 million of public funds”?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the hon. member saying: “Do as I say, not as I did.” I appreciate the argument that he’s trying to make. But again, I remind him that there was a reason why they chose to go down this route with the Immigrant Investment Fund when it was originally created. The member can clarify why they chose to go in that direction. I can only assume it’s because partners like Kensington Capital came back to them and said: “This will have a chilling effect on investment.”

InBC will receive, on an ongoing basis, the most significant, confidential, commercially sensitive, proprietary and financial information from applicants for investment and the same category of information from co-investors, financial institutions and other partners that are in B.C. Market expectations and requirements will be that this information is shared with InBC on an entirely confidential basis. This type of information that will be shared with InBC is not otherwise subject to disclosure.

Again, similar advice that they probably got when they created the Immigrant Investment Fund, similar advice they got when the B.C. tech fund was created, similar to feedback we’re getting. We’re going to continue to engage with the independent officer. We’re going to also check with those in the investment community about the letter. We will be acting on that.

But within the legislation, because this is a continuation of the Immigrant Investment Fund, it’s not a legislation requirement.

The Chair: I’m curious to see if Hansard picked up Siri’s answer.

Member for Kamloops–South Thompson and Siri, you have the floor.

[4:25 p.m.]

T. Stone: I wanted to ask this question. The minister referenced…. He has said it a few times today. He mentioned it a few times yesterday, where he said that his ministry was in discussions with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

I would like to ask him: if that indeed is the case, when did the ministry actually meet with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner? What advice did he provide them at that time? How is it that if they were having discussions…?

He refers to good discussions, good engagements that are happening. How could it possibly be that these discussions, if they took place, were good, when the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner saw fit to write a pretty scathing, pretty pointed letter, strongly urging the government to make sure that the FOI rules in this province apply to InBC? There seems to be a major disconnect there that I would appreciate the minister addressing.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m not here to speak on behalf of the commissioner. I’ll let the commissioner speak. But my team had been engaging with the commissioner. Again, as I’ve already highlighted a couple of times, we’ll go out and assess with the investment community on the letter, and we will continue to engage with them.

Clauses 21 to 36 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

The Chair: Minister, would you like to make a motion?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the committee rise and re­port the bill complete without amendment.

The Chair: In my judgment, the nays have it.

Division has been called, and pursuant to standing ord­ers adopted, I think, April 21, division will be delayed until half an hour before the end of session today.

Interjection.

The Chair: We’ll be with you in just a moment.

[4:30 p.m.]

Thank you for your patience. This was the first time for me, and obviously, the first time for many of the members as well.

Pursuant to section 5, clause 11, divisions are not per­mitted on a motion that a committee rise and report and on a routine motion moved by the Government House Leader or their designate that the House adjourn so as to not prevent the House from undertaking business in a manner consistent with the intention of the arrangements of formal divisions in hybrid proceedings. Members may use practice recommendation No. 1.

I’ll note that Bill 5 was carried on division.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 4:32 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 5 — InBC INVESTMENT CORP. ACT

Bill 5, InBC Investment Corp. Act, reported complete without amendment on division.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — InBC INVESTMENT CORP. ACT

Mr. Speaker: Members, you’ve heard the motion.

Division has been called. Division will be conducted half an hour before the end of the day.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 7, Electoral Boundaries Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Deputy Speaker: There he is, the Attorney General, ready to go.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be now read a second time.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. D. Eby: This important bill is not lengthy, but it is very important. It makes some necessary updates to the legislative framework that will guide our next Electoral Boundaries Commission.

The Electoral Boundaries Commission Act requires an independent, non-partisan Electoral Boundaries Commission to be appointed within a year of every second general election. Our most recent general election having been held last fall, the next commission must be appointed by October 24, 2021.

Government is looking forward to appointing commissioners to recommend electoral district names and boundaries for our next two general elections. First, some amend­ments to the act are urgently needed to ensure the commission is equipped to draw an electoral map that upholds British Columbians’ constitutional rights and supports effective representation for all British Columbians.

The purpose of redistributing electoral district boundaries is to establish districts with relatively equal populations. Relatively equal populations is not a goal based on a mere preference for fairness. It is a constitutional imperative. Canadian courts have emphasized the connection between our Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 3 right to vote and the electoral district boundaries within which we exercise that right.

In the late 1980s, B.C. had an electoral map with districts ranging in population from as few as 5,500 people to just over 68,000 people. In its 1989 ruling on the constitutionality of that electoral map, the B.C. Supreme Court emphasized that the “relative equality of voting power is fundamental to the right to vote enshrined in section 3 of the Charter.” To quote: “The dominant consideration in drawing electoral boundaries must be population.”

The 1991 Saskatchewan reference case is the leading Supreme Court of Canada case on electoral boundaries. In drawing on the B.C. Supreme Court decision, that case further elaborated that “the purpose of the right to vote enshrined in section 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to ‘effective representation.’”

The court said: “Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic.”

Further, the court said: “Parity of voting power, though of prime importance, is not the only factor to be taken into account in ensuring effective representation.”

It is a practical fact that effective representation often cannot be achieved without taking into account countervailing factors. Thus, the case law on electoral boundaries has been critically important in establishing the foundational principles for electoral boundaries commissions:

(1) The commission should be independent and non-partisan.

(2) To provide for effective representation, voter parity is the first order principle.

(3) The right to effective representation sometimes re­quires the creation of electoral districts with populations outside of the average range to reflect Canada’s vast geography and to be attentive to community of interest concerns.

Electoral boundaries commissions face significant, arg­uably unique, challenges in light of B.C.’s population dispersion and geography. At just over 922,000 square kilometres, our province is immense. Some electoral districts are larger than entire European countries. Our population is strongly concentrated in specific areas.

At the most recent census in 2016, 78 percent of British Columbians lived in the four census metropolitan areas of greater Vancouver, Abbotsford-Mission, Victoria and Kelowna. Approximately half a million more people have moved to B.C. since the last commission finished its work in 2015, with most of them moving to those areas.

As is the case in other provinces’ legislation, the average electoral district population is a critically important con­cept in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. The average district population is referred to as the electoral quotient. The commission must aim to have most districts within plus or minus 25 percent of the electoral quotient.

[4:40 p.m.]

The 25 percent deviation principle was first applied by the 1987-88 Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries for British Columbia. It was subsequently legislated when this act was adopted in 1989.

Population growth causes the electoral quotient to in­crease. In turn, slower-growing electoral districts fall further below the electoral quotient. Ultimately, a widening gulf between the least and most populated electoral districts compromises the principle of representation by population, with the votes of the residents of the least populated districts having a disproportionately high impact in determining the composition of this House.

At the time the next commission is appointed, the ten highest population districts will likely have between 70,000 to 80,000 residents each, an average of just over 73,000. The ten lowest population districts will likely range from about 22,000 to 40,000 people, an average of just over 31,000.

Urban MLAs are representing an increasingly large number of diverse constituents with increasingly complex issues to be dealt with in the constituency and in this assembly. At the same time, MLAs from our less populated northern and interior regions face unique challenges in ensuring their constituents are well represented and connected to the work the MLAs do on their behalf in the constituency and in this House. Technology has mitigated the geographic barriers to MLAs connecting with their constituents, but not all of the province enjoys high-speed Internet access yet.

Ensuring that all British Columbians have their right to effective representation respected is the primary challenge facing our Electoral Boundaries Commission. To equip the commission to meet that challenge, this bill would, first, allow the commission to recommend an increase in the number of electoral districts, up to a maximum of 93; second, eliminate the three regions in the act that are collectively guaranteed a minimum of 17 electoral districts; and third, update the guidance to commissions in recommending electoral boundaries, including evaluating when it is appropriate to recommend districts with populations outside of the plus-minus 25 percent deviation range.

I want to emphasize that the core tenets of the act would not be changed by this bill. The legislated plus-minus 25 percent deviation principle, in place since 1989, remains in place. This range is a fairly common Canadian standard used by B.C. and a number of other jurisdictions for many years.

Since 1989, the act has allowed the commission to ex­ceed the 25 percent deviation principle if it finds a justification for doing so. This bill would change the reason for allowing deviations from “very special circumstances” to “necessary…for effective representation,” but the concept remains the same.

The commission has authority to exceed the 25 percent deviation principle. B.C. would continue to be consistent with almost every Canadian jurisdiction in providing explicit recognition within the legislation that absolute voter parity is impossible and even, in some circumstances, undesirable.

