Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 9, Finance Statutes Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call the continued estimates of the Ministry of Education. If that were to finish, then I would call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Finance Statutes Amendment Act.

In the Birch Room, I will be calling the estimates for the Ministry of Energy and Mines. When that finishes, that will be followed by the estimates for the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

M. Bernier: Chair, just if I may raise a point?

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

M. Bernier: I believe the House Leader just misspoke. He called Bill 9 in this House. I believe he meant Bill 4.

Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader, make a correction, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, Member. I was looking at two things here, and I thought I’d got a nod on 9. It is, in this chamber, Committee of the Whole on Bill 4.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 4; N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 1:05 p.m.

On clause 13 (continued).

M. Bernier: I want to continue on a little bit where we left off. We were on clause 13. We were talking about the increased employment incentive. Can minister maybe give me a history lesson here? When was this incentive announced?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked when it was an­nounced. It was back in the fall.

M. Bernier: Can the minister…? Who actually qualifies, or who doesn’t qualify? It’s not completely laid out here, directly. I’m just curious. When the announcement was made back in the fall, and now that we’re trying to enact it here in the changes in this bill…. Which companies qualify or are disqualified?

Hon. S. Robinson: Those businesses that increased their remuneration during the last quarter of 2020, with increased employment over the base quarter. So it’s compared to the previous quarter.

While we’re talking about this, I thought I would share with the House and with the member that it’s helped more than 1,000 businesses and supported more than 1,900 new jobs — increases in hours and pay increases as well. We’ve had over 1,000 applications that have been approved, and about $4½ million in relief is flowing to eligible businesses. That, of course, flows back into the economy.

M. Bernier: The minister just saved me from a few questions, which is appreciated. I would have probably leaned to asking a little bit more of that detail.

I’m curious, when the minister says, “increased over the previous quarter,” that we chose the last quarter of…. I guess it wouldn’t be the last fiscal quarter, but the last calendar quarter that was chosen.

In reading through this section and consequent sections related to the increased employment incentive, I believe it says that a business does not qualify if they’ve rehired back people that were laid off because of COVID. If they were employed by a company and laid off, but then a company thought: “Okay, well, there’s this 15 percent credit incentive out there. I’m going to make some decisions as a business to maybe call some people back earlier than expected, even though I might not be able to financially afford everything, or try to plan ahead, using this incentive….”

Am I reading some of these definitions correctly — that if it was existing staff prior to, I think it was June 20, in the bill, the companies do not qualify then for that incentive?

[1:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member doesn’t have a correct interpretation. It is, in fact, that if someone did get laid off — the business had to shut down and now was able to open and can rehire — they would qualify.

M. Bernier: I’m just curious, then. Sorry. I’m trying to find it in this deep bill.

Under this clause, in 30.03, can the minister explain to me, then, “eligible employee”? “An employee is not an eligible employee if…the employee was not an employee of the employer on July 1, 2020.” That’s a little bit contradictory to what I said.

Can the minister explain that, then? The person was not an employee at that time, but then they’re hired. How does that work for the incentive?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I’m really grateful for the folks who are speaking in my ear. I’m happy to share, with the member, their sage advice.

This is a special anti-avoidance clause. The proposed subsection provides a special role for employees that do not deal with the employer at arm’s length, generally individuals who are related to the employer. Non-arm’s-length employees must be on the employer’s payroll as of July 1 to be an eligible employee.

It’s intended…. An employer artificially increasing the amount of their credit by adding family members to the payroll after the IEI was announced….

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for that. I was trying to understand that a little bit. That does make sense.

Under this incentive, is there a minimum amount? You hire one employee, if it’s a small mom-and-pop business. Does that qualify? Is there a maximum amount if it’s, let’s just say, a large restaurant that had decided to hire back a whole bunch of people when they were allowed to reopen, before they were closed again? Is there a min or a max around the qualifications?

The minister did say — and I appreciated when she said it — that $4.5 million of taxpayers’ money has gone out to help incentivize. But just trying to wonder…. On the qualifications, are there min and max criteria that are put in?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: There is no minimum, no maximum.

M. Bernier: Okay. Appreciate that. That’s the answer I was hoping for. So thank you very much.

I’m curious, though. Why was this time period chosen? I know it was an announcement in the fall. We were trying to incentivize. But it seems like, when you talk about October 1 to December 31 of last year, that quarter as being the time that we’re incentivizing…. When I look at….

A budget has been rolled out, and now we’re trying to figure out how to get the economy going again. We’ll be challenging the minister a little bit later in estimates on some of that.

Why was that time period chosen and maybe not even continued, or is it following through now, when we’re trying to continue to incentivize people to help boost the economy?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member will recall, certainly, back last year when we were on, I’ll say, high alert around the crisis, not quite sure how things were going to play out. By the summer, we were starting to see what was possible. We were starting to see businesses that were finding ways to operate.

We recognized there were opportunities to spur some more activity on with this incentive. As I read into the record earlier, we’ve seen the impacts of that. Of course, our employment numbers, through the subsequent number of months, have been pretty good. We were at more than 100 percent employment compared to when the crisis was announced in March. It did what it was supposed to do.

Again, it was one of those opportunities where we saw that there was certainly enough safety protocol built into our practices that would allow for some transactions to happen in the business community. We also knew that there were some people who hadn’t been called back to work yet. We also saw there were other sectors that were really struggling, like the tourism sector.

Stimulating existing businesses to increase their hires — to help get people back on their feet and get the economy going — was the intent. That was why it was considered for the third and fourth quarter, as a way to stimulate.

M. Bernier: I do appreciate, I guess, some of the efforts that we’re trying to do collectively to get the province back up and running.

The minister and the government like to say that we’re back to pre-COVID numbers all the time, but we do know, through the reports, that there are around 44,000 people in the private sector, though — specifically private sector people — who have lost their jobs and who are not back to work. So 44,000, approximately, people. Although this was from last year that we’re talking about, it obviously didn’t help those 44,000. It helped some, which is great.

The minister rattled off some of those specific numbers, which I appreciate, for the record, that show there is some uptake in it. But there are still a lot of people unemployed. A lot of businesses are struggling in hiring people back. Before lunch, the minister was, I’ll say, cautious but optimistic about us, in the near future, getting back up and running.

[1:20 p.m.]

Is the minister, though, looking at maybe bringing this back in some form or reiteration to help people in the next quarter, as we rebuild, or is there another plan for a different tax credit to try to get some of these 44,000 people back to work in the private sector?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to point out that it’s really since the circuit breaker public health measures were taken that we’ve really seen, again, some more deep im­pacts in employment. That certainly has created a problem, and that’s why we have a circuit breaker grant program. We absolutely recognize that there are still some that are tremendously hit hard, businesses that continue to be tremendously hit hard.

We’re all incredibly excited about the vaccine rollout. We all know, and I know that all members of this House know, how important it is to make sure that everybody gets vaccinated. We could do that as quickly as possible. I’m looking around, and I’m making sure that everybody has registered — nods would be good — for their vaccine. We need to make sure that that happens. That’s really the answer to getting the economy opened up and back rolling again.

Having said that, the member did ask about what’s coming. If I had a crystal ball and could have predicted that we would be in this crisis…. We would, perhaps, not even be there. But the reality is that we don’t know what the future looks like.

What we have done as a government, though, I have to say, is put together a pandemic and recovery contingency, I guess, fund in the budget. We’ve set aside significant dollars so that we can be responsive. That’s what we’ve been doing all along, as things change, to have our programs and our response.

I am hopeful that we’ll have some good news on Tuesday with more details coming about what reopening can look like, what the time frame could look like. That would help us predict and help businesses predict and plan for what comes next.

Again, we’re on alert, paying attention to what happens with COVID and how the pandemic plays out. Our priority is to keep everyone safe. We know that that’s an absolute priority for British Columbians. It’s our priority as a government. I know it’s a priority for everybody here in this House. We’re going to keep monitoring that, and we’re going to continue to be there to support businesses and to support individuals to get through this next piece.

As the member said, I am cautiously optimistic. I want my optimism to rise and my caution to lower. I’m hopeful that that will happen over time. I’m marrying the two together, because if this pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that we need to be cautious and we need to be prepared.

M. Bernier: Somewhat tongue in cheek, but the minister, in some ways, does have a crystal ball, being the head of Treasury Board and the head of the finances for the province. She can, actually, have a little bit of leeway in some of these grants and programs and how it rolls out at the cabinet table, which I’m well aware of.

That aside — I’m not expecting any kind of commentary on that — I do want to ask the minister…. So $4.5 million has gone out. How much was in the budget? Is there a cap associated? At some point, are businesses going to be told: “Sorry, we’ve used up all the money”? There are no end posts, from what I understand. I’m just looking for the minister to maybe quantify what was in the budget, what they expect to go out if more people do apply and if there is a cap on that.