In introducing this legislation, I acknowledge that I do not believe this legislation will make the commission’s task simple or straightforward. This bill would restore the commission’s ability to exercise independent judgment in balancing voter parity with other effective representation concerns, including those that tend to arise in rural and remote regions. Achieving that balance has never been easy. The commission will need to balance competing demands from B.C.’s communities in a way that the commission believes contributes to effective representation for the entire province.

With that said, I am confident that this legislation will make the commission’s legislated guidance more consistent with the constitutional principles laid out by Canadian courts. The courts have provided guidance that exceptions to the voter parity principle should be clearly and rationally justified.

I am not confident that the act’s existing approach to guaranteeing rural representation meets that standard going forward. The most recent commission itself cast some doubt on the continued workability of the approach, inviting the Legislative Assembly to “assess the degree to which this legislative solution achieves the appropriate balance required between the principle of representation by population and the need to take into account other representational imperatives.”

[4:45 p.m.]

To be clear, this bill does continue to provide for rural representation. The bill specifies that in considering whe­ther the need for effective representation warrants exceeding the 25 percent deviation principle in a district, the commission may take into account special demographic and geographic considerations, including manageable geographic size of electoral districts.

The 2014 amendments to this act prohibit the commission from recommending any fewer than 17 seats in the three specified regions of the province. That is a broad and rigid approach, with no real precedent in Canada.

At the same time, if we were simply to return the act to its pre-2014 state, the result would be that the commission may recommend districts that exceed the 25 percent deviation principle in “very special circumstances.” This terminology is arguable rigid in its own way and has been criticized as tilting the balance too far in favour of strict representation by population. This bill is intended to provide reasonable latitude for the commission to provide its own best advice on balancing urban and rural interests.

With that, I am pleased to provide this bill for the Legislative Assembly’s consideration. I believe that this legislation provides the commission with the flexibility it needs to carry out its mandate and to exercise independent judgment as it develops an electoral map for this assembly’s consideration.

I look forward to explaining the specifics of the bill during committee stage debate.

C. Oakes: I want to start by recognizing, with respect, that I’m speaking to you today on the Lhtako First Nation and the South Dakelh Nation Alliance.

I rise today, virtually, on behalf of all of my constituents of Cariboo North, to address second reading of Bill 7, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act.

There are moments that become etched in one’s mind, words that take on much more significance as time progresses, roles that become much more defined. For myself, that moment happened in 2017 when a B.C. wildfire incident commander told a group of elected officials, which I was a part of, that we all needed to prepare ourselves that we may lose it all. Everything could be destroyed by the raging wildfires.

Words and experiences that are very relevant to the bill before this House. Knowledge acquired, no different than what we have learned during this pandemic. Vulnerabilities and gaps that have a profound impact on people — not intentional but no less of an impact. And the reality of what is required to meet crises and the challenges of our time.

Crisis puts a magnifying glass to the frailties of our system, even our democratic ones. As I rise today, on behalf of my constituents of Cariboo North, to address second reading of Bill 7, it is my hope that members of this House will think about the people and the stories that I will share and consider the significant trauma that Cariboo North has and continues to suffer.

Understand that inequities exist in our communities, specifically rural populations. How much of the rural populations still do not have access to basic services such as cell service, Internet or affordable, reliable Internet, let alone high-speed Internet, which the member just mentioned before. I hope that members will consider the in­equity in connectivity that truly works against people living in rural ridings and, in fact, silences their voices and creates true barriers to effective representation.

Effective representation in a democracy is not just confined to a short 28-day election cycle where what has been garnered over a snapshot in time will somehow provide a candidate or future MLA with a comprehensive list of all of the people’s concerns, both at the mo­ment and into the future. That is to say that if people have had their ability to vote, then they’ve been represented and their voices have been heard.

[4:50 p.m.]

What happens when catastrophic events and issues em­erge between election cycles, such as a pandemic, the opioid crisis and extreme weather events? Are the people’s voices represented because efforts were made in order for them to elect a representative? Or is the contract much more comprehensive, where the expectation of representation effectively is one that should and is necessary to happen between constituents and their MLA on a continued basis? How do we ensure that all voices are heard equally in this House?

A basic foundation of this principle is that in order to be represented equally, the same access to connectivity should be available to all citizens connecting them to their MLA, or there needs to be a recognition that special circumstances exist necessary for effective representation. I’m calling on this government and this Attorney General: special circumstances do, in fact, exist in rural ridings and that this be placed in the bill before the House.

This bill, as it stands, suggests that the government does not understand the disparity that currently exists between people living in different parts of the province or that it just doesn’t care. Why has government not recognized in this bill that there are inequalities between regions? And why has it not included the needs that exist of special circumstances in rural ridings?

I just heard the Attorney General talk about high-speed Internet. Boy, in most of our rural ridings, we don’t even have Internet or cell service.

Let us hold the magnifying glass to these inequities that exist in rural British Columbia and the significant disadvantages of large areas of geography where those people live and the services that they have access to that support them with being represented — these hard-working men and women who work in and are producers for agricultural, forestry and mining sectors, to name a few.

Why is this bill focused on simply the electoral quotient? And why does government not understand the very real consequences it will have on people living in rural British Columbia, people that do not benefit from the equal access to connectivity? I would argue that is the integral part to effective representation, unless special circumstances exist and are recognized.

I am confident that over the course of second reading, my colleagues will provide this House with the technical details and impacts of this bill.

I feel that it’s important today to spend my time focused on the people of Cariboo North and sharing their voices here in this Legislature. I feel a responsibility to share my experience of representing a riding that has and continues to face catastrophic trauma and impacts, in hopes that we all can be better prepared and that our people’s voices are heard during challenging times. I pray and hope that other people never feel the impacts that Cariboo North has felt. However, weather does not discriminate against a riding, a party or a government.

When people in my riding heard about the introduction of this bill, they immediately started asking questions. Is this bill before the Legislature a bill to silence the voices of people living in rural B.C.? Are we being penalized because we have been speaking up about the significant impacts our community has faced following the wildfires? Are we being punished? Is this bill an attempt to create a disadvantage so great in rural B.C., with ridings so geographically large, inequities in connectivity so broad, that it’ll create significant barriers that alienate rural people from having their voices heard in Victoria?

Cariboo North is a very large constituency. It is precisely 38,579 square kilometres — not the largest rural riding by any means. Geographically speaking, it is larger than the entire Vancouver Island. As a matter of fact, Cariboo North is larger than many European countries. As one can well imagine, the communities are very different with very different needs. The average age is 44 and is culturally diverse.

[4:55 p.m.]

We have six First Nations in the riding of Cariboo North. We have Lhtako Dené Nation, Lhoosk’uz Dené Nation, Nazko First Nations, ?Esdilagh, Xatśūll First Nations and the Williams Lake Indian Band. We have lots of newcomers to Canada and families like mine who have lived in the region for generations.

I’m elected to represent all of them, and not just the people that voted for me. When it comes to helping a senior get important support or helping someone with health care or the Ministry of Children and Families, there is no partisan line. That is what representative democracy is all about.

The people in Cariboo North know who represents them here in this Legislature, and they hold me to account. It doesn’t matter if they are from Quesnel or Nazko, Wells or Horsefly; the people all know that they have an MLA who is directly responsible for their region. The legislation that we have before the House today seeks to change all of that.

Rural British Columbia is a big place. This means every­thing is spread out over great distances between towns, communities, hospitals, schools — virtually everything. If the people find themselves impacted by a catastrophic weather event, that magnifying glass I talked about earlier, the very real connectivity inequalities become very exposed. This geographic distance becomes so much more challenging in helping and supporting the people living in these ridings.

I was watching the news just a few nights ago, and I saw the lightning storm that lit up the Vancouver sky. I want to take members back to July 7, 2017, when a lightning storm ran across the evening sky and left utter destruction in the Cariboo, starting 108 fires that saw over 7,000 hectares burn that first night alone. A firestorm never to be forgotten.

Over the course of the summer, over 65,000 people were evacuated and 1.2 million hectares burned. Different conditions than a few nights ago in Vancouver, different time of year, but I hope members will understand that weather events can happen at any time, and the impacts are very real for people.