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The estimated cost is $190 million. That is what we estimated. We don’t have a cap, per se.

It is early days. Applications for this program opened March 30. In terms of the annual calendar, corporations are just finishing up their year-end tax returns. So we do expect to see, I guess, a bolus come through.

I think this is an excellent program to support busines­ses, to bring people back to work, to expand their payrolls. This is the kind of program that I know businesses had asked for. When we were going through the design work, this was one of the things that businesses said would make a difference to them. It’s based on that that we have set aside these funds to help them bring people back to work and make sure that they can operate their businesses.

M. Bernier: Probably my last question on this section. Obviously, we want to get everybody back to work as fast as possible, get the economy rolling. Can the minister explain, though…?

I would asked earlier if there were any thresholds or criteria or a maximum amount of employees. Is there any threshold or criteria based on the size of the company? The reason why we want to look at that is…. Obviously, for the small business, especially in the tourism sector, where so many people are being hit right now…. Many of those are the smaller operations. So they qualify for different grants that the government has put forward.

What about a large organization? I’ll use my experiences up where I am. Maybe you have an oil and gas company that has thousands of employees. You might have a company that’s working on Site C with thousands of employees. Well, in that quarter, if they brought employees on to ramp up their operations, do they qualify for this as well? Is there a threshold around the size of the operation that’s applying?

Hon. S. Robinson: The answer is no. The idea is to stimulate getting people to work. So if a company of a large size would increase their payroll, that means that there are more people working. That’s what we want. We want those people working.

Clauses 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

On clause 16.

M. Bernier: I’m going to ask this question, and I might end up asking it a few times during the course of the next couple of hours because it’s seen quite a few times in this bill. I’m wondering if the minister can maybe, in this specific case, explain a little bit more holistically….

Under different acts, we’re removing the requirement to seek leave from the British Columbia Court of Appeal to appeal decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. I’m just curious. That’s in quite a few different acts that we’ll be looking at today. That wording seems to be a continuation through most of those.

Can the minister explain why that is in there? Does that change appeal processes? How is that change going to affect people that are dealing with that situation?

Hon. S. Robinson: This amendment will allow parties to appeal to the B.C. Supreme Court decision, without having to first obtain leave of a justice of the Court of Appeal.

This will harmonize appeal procedures with the Court of Appeal Act, which provides an automatic right of appeal of a lower court’s decision. The requirement to apply for leave creates additional work. It has additional costs for government and for taxpayers, irrespective of which party wishes to appeal further, after a decision of the B.C. Supreme Court.

[1:30 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I’m not sure if this is a fair question to the minister, but to try to save some time…. Almost this exact same wording is taking place throughout the course of this bill in many other acts. Is it fair to say that the answer will be the same and the reason why it’s being done everywhere else as well?

Hon. S. Robinson: What a wise critic I have over there, anticipating that the answer would be the same, and it is for the same reason.

The Chair: The wise Peace River South.

M. Bernier: I’ll leave that one alone for now. Thank you, Chair and Minister.

Who asked for these changes? Is this something that internally, through staff, came forward as something that would help move a process forward better, or was this brought from the sector, other people themselves?

Hon. S. Robinson: This was brought forward by staff as a way to make the process smoother as well as to reduce costs to both government and taxpayers.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

M. Bernier: Again, this is another one of those situa­tions where government is going to be using information gathered. This one here is looking for opportunities to al­low for certain information to be provided and used under the employer health tax.

I’m going to assume the minister is going to give me a similar answer to this morning, that this is information the government already has. I did ask, on one of the previous bills that we debated…. I’ll probably bring it up again later in estimates next month. What kind of information does the minister collect, access, and why?

Hon. S. Robinson: The reason for this amendment — I want to be really clear that the member understands it — is actually to protect taxpayer information. It’s about making sure that there’s no unintended disclosures, so that taxpayers can continue to have confidence that their information is not subject to unintended statutory overrides.

This is a protective clause, rather than what I think he might think it is. I just want to make sure he understands that this is about ensuring that other statutes cannot simply override the tax confidentiality provisions of the Employer Health Tax Act without considering the heightened confidentiality of taxpayer information. Again, this is about making sure that sensitive information is well protected.

M. Bernier: Is it fair to say, through that answer, that a privacy impact assessment was done, then, before these changes?

Hon. S. Robinson: That is correct.

[1:35 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I’m just curious, then. What did that privacy impact assessment conclude? Obviously, there would be some concerns here with more information being gath­ered. What kind of recommendations or what did it conclude through that assessment?

Hon. S. Robinson: Privacy, of course, is paramount to the tax system. We have a complete privacy code to protect information, taxpayer information. It’s very strict, and it’s integral to trust in making sure that taxpayers understand that their information is well protected. The employer health tax lists out exactly, very specifically, about what information is collected and what can happen with that information.

In this amendment, what it does is it says that in order for any other statute to access any of this information, it can only be done by the minister through regulation, which is made public, so that taxpayers understand that if there’s any change, it has to happen through regulation and that that would be made public and that everyone understands how information is being used.

M. Bernier: With that information that’s collected, then, has any part of the information that’s already been collected been used for policy analysis or changes to date? Or has nothing changed, and we’re using this information on a go-forward basis, if this bill passes?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This is on a go-forward basis.

M. Bernier: I know that was an easy answer. Obviously, you had to get clarification first before the minister an­swered that one, just to confirm.

My last question on this clause would be: who asked for these changes? Was this the public service, under a legislated authority that they were looking for, or is this the minister’s prerogative? Who brought these changes forward?

Hon. S. Robinson: It was identified by the public service, which does an annual review of statutes and recognized that this would help to protect information.

Clauses 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

On clause 20.

M. Bernier: On clause 20, we are now moving into another act, the Home Owner Grant Act. As we all know, we had a bill here earlier — I guess it would be in the last session — to change some of the aspects around the homeowner’s grant. At that time, the minister said: “There’s…no change in what we do with the information that we currently gather. This is all the same. This goes into the same part of my administration that already has all the information related to taxing.”

I’m curious. If I understand this section here, the minister is asking for authority to use and disclose the certain information again, like we’ve seen quite a few times. Why is the minister introducing these new powers if she already has and uses the information?

Hon. S. Robinson: I have the public service doing analyses, trying to understand how to best support British Columbians or bring about a fiscal program or a fiscal framework to identify how to best address affordability, for example.

The analysts will be working, perhaps, with the Home Owner Grant Act and the data there. Then they are dealing with another different tax policy act of some kind. It’s almost like they are instructed to forget whatever they know on one in order to do the other. We all know, and I know that the member knows, that that’s not how good policy is ever developed.

So making sure that there’s this ability to do a full analysis, using the data, so that we can deliver for the people of British Columbia — I think that’s what this amendment is about.

M. Bernier: You know, there’s no argument that, obviously, with some of this information, it’ll help shape policy. One of the questions that we had last time we debated the homeowner’s grant was: would the information that government would now be getting through the homeowner’s grant application process that maybe they didn’t have already…? Now the information is going to be shared across different sectors. When I mean that, I mean internal government offices to try to formulate.

[1:45 p.m.]

The minister was very, if I remember at the time, fairly bullish in her commentary around the fact that this information would not be used for creating any new taxes. This was just important information that I believe, at the time, the minister said was to gather to avoid fraud and other challenges that might be faced, but not to be used for forming new taxes.

It now appears, though, when you read through a lot of these acts, the government is able now to use all of this information and data that they’re collecting for new policy and new taxes and opportunities in the province for revenue generation internally. I’m trying to square the circle, because it says…. That, to me, contradicts what the minister said earlier. Is she willing to say that this information is not being collected again for generating any kind of new tax policy, as I believe she said earlier this year?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that the member appreciates the evaluation of data. It’s how we develop any policy — whether it’s tax policy, housing policy — in government. That is what we do. Having data is helpful.

So here we have a program where we are collecting information. There are a number of different tax policy pieces that we have as well, whether it’s the Income Tax Act, the Employer Health Tax Act, the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act.

We understand the interactive effects of this in­formation. Information is helpful to understand what’s happening on the ground. So being able to have staff take a look at this and to be able to recommend policy, regardless of what happens with it, I think is very helpful.

Whether it’s to tax or not to tax — let’s be really clear — this information is helpful. The more information we have, the better our understanding of what’s going on in communities on the ground around the province, and it just allows us, I think, overall, to make better policy.

M. Bernier: Just one more on this clause then. I do appreciate the minister’s comments there. One of, I think, the frustrations that not only the public has but, I would say, even a lot of us internally have is the fact that government, right or wrong, works in silos. So any opportunity to break down those barriers and share information across either ministries or internal within different branches of a ministry, obviously to avoid redundancy but to also share that information….