What I didn’t fully understand on July 7…. But as the days turned to weeks then to months, every conceivable notion previously held of what it means to represent a rural population changed. What I didn’t fully appreciate in that moment was when, as an elected official, we were told that we needed to be prepared to lose it all. It would mean that as Cariboo North’s representative…. I never thought I would be standing in this Legislature — or sitting, virtually — raising the devastating consequences of not just the 2017 wildfires but the wildfires of 2018, the floods of 2019 and the spring freshets of 2021, still feeling that very real feeling that we could lose it all.

Currently with collapsing road infrastructure networks throughout Cariboo North, there’s still the need to have an MLA bringing to this Legislature the very real issues that are happening in the riding of Cariboo North. You will hear later comments from people living in my riding on how they often feel forgotten in Victoria unless there’s a representative, an MLA, that can remind government what is truly happening north of Hope.

As those early weeks evolved and the wildfires of note raged across the riding of Cariboo North, the role of representing Cariboo North evolved. While we had emergency teams set up to support the evacuees and we had numerous incident command teams and wildfire crews from across the globe set up to fight the fires, what became apparent was that more support was needed, and it was important to have somebody that knew the geography, the people and the transportation network and could ensure that people were not getting lost in the chaos and that people were not falling through the cracks.

[5:00 p.m.]

As evacuation orders increased and more and more roads closed, I realized that we had communities and peo­ple that were trapped behind these orders and that often the roads identified on a map as an egress were, in fact, not the best option.

Those early calls from communities like Tyee Lake and McLeese Lake that were running short of water and were doing their best to fight the fires but didn’t have basic equipment like pumps and hoses…. I am and will always be grateful for the people of Alberta, the wildfire angels, that came to our aid during those difficult days. Communities like Horsefly, Likely, Big Lake and Spokin Lake were fighting the fires from the opposite side of where the wildfire crews were.

I remember a call in Big Lake where community members were literally emptying the food of their fridges and deep freezers and bringing everything down to the fire hall to feed the people working on the wildfires. They didn’t know how they would get back to town to restock their own fridges, knowing that if they left their community, they would not be able to get back, as the roads were closed.

I learned about sacrifice and the incredible importance of our volunteer fire departments throughout the region. I remember the afternoon when we learned that there would be a major evacuation of Williams Lake and that they’d be closing the highway between Kersley and McLeese Lake. I thought of several things — the horrific images just a year before, in 2016, when Fort Mac was on fire and the highways were filled with cars fleeing the inferno.

As the MLA for Cariboo North, I knew that there were people and communities living in between these closures, and I was fearful what the evacuation would mean for them. RCMP had been brought in from all over the province, and we were grateful to have their presence. What I knew, as people were fleeing, is that they needed to see a face at a checkpoint where they could place their fear, their concern, their frustration. I stood at that checkpoint until late into the night. I was there as their representative, to be their witness and their voice to the events unfolding.

I also know that other MLAs in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and the Fraser-Nicola were out helping their constituents. I honestly cannot imagine how the people would have been impacted if there were only one MLA for this vast area of geography.

Sometimes the role of MLA becomes one of a witness to terrible events in their riding, and they play a critical role in bringing what has happened to their people to this Legislature precinct so that the people’s stories and their experiences can be recorded into Hansard and make up an important part of British Columbia’s history.

As MLAs, we were there to support our people and our communities in the eye of the storm. The dad who had been in town, and his teenaged children were actually at the house beyond the checkpoint…. I worked with him to help the RCMP understand exactly where he lived so that he could go in and get his children out and into safety. I remember calling people that were not leaving, understanding their concern about leaving their animals — that we needed to work with emergency teams, the Pet Safe Coalition, the incident commanders to find a way to get both animals and people out safely.

I remember the 1 a.m. phone calls with people pleading for help, maps that were very out of date, and people and property that would have been forgotten about. I remember finding support for Jennifer and Aaron, as they could only be located by longitude and latitude, so that they too could get out safely.

I remember the night that the fire ran over the Cariboo Mountains and was getting close to Barkerville. I have spoken many times in the Legislature — in fact, I did today — as have many of my colleagues, on what an incredible asset Barkerville is, and how, on that day, as an MLA, I had to make sure that the wildfire crews knew how important of an asset Barkerville was and is to the province. I remember calling everyone I knew who had equipment.

[5:05 p.m.]

There was no MLA handbook on how to do this. When I was on the campaign trail in 2013 or 2017, I could never have imagined that this would happen. The work certainly was not written up on the role of a representative. It was simply work that needed to be done — a role that evolved as the people needed more support.

I hope that the Attorney General will take this experience and understanding of what the role of an MLA truly is and what effective representation means in rural British Columbia, the memory of how challenging it was to get people safely out on our roads.

I remember meeting with First Nation Elders of the Lhoosk’uz Dené Nation, with severe weather and how the fires were merging into one large firestorm that made visibility of landing a helicopter impossible, getting crews to get people out impossible. Because there was no fire egress, the First Nation members were told that their best option for safety was to get into a boat and go into the lake for safety.

I want to pause and ask members of this House to think about this. I ask you to think about the street that you live on, how different it truly is for so many of us in our First Nations communities and our rural communities in this province. Imagine the street that you live on, and a fire breaks out, and the first thing that happens is that crews are sent to work on your neighbour’s house, but you are told that there are not enough resources and that they need to prioritize, and that you and your house were not deemed a priority.

Now I want you to imagine that as the fire progresses and you are in that house with your family, you learn that there’s no road out. Now, consider — to the members of this House — the ability that you have as an MLA to make sure that everyone is a priority and that you can actually do something to make a significant difference in people’s lives.

Our experiences as MLAs, the people we serve, are critical foundations of the policies, programs and accountability that our government requires. I know how important it is to have rural MLAs so that we can ensure that people are served appropriately by their government.

One of my proudest days as the MLA for Cariboo North happened this past year in the midst of the pandemic. Working in partnership with the Lhoosk’uz Dené Nation, we now have a fire egress road available. This work took years of advocacy. I am not sure that without a local representative or MLA, a fire egress road would be a reality.

As the flames were put out, destruction was left. Many people lost their homes and everything they owned. Again, the work of an MLA in a rural riding evolved. One such family I would like to introduce you to is Corrine and Frank and their children and grandchildren. When programs were being set up to support people impacted, they were set up in the cities, not the rural areas where the people were burned out. It was based on people leaving their homes, moving to the temporary shelters that were being set up. I am so incredibly grateful for all of the people that came to the aid and helped, and for the municipalities and the rural regional districts for all of their incredible work, because everyone worked so tirelessly during these difficult times.

What was often lost in these programs for people who had been burned out was that for a variety of reasons, many did not move to the city, and they remained on their property. They didn’t have Internet, no cell service, and the reality was that land lines, of course, were downed by the wildfires. For Corrine and Frank, with a child and a grandchild with autism, the move to the shelter would not have been in the best interest of their family.

[5:10 p.m.]

An important role, as the MLA following a crisis like this, was driving around and meeting directly with people and families that were impacted. As proud as I was of the many people who stepped up during the wildfires, after the fires, there were many people that came in to prey on the vulnerable.

For the Electoral Boundaries Commission, I hope that they’ll understand the important role that an MLA plays in advocating for their constituents and helping them navigate government programs, programs that are based on this idea that everyone has access to high-speed Internet or cell service.

The role of the MLA representing Cariboo North then became about protecting people, helping them to navigate the most difficult times of their lives. It was about helping them to fight to get what was owed to them — insurance, standing up to builders who made unfulfilled promises. With no cell service, land line or Internet, we helped to be the voice for Corrine and Frank, and we supported them through our office.

Another story is with David and Raynelle. To this day, they are still in recovery mode, having lost heritage buildings that can never be replaced. Their road from the 2017 fires still has fireguards on it that have not been removed. They’re told over and over that they’ll be fixed, and still nothing. We will not forget about this, and we will continue to raise this issue.

Penelope from Nazko, a fantastic senior who I had the privilege of meeting on some of my trips out to Nazko, was a senior who lost her furnace due to flooding, and she’d been without a furnace for months when I met with her, and winter was coming on. We were able to work hard to find assistance for her to have a new furnace installed.

But I need to expand on this for a moment. We need to change policy on how emergency funds are executed. Our rural areas and people who are so critically impacted do not have access directly to funds. The B.C. government funds cities and municipalities where people are evacuated to, and there were funds for the cities to hold celebrations in our city, but we had to fight so hard for Penelope just to get the funds to repair her furnace, and that’s simply wrong. As MLAs in rural British Columbia, we will be voicing this to the Legislature.