I’m completely, personally in support of that, because if we can save taxpayers money, and if we can share information internally that we already have to make better policy to help people, obviously that’s important as well. So I will agree with that portion of it.

My only comment, though, is then using that information to not be nefarious by any means but to look at opportunities to go after other additional revenue sources, if government uses that information to find areas that they figure they could tax further, based on the information they have of affordability, which I don’t think…. And I think the minister would agree we’re not in a place right now to be able to add any additional burden to people in British Columbia as we’re trying to come out of this pandemic.

The only other question that I would really ask on this clause…. The minister, earlier, had mentioned, when we talked about the homeowner’s grant, that there was no intention at that time at all to have any changes to the homeowners’ grants, aside from some of these technical aspects in this bill. Is that still the wording the minister would use — that there are no changes planned for the homeowner’s grant, as it still stands?

Hon. S. Robinson: No changes planned.

Clause 20 approved.

On clause 21.

M. Bernier: We’re now talking about the Hydro and Power Authority Act. We’re moving through lots of different parts of this under Bill 4. We’re going to get through a few more here very quickly, but I will move through this one now.

[1:50 p.m.]

I want the minister just to explain this a little bit to me. Under clause 21, this is applying the employer health tax now to B.C. Hydro, from what I can see. Does that mean B.C. Hydro…? Were they paying the employer health tax before? Were they not, and now this is just an addition? What’s that process, please?

Hon. S. Robinson: As a result of an oversight during the design and drafting of the Employer Health Tax Act, the Hydro and Power Authority Act was not amended to ensure that the Employer Health Tax Act applies to B.C. Hydro. There is no rationale for uniquely exempting B.C. Hydro from the employer health tax. Other utilities, Crown corporations, authorities and core government are subject to the employer tax health, so B.C. Hydro has been operating on the understanding that it is subject to the employer health tax.

M. Bernier: If they have been operating under that as­sumption, understandably this will be retroactive, then? Is that the case?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, it is.

M. Bernier: Well, if that’s the case and they have been operating that way, what’s the cost, then, to ratepayers of B.C. Hydro, now that the employer health tax will be added to that Crown corporation?

Hon. S. Robinson: If the member wants to check the B.C. Hydro financial statements, he will see that they have been paying the tax, so there’s no change for ratepayers.

M. Bernier: Can the minister quantify that or explain that, then, a little bit for me? In a previous answer, I believe the minister said they weren’t paying, but they were under the assumption that they had to be. So this isn’t an additional cost to ratepayers, it sounds like, because they were already building it in with their rate application, I assume.

If they weren’t paying it, but now they were, does that mean they were actually remitting that money to government already, all along, and this is just a technical change to actually change the act to match up to what was already taking place?

Hon. S. Robinson: This is just a technical change.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. Does that mean that I just take, then, that B.C. Hydro has been remitting their share of the employers health tax all along, even though it wasn’t incorporated in the change? The minister said that they anticipated it. Does that mean the government was receiving those funds?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: As Minister of Finance, I can’t share specific taxpayer information. But I want to direct the member to take a look at the B.C. Hydro financial statement. He will see that, according to their financial statement, they have been remitting their employer health tax.

Clause 21 approved.

On clause 22.

M. Bernier: This is another, I guess, technical change in a lot of ways around the Income Tax Act. But just a quick question around this. If I understand this section here, it’s exempting the federal GST credit boost from the Income Tax Act.

Maybe I’ll start here. To the minister’s knowledge, are any of the COVID benefits taxable? Do they have to be claimed, or are they all tax-free? Any benefits that have been announced through the circuit breaker, through the COVID recovery benefit, any money going out to the tourism sector, individuals who have applied for the COVID emergency benefit — are any of those taxable, or is everything tax-free?

Hon. S. Robinson: The worker benefit and the recovery benefit are tax-free. There’s a whole list of benefits that I would be happy to compile for the member and deliver to him so that he has that list available.

Clauses 22 and 23 approved.

On clause 24.

M. Bernier: On clause 24, it’s exempting the temporary wage subsidy from the Income Tax Act, going through this. Can the minister confirm that that means that the federal COVID benefits are also exempt from additional income tax? Where does that fit in?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This is a technical amendment to pull out a federal benefit that was inadvertently adopted. The federal government, of course, determines what is taxable income. It was the CRA that requested that we make the legislative change to clarify that there was no provincial equivalent of the federal program.

Clauses 24 to 26 inclusive approved.

On clause 27.