Today in the House, the member for Langley talked about his recent visit to a school. I want to thank the member for sharing his story, and I agree that one of the most rewarding parts of this job as an MLA is going out and listening to our youth and understanding what is on their minds. I want to share with you one such experience of a visit to a school in my area.

I went to Red Bluff Elementary School one day to talk about what it was like to be an MLA. The class was so organized that many of them had emailed me questions in advance, and I did my best to answer them. Some were pretty complicated, like: “How do we save the turtles?” Very valid, as I, too, have a fondness for turtles.

It was coming close to a break, and I asked a question, just to engage with the young people, about how they were doing following the wildfires. I wanted to share some of the things that the government was doing to help. During the break, one very quiet, shy young man came up to me and shared the story of his grandma, Tammy, and how she had lost the bridge to her house during the wildfires and that he missed being able to visit his grandma because he just couldn’t get out there.

Well, I was able to take this young man’s bravery, and he worked with me, and we spoke to the minister. We were able to get his grandma that bridge, and now he can visit her again.

Maybe if our rural ridings had cell service, or affordable or high-speed Internet, maybe impacts would have been different on people. But the reality is that connectivity just does not exist in the vast geography of our rural ridings, and the people in rural British Columbia pay the consequences.

One of the things that helped people to be represented, and certainly helped me as the MLA, was the importance of getting out into communities and setting up mobile offices.

[5:15 p.m.]

I certainly understood, when I was first elected in 2013 as an MLA, that it would be very difficult for people to travel long distances to meet me in the constituency office in Quesnel. For many, I knew that it would mean three hours each way, and depending on the seasons, the roads were not always reliable. I understood that constituents couldn’t email or call on a cell phone or even a land line. Often, the roads required 4-by-4s. So maybe that means that those constituents were not able to contact our office.

I knew that I needed to get out as much as possible and to listen, to connect with people in their communities. If, as an MLA, I was to be effectively representing, it was critically important for rural voices to be heard and understood. There is no transit. Most areas don’t have cell service, many no Internet — especially high-speed Internet. The reality for many is that even land lines go down often, sometimes for weeks at a time.

The transportation network is vast. In the winter, the roads often are impassable, and now, as freshets become more damaging this time of year, it has also become far more problematic.

Mobile office days are very long, often 15 hours, as the riding is so large. One must understand where the people are, living in the various areas, in order to go out and hear and listen to them.

If I’m travelling to set up a mobile office in the south part of my riding, it means leaving very early, going to Miocene and then Horsefly. When in the communities, I’ll meet with volunteer fire departments, seniors groups, cattlemen, 4-H fall fairs, women’s institutes, boards of trade, search and rescue, community clubs, parents and, of course, constituents who have concerns. Then it might be off to McLeese Lake, and then I get home around 10 p m. This day is often around 352 kilometres.

Other days, setting up in the south, we might start in Williams Lake. We might go to Wildwood and the volunteer fire department, visit Xatśūll First Nation, Tiny Lake, Big Lake and Likely and then home — about another 14-hour day. The total kilometres for this day for a mobile office is about 430 kilometres.

Deputy Speaker: Member, thank you for your comments.

C. Oakes: Mr. Speaker, I am the designated speaker. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

For everyone, if it’s possible to alert the Chair if you are the designated speaker at the beginning, that is the practice of this House. That would be appropriate and appreciated, certainly for all other members, as well, so that they can plan their schedules. Thank you.

Please proceed.

C. Oakes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Then there are mobile office days that we set up that are a little closer to home, like Kersley and Alexandria; community meetings at Gravelle Ferry, off the Quesnel-Hydraulic Road. This is about 128 kilometres. Or Nak’azdli and ?Esdilagh First Nations, about another 120 kilometres. While the communities may be close to Quesnel, the roads are so bad that it takes hours to travel to these communities.

If I travel to the east part of my riding, I travel and visit Cottonwood House, Wells and Bowron, and of course our beloved Barkerville heritage site. These are also ten-hour days, meeting with people and connecting with community groups. Total kilometres on these days is about 210 kilometres.

If you go out west, those are our longest days. Those are 15- to 16-hour days. These are the days where we might go to Nazko, Batnuni, Titetown and Pelican Lake, which is over 365 kilometres. I very much look forward to visiting Kluskus when it’s safe to do so and to travel on that new fire egress road and bridge.

These mobile offices matter. I think to be a successful rural MLA, you need to travel into these communities. Until the government ensures that every British Columbian has cell service, Internet, reliable roads and land lines, they need to take into consideration that MLAs must travel out into their riding in order to effectively represent them. This was part of the understanding in the previous piece of legislation that has been removed and is absent in this piece of legislation before the House.

It is also critically important that the time spent doing mobile offices, of course, must be made up with extra work in the office, meeting with constituents, attending stakeholder meetings, events and such for myself in the city of Quesnel.

[5:20 p.m.]

I remember my first mobile office in Horsefly, where I met Jack. Jack, like so many of our trail-blazing pioneers, contributed so much to the community. Like many people living in rural British Columbia, Jack was not somebody to ask for help. I think he showed up at that first mobile office just to see what this new MLA was all about.

One of the highlights of being an MLA is the time I spend travelling throughout my riding, listening to the constituents at mobile offices and connecting each year with constituents like Jack. I learn so much. The knowledge acquired from listening to people on the ground in rural British Columbia and understanding how we can improve our government, our legislation and our society from listening to these people in our communities is critical. These meetings provide us, in this Legislature, the information that is needed to advocate for programs to help people in British Columbia.

For example, after the fires, when I was out checking on Jack, I realized that with everything burned, people who very much depended on firewood for heating would be impacted. We worked with partners to create a program to help seniors impacted by the wildfires clean up their properties but also to help them in bringing in the necessary firewood for winter.

Now, I understand that this might seem like an odd thing for an MLA to be working on. For rural B.C., many people simply do not have access to turning on a switch for heat. If the mobile office hadn’t been set up, if I had not been on the ground travelling in my riding, I’m not sure seniors like Jack would have raised the issue. I’m sure they would have tried to do their best just to get by.

By having relationships with constituents and listening to them, I know that the program that was set up to help Jack, on his advice, helped so many other seniors in our riding. That is what effective representation looks like on the ground in a rural riding.

I hope the Electoral Boundaries Commission will travel to Horsefly. I hope that they’ll meet and listen to people like Jack and Frank and Corinne. I hope that they’ll understand that representation is not just for the cities and our ridings travelling on a north to south axis.

I hope the Electoral Boundaries Commission will take the time to travel into communities and meet with people in our rural areas. I hope that they’ll go to our First Nations communities and communities like Likely, Wells, Narcosli and Nazko. I hope that they’ll listen to people who’ve been sharing with me the impacts of the floods and the freshets over the last few years.

As you listen to the impacts on the people in an already stressed rural riding, which is so geographically large, consider what the impact would be if now that riding was amalgamated into a much larger riding, representing two to three times the geographic area, where their voices would be even harder to be heard. As you listen to their comments…. What if the new MLA, based on this legislation, was now in Kamloops and covered a space between Hixon and Kamloops?

I met with Dennis last week. He was evacuated in April of 2020, and he returned home in August of 2020. He spent those months in a motel room. The stress of evacuation and the damage done to his home and property were simply more than he could bear. Dennis spent a considerable amount of time in the hospital.

Today, over a year later, the water still runs down the bank behind his home. He’s worried about being evacuated again, and he has a hard time sleeping at night. Effective representation means that we don’t forget about people like Dennis, and we continue to advocate on their behalf.

I’ve consistently raised in this House the alarming deterioration of our road infrastructure network in the Cariboo. Please listen to what rural constituents are saying.

[5:25 p.m.]

Heather, on an area called Knickerbocker on the Blackwater Road…. We’ve had so many people raise concerns about this part of our road network. Heather says: “The poplar trees past the horrible road headed out of town are leaning and are not solid. It’s still sliding, and it will keep sliding. Every time the residents out that way drive over this part of the road, they’re taking chances, not only the vehicles but the buses transporting kids to school.”

Here’s what Violet had to say: “Scares the heck out of me every day I travel over this section of road. At certain points, you are looking straight down into the river.” These voices deserve to be heard in this Legislature.