M. Bernier: I’m probably just going to encompass the next five, six clauses all into one question here, because it’s all basically the same.

Clause 27 specifically is around the film and television tax credit. But there are the other tax credits in a few other sections: publishing tax credit, the books tax credit, scientific research and experimental tax credit — quite a few. By looking at this, the government’s wishing to extend the deadline for application. I will argue, in a time like this, it’s probably a good thing, if we can incentivize a lot of these opportunities.

Can the minister say…? Is this an initiative the government has taken to do this, or did the minister hear from all the different sectors that this extension was necessary?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We’re in regular contact, of course, with various economic sectors, and are in that constant contact, particularly during COVID. This has turned everything upside down. It has forced all of us to find different ways of working, different ways of delivering service, different ways of developing product, different ways of engaging with each other….

It’s through those conversations that we took the initiative to bring these extensions, recognizing, based on what we’ve heard from these various sectors, what they were challenged with, and looking to help them in a myriad of ways. This is just one additional way that we were helping these various sectors.

Clauses 27 to 34 inclusive approved.

On clause 35.

M. Bernier: On clause 35, now we’re talking about the B.C. emergency benefit for workers in this section here. Can the minister explain this one to me in the House, please, because in the explanatory notes, it talks about the “eligibility for the emergency benefit for workers for individuals who received an overpayment under Part 14” — and who otherwise were not eligible. Can the minister explain that in layman’s terms, so people understand what that means?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member asking the question, because there was some confusion about self-employed individuals’ eligibility for CERB. To qualify for the CERB, individuals were required to have earned $5,000 of net income over a one-year period prior to the pandemic. However, some self-employed individuals applied for the CERB on the mistaken belief that they were eligible if they had $5,000 of gross self-employment income, but not $5,000 of net income. In many cases, these individuals received the CERB despite not being eligible.

Since B.C. based its employer benefit eligibility requirements on the CERB, these self-employed individuals may have also received the EBW, even though they technically weren’t eligible for it. In February, the federal government announced it would not be requiring these self-employed individuals who received the CERB in error to repay the money.

[2:05 p.m.]

In Budget 2021, B.C. announced it would parallel this federal relief, since these individuals applied for the EBW in good faith.

M. Bernier: I completely agree with that. I want to thank the minister, because, I guess I’ll politely say, there’s been a lot of confusion, as different levels of government are rolling out supports, trying to help people — the confusion of who qualifies, who doesn’t, through the application process. We’ve heard lots of different grants have been problematic. As debated in this House, sometimes it’s left people, through that confusion, not applying when they qualify, or on the other side, people thinking they qualified when they actually didn’t.

What I gathered from the minister is information that — in this specific situation anyway — to mirror the federal, anybody who accidentally, through no fault of their own, applied and qualified and received the money will not be forced to repay that.

What kind of dollar amounts are we talking about? How many people, through the research that was done, and how many companies or individuals or groups, I guess, in this case, applied and received funding when they actually shouldn’t have? What was the cost to government? The caveat to that is I’m sure they applied because they needed it, and we support that as well. I’m just more curious on where the line in the sand was and what the cost was to government with that.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for his question and staff for frantically pulling up the number. Our best estimate is fewer than 10,000, because we’re just looking at the self-employed. We know it’s not that high, because not everybody applied for it. But we know that it’s fewer than that.

Clause 35 approved.

On clause 36.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move the amendment to clause 36 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[CLAUSE 36, by adding the underlined text as shown:

36 Section 219 (1) is amended by striking out “section 215 (1),” and substituting “section 215 (1) or (1.1),”.]

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m proposing this technical amendment to Bill 4, which adds a comma, to clarify how clause 36 changes the Income Tax Act.

Clause 36 is intended to change a section reference at the start of section 219.1 of the Income Tax Act to add a reference to a new subsection. However, section 219.1 of the Income Tax Act contains multiple section references. Without the comma, it may be unclear which of these section references the government intends to amend.

The Chair: Members, as not all members have received a copy of the proposed amendment yet, I will propose we take a five-minute recess — even though it’s just a comma, it could be very important — to give everybody the chance to look at the comma appropriately, and inquire and do all they need to do before we come back here to give you the chance to ask questions.

We’ll be in a five-minute recess to ensure that all get a copy of this amendment.

The committee recessed from 2:10 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

M. Bernier: I want to thank the minister and staff. I do have a copy of that amendment. It was very technical in nature. I have reviewed that amendment.