How about Diane in Soda Creek-MacAlister Road: “Thirteen months and counting. We cannot wait forever. We cannot live on false promises. We find out that the survey and its recommendations have been completed for months, and no one communicated this out to the residents.” Well, Diane, we’ll ask the government, because it’s important that they come out and communicate with residents.

How about Trampus and Jessica from Kersley-Dale Landing Road? “The road is closed and no detour. We have a working farm with cows, chickens, sheep and goats.” Regardless of whether the family moves, someone will still need to travel Kersley-Dale Landing Road to care for the animals and the property. It’s an urgent matter, with livelihoods, mortgages and livestock on the line.

Here’s Pete, from Beaver Lake and Ridge Roads. “I’m down to my axles on my truck. I can’t get farm fuel delivery, or delivery, for that matter. There has been a complete shutdown from government to maintain rural districts. Where’s our huge fuel tax going? What about the ability for first responders? Failing to respond in a timely manner…. People’s lives are at stake.” Is this piece of legislation before the House meant to silence our rural voices because they are asking government for accountability?

How about Diana, who’s a nurse? And thank goodness for all of our health care professionals. “I go to town five days a week to work as a nurse as well. Ridge Road is the worst it has ever been. I cannot go faster than ten kilometres an hour. It’s ruining our vehicles. We need decent roads.” What happens to our health care system when people decide that they can no longer travel on these roads and decide to retire or step back from their work?

How about Shari? Shari commented that Beaver Lake and Ridge Road are to the point that first responders and school buses won’t make it through.

Or Ken: “Hawks Creek Road at Pioneer Crescent may flood the Likely Road today. This morning the water was on the pavement. Nothing was done this past year after the last floods.” When these calls come into my office, we’re able to reach out and try our best to ensure that the ministry is looking after these roads.

Here’s Lisa. “French Road is back to barely passable by four-wheel drive. No ambulance for us. West Fraser Road by Ruric Spring Drive is not going to hold up much longer, no matter how many times they put a band-aid on it.”

How about John? “The Cariboo, as with other resource-based communities, contributes millions of dollars to the provincial coffers through forestry, mining and ranching. My hope is that you’ll reach out and communicate with us so that we can feel confident that your ministry is working for all British Columbians.” Their voices shouldn’t be silenced by the government.

This is from Heather: “We are all stressed to the max here in Quesnel. What is plan B when our roads are unable to be travelled?”

Or Rochelle: “Highway 97 is literally the lifeline to northern British Columbia.”

Here’s Teresa: “Is someone losing their life what it takes for the government to do something?” Are we really going to make it more difficult for rural British Columbians to have their voices heard in this Legislature?

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Here’s a comment from TJ. “I really hope, with all of the inadequate roads, plus the Johnson Street Bridge not safe enough for trucks, that we do not have a slide by Marshall’s Vet that closes that highway too.” If we have a bad forest fire season, Quesnel and outlying areas will be in trouble.

Finally, another comment from a constituent, and I think it sums up what I’ve talked about today. This is from Judith. “It is amazing how broken we are still all from the wildfires. I think those of us from the Cariboo are Cariboo strong. We pushed past the sadness of watching our area burn to the ground. We all fake it until we can’t.”

[5:30 p.m.]

What I’ve shared with you today are voices from people in my riding that I’ve just heard from in the last couple of weeks. I hope these voices will be taken into consideration. It’s voices like these that I hear on a regular basis and that we advocate and work and bring to this Legislature so that everyone in this House understands what is happening in our rural communities.

I hope that when the Electoral Boundaries Commission submits its report and the NDP government make their determination, they consider the inequity of connectivity, the extreme impacts that weather has had on communities and determine that special circumstances do, in fact, exist, and that the decision to maintain our rural ridings is kept in and ensures that the voices of people living in rural British Columbia are heard here in this Legislature.

I hope that factors like geography, community, history, community interests and minority representatives truly be taken into account. I hope that some of the stories I’ve shared with you today highlight what those community interests and history and geography really mean. I hope that the Electoral Boundaries Commission travels into our communities and understands what these factors really mean. I hope that as members in this House, as you vote on this piece of legislation, you consider the important impact on the people.

What happens if the rural ridings become so large that it’s realistically no longer possible for an MLA to get out and effectively listen to their constituents? What happens when these people do not have access to cell service, to Internet, to transit or even to a road network, which is often not passable? How will their voices be heard in this Legislature? How will they be advocated for? Are you willing to vote on a piece of legislation that will effectively alienate so many fellow British Columbians?

I ask each of you, when you truly talk about addressing inequalities in this province, that you will place action with your words. When reviewing the recommendations for the Electoral Boundaries Commission, I hope that you’ll remember Jack, Corrine and Frank, Judith, Diane and those students from the Red Bluff elementary school. Please remember that the hard-working men and women of Cariboo North need their voices heard. Please help us rebuild and recover. Please do not be a part of people losing their voices. They’ve already lost so much.

M. de Jong: It’s always a pleasure to participate in de­bates — in this case, on the bill before the House, Bill 7 — and to follow in the aftermath of our colleague from Cariboo North, who has, I think, provided a very powerful presentation on the importance that people generally, I suppose, assign to the task that befalls us, but the added importance that people in more remote parts of British Columbia assign to the issue.

She has done so, I think appropriately, in a very personal way, emphasizing some of the challenges, some of the frustrations, that people feel, and some of the disconnect that people feel in those parts of British Columbia. Maybe I’ll talk a little bit about that in a few moments.

[5:35 p.m.]

I was thinking the other day. I believe this is the fourth boundary redistribution that I have lived through, participated in, borne witness to. There are a couple of things that maybe I’ve learned along the way.

Whenever we get to this part of the cycle where this adjustment needs to take place, of course, there are frequently discussions that revolve around partisanship and attempts that might be made to configure an electoral map in a particular way that favours one side or the other.

One of the things I’ve learned is there’s not really a lot of point in doing that, because over time — certainly over the time I’ve been here — people happily, in our democracy, tend to change the electoral maps themselves, however the lines and boundaries are drawn. When I arrived here, the party that I represented in those days was regularly accused of being the urban party and accused of predominantly being concerned with urban-related issues to the exclusion of others.

Well, my, how times have changed. I say that candidly. The perception, the criticism today, is perhaps much different. There was a time when the party I am a member of held virtually — well, not virtually — all of the seats on Vancouver Island. Here I am, standing beside the Leader of the Third Party. Today my party doesn’t hold any. So electoral fortunes change, and that is the essence of democracy.

The idea that we should be driven in our considerations of how to draw an electoral map on the basis of those generally very short-term considerations, I think, is unwise. I have to say in fairness that as a democracy, as a society, we’ve come a pretty long ways in terms of how we do this. We’ve come a long ways as a province in terms of the process we use for drawing electoral boundaries.

You know, there are some legendary stories in the past, and I have to say not just stories. I have seen, from 20, 30, 40 years ago, proposed electoral maps where you didn’t have to be much of a political scientist to see the partisan interest reflected. I’m thinking of a map I saw one time in and around what we now call Metro Vancouver, where in the map being proposed by one party — and I won’t mention the parties by name, and this was a long, long time ago — the constituencies were 40 blocks long and two blocks wide. The other party was proposing a map that was two blocks long and 40 blocks wide. You didn’t have to be, as I say, particularly astute politically to know what was being attempted there.

I was thinking about the last great electoral boundary controversy, and I thought back to the early ’80s — 1982. People who have been around the province or observed politics over the last 40 years will remember Gracie’s finger — the allegation that was made at the time of an extremely prominent member of the Legislative Assembly and a cabinet minister, a lady member of the then Social Credit Party, where a particularly favourable section of the city was preserved or added to the riding she happened to represent.

[5:40 p.m.]

We don’t have to rehash the history. The matter was ultimately resolved. She survived that controversy. I happened to meet her on the electoral battlefield in my own first provincial election some 12 years later. She’s gone now — was a remarkable lady.

But as I say, the evolution of drawing electoral boundaries in this province, happily, has improved to where we are now able to rely upon an impartial commission to make recommendations to this assembly on a non-partisan basis. That has been, largely speaking, the process in place for the four of these that I have borne witness to.

It had some marginal impact in the part of the province I come from. When I was first elected here, it was for the riding of Matsqui, which then became Abbotsford-Mount Lehman and is now Abbotsford West. Who knows what it will be referred to as after this process? Who knows if I’ll even be here after this exercise?