You know, obviously, when you’re moving a comma, it can completely change the intent. Thankfully, there’s not enough time for me to announce that I will be designated speaker and speak for two hours on the removal and change of that comma. Instead, I’ll just say that I think we’re in favour of the proposed amendment.

Amendment approved.

Clause 36 as amended approved.

Clauses 37 and 38 approved.

On clause 39.

M. Bernier: Again, I look forward to the time I’ll be back down there in the Legislature — not doing this re­motely, trying to talk to a screen, with a desk covered in papers. I’m looking forward to being there, face to face with the minister. I think we get a lot more accomplished, sometimes, doing it that way. But I’m thankful for the way we’re doing it right now.

I also want to thank the minister’s staff for the work they’re doing as well, especially catching a comma. That’s important.

On section 39, on the recovery benefit. I don’t want to necessarily rehash all of the pros and cons around the recovery benefit. I think we canvassed that quite well last December — some of the challenges that we saw, albeit in favour of the intent of all of the different recovery benefits that were being rolled out by government.

Can the minister maybe just give me a bit of an update, though? How many people have applied, to date, for this? How many people have actually been paid the benefit?

Hon. S. Robinson: I had staff working in my ear, trying to get the details, but I already have them. I anticipated the question. I knew to prepare over lunch.

So 2,620,456 British Columbians have received or will receive their benefit imminently. That’s $1,298,693,145 that has been or will be paid in the days to come. We have received 1,976,400 applications, and 1,901,925 have been processed. That’s 98 percent that have been processed.

The remaining that have not received a benefit who may have applied…. They have been processed. We are waiting for information in order to move them through and to make out those payments.

So the system…. The member did recognize the very first couple of days it was…. There were certainly challenges in the system. But it’s up and running. It’s been smooth.

[2:20 p.m.]

We are continuing to receive applications, which are available for another month or so. I want to encourage those that are eligible to make their application.

I think, based on feedback that I have received from people, it’s made a difference in their lives. It’s helped them do some of the things that they perhaps would have chosen not to do. It’s also allowed them to contribute in their local communities, whether it’s ordering in meals from a restaurant that is only able to do takeout or whether it’s taking their bike to a bike repair shop because the weather is better and they want to get out. Now they have a little bit of extra cash in their pocket to do that. It’s certainly helping in communities right around the province.

M. Bernier: I don’t want to debate the merits and the intent of the COVID recovery benefit. There’s a reason why it passed unanimously in the House. I believe everybody, and collectively, wants to see people get the support that they need as best as possible right now, obviously especially those who need it the most.

The minister — which I appreciate, thank you; she knows me well enough to know what kinds of questions I will probably ask — went very quickly through some of it. Now, I’m trying to understand: 2.6 million applied; 1.9 million, just over, have been paid the benefits. I assume that means a lot applied but didn’t qualify — looking at those numbers, if I heard the minister correctly, through the Zoom screen here.

But how many applications, then, are still under review, people who applied? The minister said: “…looking to get more information.” How many would that be? The minister said 98 percent. I’m just trying to quantify it into a number.

Hon. S. Robinson: That’s 74,475 applications remain in process. They’ve been reviewed, and there might be some information missing, or there needs to be a double-check or a reference. As I get reports regularly, those numbers are decreasing dramatically as more information comes in, and we can move them through the rest of the process.

M. Bernier: Can the minister explain that again? I know we went over this a little bit last December, but I didn’t think it would be to the extent that I’ve seen. How come so many were red-flagged, required more information? That was not part of the announcement originally. The money was going to be direct deposited.

The reason why I flag this — and I’ll incorporate maybe a bunch of my thoughts into this one opportunity for the minister — is I continually, on a daily basis, receive emails, phone calls, correspondence. A lot of it goes to the minister’s office as well — people of that 75,000-ish who are extremely frustrated. I know I’ll ask maybe some more detailed process questions in estimates.

I even had one yesterday that went to the minister’s office, which I was cc’d on, where they applied January 4 and still have not received the money. In fact, all the email threads were shared with me. They were told, even as early as March, that they had submitted all of their required documentation. Well, that’s two months ago. So they received an email saying: “Thank you very much. We have all the information.” Every time they’ve emailed back to find out the status, it is, understandably in some ways, a canned email that gets back, continuously saying: “Thank you. We’re reviewing your application.”