Interesting. I’m told that at the federal level, MPs play a role in naming the ridings and are able to have some influence. That has never been the case here. It’s not proposed to be the case. But I know members frequently have views on that that they hope the commission will take account of. Local people have views that they hope the commission will take account of.

As I say, over the course of those changes, they were largely…. When I say inconsequential in terms of the im­pact where I lived, I say that — largely inconsequential — insofar as the impact on the ability people there had to access services offered by their MLA.

I suppose it’s possible that when these smaller boundary adjustments take place, there may be disappointment at the loss of the opportunity to support a particular candi­date. Sometimes, maybe, there is celebration that the incumbent has been shifted or the riding has shifted in a way. I think all of those things are true. But I think that in many cases — and I would include myself, in the part of British Columbia that I call home — the results of the last three or four boundary commission ridings have not been particularly aggravating or troublesome for people.

That, of course, is not true for people who live in more remote parts of British Columbia. We’ve heard from my colleague from Cariboo North. We heard from the Attorney General, who in fairness, I think, demonstrated some appreciation for those challenges.

One of the great benefits, one of the great joys of the job all of us have in this chamber is the opportunity we have to visit various parts of British Columbia. Now, that has been more limited over the past year. But with that notable exception, we are able to get out and acquire a sense….

I see my friend the member for…. Is it Burke Mountain? One of the sad realities of the world we inhabit right now is that we don’t get a chance to meet some of our newer colleagues. But he has travelled the breadth of this nation in some very interesting ways in years past. I’m sure he would agree that you acquire a sense of the beauty of British Columbia and, obviously, the diversity of British Columbia, but also the distance. The distances are great.

[5:45 p.m.]

I’m going to make a confession as part of this debate. I did this, this afternoon. As I say, we don’t travel as much in the past number of months, the past year. But it may not surprise people to know that years ago, when I started out on the road as an MLA, I stuck into my briefcase….

I like maps, and this is the “Super, natural British Columbia” Road Map and Parks Guide 1996. I keep it with me because I find it helpful. It conveys for me, when I am out on the road, a sense of the vast distances that separate communities in B.C., quite frankly in ways that one of these never can. We have access to all this technology now and Google Maps and all that. But when I open my 1996 “Super, natural B.C.” map….

Deputy Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West, just be careful on the props piece, please.

M. de Jong: Oh no, I’m reading it. It’s not a prop. I’m actually reading the map.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, sir.

M. de Jong: It is a research tool, hon. Speaker.

When I pull out my map, and I think about how lucky I’ve been to travel on some of these routes, all the way from Dease Lake to Stewart and Bob Quinn Lake and Eddontenajon and Good Hope Lake…. Well, the examples abound. I was thinking the other day of a trip I took into Kwadacha from Mackenzie.

These are journeys that take hours and hours and hours and involve hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of kilometres, and they are contained within a single constituency. For me, it was novel. It was wonderful. It is novel, and it is wonderful, and I’m hoping that we get to do it again very soon, all of us.

But I don’t have to do it regularly. I don’t have to do it to access health care. I don’t have to do it to access services. I don’t have to do it as a single parent who might be involved in a custody dispute. I don’t have to do it if I’ve been injured and have to access WorkSafe services.

I did it, enjoyed it, moved on. But for the people, the hundreds of thousands of people, that live in these sparsely populated beautiful places in British Columbia, it is a reality. It is also a reality for the manner in which they can access the support, the services and the ability to attempt to influence those of us who are selected — derive the honour of being selected — to attend here. Of course, it’s far more difficult for them. It is necessarily more difficult for them.

For the legislation in front of us, I think that is the question that the House needs to consider. I will be very candid, and I hope very forthright. The existing provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, in the existing act, section 9, are designed specifically to protect people in these remote parts of British Columbia by ensuring and directing that the constituency within which they live cannot get any bigger.

[5:50 p.m.]

Look, I think I am obliged to be honest about that. That is the purpose. It is a directive that a boundary commission…. It is a limiting feature on a boundary commission. It says to the boundary commission that this place believes that the people residing in those areas should not have to travel 800 kilometres instead of 700 kilometres.

Removal of that protection, removal of that direction, will guarantee that at least some of those people will reside in constituencies that become even larger. That is a certainty, and I hope no one will suggest otherwise. So for people in Stikine, North Coast, Nechako Lakes, Peace River South, Cariboo North, Skeena, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Fraser-Nicola, Columbia River, Nelson-Creston, that is the likely outcome. In some cases, that is the certain outcome of eliminating that protection.

It is protection. I don’t want to pretend otherwise. It is a purposeful and deliberate protection. Is it an appropriate form of protection? I believe it is. I believe it is a constitutional form of protection. I believe it is a constitutional and legally defensible form of protection. I am not supportive of the proposal contained within Bill 7 to remove it.

I think it’s a mistake. I think it’s a mistake for people generally who reside in these remote parts of British Columbia. I think it’s a mistake for Indigenous Peoples who reside in some of the most remote parts of British Columbia.

I have been told that no consultation took place, at this point, to this point, with First Nations. That surprised me a little bit when I learned that in the briefing. In the aftermath of UNDRIP, a piece of legislation that could have and will have that fundamental impact of redrawing the boundaries through which people receive political representation, I would have thought that that was foundational.

Now, to be fair, I was also told that, well, the commission will undoubtedly engage in some consultation. I suspect they will. But it is this assembly, through this bill, that is purporting to alter the rules around which that commission operates, in a way that will most certainly impact First Nations communities, whether they’re in Hartley Bay, or Oweekeno or Kwadacha. I think about my trip into Kwadacha. It’s an eight-hour drive from Mackenzie to get into Kwadacha. The boundaries around that riding may get even larger. It’s already the size of a European country. It just may become the size of a larger European country.

At a time when…. I would say this, and I hope this is a fair statement. When so many efforts are being made to be more inclusive and sensitive to the unique challenges associated with living in a remote isolated community like the ones I’ve mentioned — Oweekeno, Hartley Bay, Kwadacha — it seems like the elimination of the protection that exists in the existing section 9 sends precisely the opposite signal.

[5:55 p.m.]

Look, I get that this is a balancing act. Again, I don’t think any of us should be blind to the need to find that balance and to respect the juridically created notions of parity that have developed. We do have, happily, guidance from the courts in that respect.

But section 9 in its present form has existed. It has not been successfully challenged. It has provided that level of comfort and — I come back to the word — protection. For people who reside in parts of the province who necessarily feel disconnected from the more populous areas — places like this, where decisions are made — the knowledge that their constituency is going to get even larger or, possibly, disappear, I think will be very disheartening.

I think it will be very, very disheartening for people who see wealth generated, mostly through resources, and a lot of that wealth exported out of the area. To then see, in response, a boundary reconfiguration process that ignores that reality and ignores their frustrations, in its present form…. I am certain that will add to those frustrations.

I have offered some thoughts based on my experiences as one who has had the unique good fortune of travelling the province and travelling through the areas that are in jeopardy of losing the protections afforded by the existing section 9, which the government now purports to remove. But I think and I expect that we will hear from a number of members of the assembly who can offer much more than that, as my colleague from the Cariboo has done previously, and that is personal, firsthand experience associated with residing and as an elected representative working with people who are anxious to receive a comparable level of representation and service that others in more populous parts of British Columbia receive.

I am therefore not supportive of the bill, for that singular reason. I guess I should also be clear: it is for that reason…. There are other provisions of the bill, there are changes in language, but the bill fails to pass muster for me purely on the basis of the provisions that purport to eliminate the protective provisions that presently exist in section 9 of the act.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make my case, such as it is, and for the opportunity to pull out my treasured 1996 “Super, natural British Columbia” road map, which has not failed me when…. What’s that thing? What is it called?

Interjections.

M. de Jong: GPS. Google Maps. You know, the technology — when these things have failed.

I don’t imagine you need a lot of technology floating down the river. Gravity takes care of most of it.

[6:00 p.m.]

I thank you for that opportunity. I hope that the government and members of the assembly on all sides will reflect on what my colleague from the Cariboo and others, I expect, will say about how this is going to, if passed in its present form, translate into much anxiety and much frustration. It will not enshrine the principles of fairness that I think the assembly is seeking to achieve and direct the Boundaries Commission to achieve in its deliberations.

S. Furstenau: I don’t have a prepared speech. I’ve actually just been listening, this afternoon, to the Attorney General, to the member for Cariboo North and just now to the member for Abbotsford West and, in fact, reflecting on one of my favourite things to think about and enjoying the conversation about it, which is our democracy.

I share a lot of common interests with the member for Abbotsford West, including travelling all over B.C. with maps — we have many of those in our vehicle — and to Stewart, actually, where my grandparents taught in the 1940s. It was their first teaching job.

Interjection.

S. Furstenau: They were not Hutterites.

You know, one of the things…. As soon as I was elected in 2017, as an MLA, I felt compelled to spend as much time as I could travelling around this province and getting to as many communities all over B.C. because I think that, yes, we are absolutely elected to represent our communities and our constituents, but we also work in here, all of us, on legislation that affects this whole province.

I think that we do have a responsibility to know this province as best we can. One of the best ways to get to know a place is to actually go there and spend time there. I consider that kind of a very lovely perk, in a way, of the job. I really enjoy spending my time around this province and have really found that my understanding has been deepened with every trip that I’ve taken with our trusty maps all over.

We’re debating a bill, a very short bill, as the Attorney General mentioned — Bill 7, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act. The crux of this, as has been pointed out by the other members, is really to remove a stipulation that ensures that there is a limit on the size of particular ridings in British Columbia, rural ridings.

I think, again, it is very informative to head out into B.C. and to realize that when you’re in Prince George, for example, you’re only halfway to the top of the province. This is a large geographic province. There is a lot of land. Travelling around it is quite a challenge.

I listened with interest to the members for Cariboo North and Abbotsford West, but particularly Cariboo North, about her experiences as an MLA in one of these larger ridings. I appreciate and applaud her sense of service and duty to her constituents, and in particular, her stories around the emergencies. We all know that when there is an emergency, in our roles, we do lean into this role that we have. We do want to do everything we can, and with the particularly large ridings, of course, that is very challenging.

[6:05 p.m.]

In fact, I think I may have been in her riding one summer on one of our trips when we were driving south out of…. Where were we? I don’t know. I wish I could remember the town right now. But we got turned around because of forest fires and had to actually turn back, head north, head east. We ended up in Valemount, when we were trying to get back to the Island, and came all the way back down through the Kootenays because the forest fires were so widespread and serious at that point.

Here’s the problem. As soon as politicians start debating anything to do with how our democracy works, there is, I think, a kind of a knee-jerk response amongst many who are paying attention. I’m sure there are thousands watching right now. There’s self-interest at play.

Even with the story of this bill, for example, it could be portrayed that the current government, the NDP, doesn’t hold a lot of rural seats. By removing this clause, there’s an element of self-interest. It diminishes the number of ridings, ridings that, perhaps, they can’t anticipate winning.

However, on the other hand, as the member for Abbotsford West pointed out — and I agree with him — ridings do not belong to parties. They belong to the citizens who live in those ridings. Fortunes change. The voters’ intentions change. Their decisions change, and you get all sorts of different outcomes in elections.

I’m sure we can go back in Hansard. When this stipulation was brought in, the government at the time would have likely been accused by the opposition…. The actions were in their self-interest. They were protecting ridings that they wanted to protect. This is a problem. This is a problem because, I think, more and more, the assumption about us, as representatives, is that we are, by nature, politically motivated.

We heard from Cariboo North about her work in service to her constituents. Everybody, I would argue, that is in this House ran for office because they wanted to serve their communities and their constituents.

Then we get in here, and unfortunately, what seems to happen, particularly, I would say, in the eyes of the public, is that we do appear to be politically motivated. We vote in blocks. Typically, not always, the governing party will all vote one way; the opposition party will all vote one way. With the Third Party, we like to keep people on their toes. Sometimes we vote one way; sometimes we vote another way.

When we have debates like this, I don’t think they typically change minds. I think how the vote is going to happen on this bill was probably determined before this debate began. I don’t know if we’re going to see any change in voter outcome as a result of this debate. It would be nice if there was.

In fact, it would be nice, I think, if it wasn’t so obvious how everybody was going to vote — according to where they’re sitting in the House or which party they belong to. I think we would be serving our democracy better if we saw people voting more along the lines of how they wanted to see things turn out, according to their own principles and, ideally, their constituents.

When we talk about anything related to how our elections work, there is that assumption of political motivation in it. That’s also reflective and reflects back another very serious problem we have, which is the loss of trust in us as representatives, the loss of trust in this institution, the loss of trust in democracy.

[6:10 p.m.]

I was just pulling up some numbers while I was listening to the debate. In 2019, in Canada, a survey was done, and 63 percent of people surveyed said that “most politicians can’t be trusted.” In 2021, very recent, Canadians were asked who they trusted. And 81 percent of Canadians said they trust doctors; 77 percent trust scientists — go scientists; 24 percent trust business executives; and coming in last, 18 percent of people trust politicians.

Interjections.

S. Furstenau: I have just been asked whether lawyers were on that. I didn’t see lawyers. We could turn to Shakespeare for that.

Over the last year, unfortunately, trust in politicians has actually decreased. It increased a little bit last spring, and then there has been a decrease in surveys and polling that says that trust in politicians has diminished. The lowest levels of trust, I’m sorry to say, are Generation Z. Our youngest population, our newest voters, have the least amount of trust in us as politicians and in our institution.

While we talk about anything, I think, any kind of bill or policies related to our democracy, our elections, how people are elected and how we serve, I think all of us need to have in mind the fact that we have a lot of work to do collectively to rebuild that trust, because that trust is the foundation of democracy. I worry that when it gets too far gone, and when you look at it generation over generation, the Gen Z’s are at the lowest level of trust; millennials and Gen X’ers are tied — still pretty low — and it goes up with boomers. But there is a steady decline, generation over generation, in trust in politicians.

I think part of this, I hope, can help inform how we operate in here. I talk about this a lot. My hope is that the politics can be what’s informing the elections. Politics is about the different visions our political parties have for the province, how we think we could achieve those visions, the plans. Those election times should be highly political. That’s when you’re making your pitch. In between elections should be much more about governance, and we would do better at governance if we spent more time listening and more time working together and less time focused on what separates us, what divides us, what we disagree on.

I would hope that this conversation that we’re having over this bill can extend to a wider conversation that we have, generally, as elected representatives around: how are we going to rebuild trust? How are we going to ensure that this democracy in our province is strengthened during our time here, whether it’s four years or 40 years?

Interjection.

S. Furstenau: No. I’m sorry, to the member. Nowhere near 40.

While I will continue to listen to the members discussing and debating this bill, I do recognize that the geography of this province does present particular challenges for our democracy and that ridings that are so geographically vast make it very difficult for the kind of representation that we all want to provide to our constituents. I think we do have to consider the implications of that. I think that’s important.

[6:15 p.m.]

How do we improve? How do we make sure that every constituent, every citizen in this province feels an equality of representation, feels an equality of services? I think every British Columbian should have the hope and the expectation that no matter where they live, they have an equality of access to services provided by government — education, health, social services, infrastructure, broadband, opportunities, all manner of things. We know that that’s not the case, but it’s something that we should absolutely be striving for.

The representation piece of that has been pointed out. You spend a lot of your time as an MLA advocating for improvements in services and infrastructure in your riding. That’s one of the main things you do. You want to improve things for your community and your constituents. So there is an implication to having electoral boundaries that make that increasingly difficult for the representatives.

Now, I’ve got warm friendliness here thus far. However, I think I might be about to lose it. We debated at length in 2017 another bill about electoral reform in this province. That was to look at proportional representation. We had a referendum. It was very divisive. It was a very sad outcome for some of us.

However, I think that we always should be looking at how we improve democracy. This is what this debate’s about. Interestingly, with mixed-member proportional representation, you could have more than one representative for a riding. In fact, you could have representatives from different parties for a riding or a region, which would ensure that people are working together across party lines, which I think brings out the best in us.

I do think that there was an opportunity lost in this pro­vince to improve and mature our electoral system, which I still, to this day, believe would have improved and matured our governance and would have moved us away from one of the problems that we are now seeing already in this majority government, which is the fact that governments will come in, they’ll get a majority, and they’ll make changes, either by regulation or legislation, that the other party doesn’t like. That party will come in and undo that and put in their own.

This bill almost seems exactly an example of this, so we end up with these swings in our legislation, in our policy, in our governance. Much of the time is spent on undoing what has been done by previous governments as opposed to building on what has been done collectively by the Legislature.

While I will continue to listen to the debate on this bill, I will also ask my colleagues to consider other ways that we can look at improving and maturing our electoral system and our governance in this province. For many of us, the hope for electoral reform and proportional representation — and let us look only to New Zealand to see how that’s worked out — remains a very serious and important goal for us to have as a province.

B. Bailey: Thank you also to the people who’ve spoken in the last half an hour or 45 minutes that I’ve been in here. I’ve enjoyed it and found it very interesting. It has stirred me and made me feel very proud of our province.

I, too, have had the great privilege to travel this pro­vince. I want to add that I represent Vancouver–False Creek, and it’s probably one of the most densely populated areas in our province. I think there is something like 6,000 people per square kilometre.

[6:20 p.m.]

I, like many people, really am a small-town person. I think it’s worth noting that. Sometimes in this discussion we can think about us in very divided terms, where we have people who are rural and people who are urban. But like so many British Columbians, I’m both, and I think many of us are both.

I grew up on a very small island. There were 14 families on the island I grew up on. Where I live now is so very, very different. I value both of those experiences tremendously. Also, using GPS, not the 1986 map, I’ve really enjoyed travelling the province and every summer make sure that I get to somewhere unique and different.

I do want to speak to this legislation because I think it’s very important that we really respect the guiding democratic principle behind it, which essentially is that everyone’s vote should be reasonably equal in weight in choosing elected officials — not 100 percent equal, necessarily, but reasonably equal. I think that’s a very sound guiding principle.

Under the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, a commissioner must be appointed and in place within a year of the last general election. It essentially ensures that the upcoming commission’s mandate is clear before the commission is appointed. The government is introducing these amendments to the act now. These amendments are going to restore the independence, actually, of the Electoral Boundaries Commission and fix an imbalance in the legislative framework.

The intent of these amendments is to ensure that the location of political boundaries between seats is determined not by politicians but by an independent commission. I, for one — and I’m sure my colleagues in this chamber share this perspective — am very proud that we live in a province, in a jurisdiction, that doesn’t gerrymander, that doesn’t make political decisions about boundaries. This is, in fact, quite different than that. So I want to disabuse people of the notion of thinking of House of Cards or other similar representations of other jurisdictions. That’s not the case.

The commission will be asked to achieve, through rec­ommendations, to the extent possible, the fundamental democratic principle that everyone’s vote should be reasonably equal in weight in choosing elected officials. The 2014 amendments, which were made to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, restricted the commission’s ability to independently recommend boundaries by establishing three regions that were collectively guaranteed a minimum of 17 electoral districts, regardless of their population.

Most provinces actually don’t have these kinds of regions at all. That’s why government is fixing the imbalance in the legislative framework by removing that amendment. It would give the commission more independence to adjust boundaries across the province, while balancing factors such as population and geography, to provide effective representation.

B.C.’s population is expected to have grown by over 500,000 people, half a million people, since the last electoral boundaries were set. However, under the current legislation, the maximum allowed number of electoral districts, as you know, is 87.

One of the amendments will give the independent commission the option to recommend up to six new districts to enhance their ability to respond to B.C.’s significant population growth. Currently the legislation requires that the population of electoral districts is no more than 25 percent above or below the average district population, unless there are very special circumstances.

To ensure that the act recognizes the representation concerns in less populated regions, the proposed amendment specifies that the commission may consider special circumstances respecting demographic and geographic factors, including keeping a manageable geographic size for the electoral districts. I think that’s really important, considering the very powerful words of some of the folks who have spoken today who represent areas that are pretty vast. It’s really important that that be considered, and I think that’s included here.

[6:25 p.m.]

What do we mean when we talk about effective representation? Effective representation means that everyone’s vote should be reasonably equal in strength. Again, I come back to that founding and guiding point. It also requires the recognition of factors like geography, community history, community interests and demographic circumstan­ces. These changes strengthen the act’s support for effective representation and better support the commission in their work to ensure it’s upheld everywhere in the province.

This is about ensuring effective representation for peo­ple and the core democratic principle. It’s ultimately up to the independent commission to make that recommendation on whether or not they think there should be more electoral districts. We’re giving them the option of recommending not necessarily six but up to six more.

B.C.’s population is estimated to have grown by, as I mentioned, half a million people. That’s over 10 percent since the last electoral boundaries were set. But under the current legislation, again, capped at 87. An increase like this is not unheard of.

The government of the day gave the 2008 commission the same option to recommend up to six seats. By giving the commission the option of adding more electoral districts, we’re giving them the ability to support population growth in urban areas while continuing to support effective representation in the north and the interior. Again, everyone’s vote should be reasonably equal in strength.

In 2014, amendments were made to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act which restricted the commission’s ability to independently recommend boundaries by establishing three regions that were collectively guaranteed a minimum of 17 electoral districts, regardless of their population. Most provinces don’t have this kind of a region at all. That’s why this government is fixing the imbalance in the legislative framework by removing this 2014 amendment.

Again, it’ll give the commission more independence to adjust boundaries across the province, while balancing fac­tors such as population and geography, to provide effective representation. Further, the proposed amendments recognize the representation concerns of less populated regions by making it explicit in the act that the commission may take into account special considerations respecting demographic and geographic factors, including keeping a manageable geographic size for electoral district. It’s important, and it will be considered.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, noting the hour, I would ask you to reserve your place and to please move adjournment of debate.

B. Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Noting the hour, I reserve my place to continue at the next sitting and move adjournment of the debate.

B. Bailey moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Members, pursuant to sessional order 2, deferred divisions will take place this evening.

The first division is on clause 2 of Bill 13, Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021. The second division is on third reading of Bill 5, InBC Investment Corp. Act.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call committee on Bill 13.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 6:28 p.m.

On clause 2 (continued).

The Chair: Pursuant to sessional order, the committee stands recessed for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 6:29 p.m. to 6:39 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The Chair: The division vote will commence in five minutes.

[6:40 p.m.]

Members, we will now proceed with the division. The question is whether clause 2 of Bill 13, Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021, shall pass.

[6:45 p.m. - 6:50 p.m.]

Clause 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 58
Alexis	Anderson	Babchuk
Bailey	Bains	Beare
Begg	Brar	Chandra Herbert
Chant	Chen	Chow
Conroy	Coulter	Cullen
Dean	D’Eith	Dix
Donnelly	Dykeman	Eby
Elmore	Farnworth	Fleming
Furstenau	Glumac	Greene
Heyman	Horgan	Kahlon
Kang	Leonard	Lore
Ma	Malcolmson	Mark
Mercier	Olsen	Osborne
Paddon	Popham	Ralston
Rankin	Rice	Robinson
Routledge	Routley	Russell
Sandhu	Sharma	Simons
Sims	A. Singh	R. Singh
Starchuk	Walker	Whiteside
	Yao
NAYS — 27
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Cadieux	Clovechok
Davies	de Jong	Doerkson
Halford	Kirkpatrick	Kyllo
Lee	Merrifield	Milobar
Morris	Oakes	Paton
Ross	Rustad	Shypitka
Stewart	Stone	Sturdy
Tegart	Wat	Wilkinson

Title approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the committee rise and re­port the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:52 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[6:55 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2021

Bill 13, Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we will now proceed with the second division.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — InBC INVESTMENT CORP. ACT

(continued)

Bill 5, InBC Investment Corp. Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 58
Alexis	Anderson	Babchuk
Bailey	Bains	Beare
Begg	Brar	Chandra Herbert
Chant	Chen	Chow
Conroy	Coulter	Cullen
Dean	D’Eith	Dix
Donnelly	Dykeman	Eby
Elmore	Farnworth	Fleming
Furstenau	Glumac	Greene
Heyman	Horgan	Kahlon
Kang	Leonard	Lore
Ma	Malcolmson	Mark
Mercier	Olsen	Osborne
Paddon	Popham	Ralston
Rankin	Rice	Robinson
Routledge	Routley	Russell
Sandhu	Sharma	Simons
Sims	A. Singh	R. Singh
Starchuk	Walker	Whiteside
	Yao
NAYS — 28
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Cadieux	Clovechok
Davies	de Jong	Doerkson
Halford	Kirkpatrick	Kyllo
Lee	Letnick	Merrifield
Milobar	Morris	Oakes
Paton	Ross	Rustad
Shypitka	Stewart	Stone
Sturdy	Tegart	Wat
	Wilkinson

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 7 p.m.