We are hearing a lot of people of that 75,000 who are very frustrated, who need help, who have been waiting for that money. Christmas isn’t in July. It was six months ago. Just curious on the minister’s thought process — how she can work to help expedite some of that, especially the people who have already submitted all of the documentation that’s required and now are just waiting for that money to be deposited. How can we move that along faster for those people?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that the member will recall, when we put this plan in place, we did our best to design it as simple as possible. But at the same time, we did put in some criteria. There are eligibility requirements. We wanted to make it as simple as possible and put it online.

[2:25 p.m.]

For most British Columbians, it was seamless. It was absolutely seamless. They got their information in, and they were able to get their cheque processed as automatic deposit within a matter of days. For the majority of applications, that’s exactly how it worked.

However, there were certainly some where their information didn’t correspond, perhaps, with their spouse’s information. That required to get pulled from the automatic system, and then it needed a set of eyes to review it, to identify exactly what information was needed. It had to be communicated back to the person. Information had to then be sent back to the ministry for manual processing. I certainly appreciate the frustration. I do see those emails.

We’ve brought in additional staff because it required a lot of hands on deck to address the volume. We’re continuing to move as quickly as we can. I will say the bulk of those that are in process were waiting for information. There are some that have delivered it. If the member wants to flag that particular one, I’m happy to see where it is in the process. But in my update from the public service that is dealing with this, the bulk of those that are in process are about waiting for information to get back to us so that we can continue to move it along.

I can appreciate how frustrating it is for people. It has been a difficult time. The extra dollars make a difference. Millions of British Columbians have been able to receive it pretty expeditiously, but we also have a responsibility to make sure that it meets the eligibility requirements. That’s the due diligence that we’re taking as well.

Clauses 39 to 42 inclusive approved.

On clause 43.

M. Bernier: Again, Chair, I appreciate your patience when we’re trying to do this through the House and virtual means. So thank you very much for the accommodations.

Clause 43. Now we’re talking about the Insurance Premium Tax Act — disclosure, again, of information for fiscal policy formulation or evaluation. I know I talked about this earlier. I just want to flag that there’s a whole bunch of areas where the minister, ministry and staff are looking to gather — use, I guess — information or maybe just formulate opportunities within the information they already have. We canvassed that earlier. I don’t need a response specifically on that from the minister.

I want to ask, in this, more around the strata insurance premiums. Was any analysis done, or will there be analysis done, on the strata insurance premiums under this section? Is there going to be any work done, especially with the information that government has access to?

Hon. S. Robinson: As a part of sort of annual review…. All the tax acts are reviewed annually. It’s part of what government does. I think that’s responsible government, and we certainly do that. This Insurance Premium Tax Act is always up for review.

My mandate letter has…. I’ve been asked by the Premier to take a look at the strata insurance, make sure that that system is working better and, if it isn’t, to take action. So everything is part of doing that work.

[2:30 p.m.]

That’s one that has been an active file for us as government, pre-COVID. I always feel like life is pre-COVID, post-COVID. I see the member is smiling, recognizing that that’s sort of how our brains seem to be working these days. That is part of my mandate, to make sure that that system is working better.

M. Bernier: Yes, I acknowledge through my smirk that we definitely do relate a lot of what goes on in our lives right now to pre-COVID existing time and hopefully, post-COVID, some of the better situations I think we will hopefully all find ourselves in once we get through this.

What the minister said, though…. As I know, it’s part of her mandate letter. I’m just curious, then. I know the minister has had a lot on her plate as we go through a lot of the different changes — some of the delays in the budget and work that had to be done, as the minister said, because of COVID and behind-the-scenes work. What kind of work has been done then to fulfil that part of the mandate letter?

The reason why I ask is that for people who are part of stratas, this is not a new issue. This was a pre-COVID issue, and it’s something that’s still hitting a lot of these people quite hard with the skyrocketing costs of strata insurance.

I’m just kind of curious. If the ministry has a lot of information, is evaluating or reviewing or looking at that, is the minister willing to say then that because it’s taken a long time to get to a point of finding a solution, there might be some retroactive consideration from government to help repay some of these skyrocketing costs back to strata owners and assist them? Because many of them have had to take out loans or look at other things to pay their increased strata costs. Is that something the government will look at?

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much. The member will recall, certainly pre-COVID, we did significant work with the B.C. FSA. They brought forward an interim report and then a final report. We took action. We’ve certainly seen best pricing has changed. The industry has decided to abandon that practice, which is a good thing. A number of other items were changed as a result.

I also want to point out — and we’ve done this before — the analysis that we’ve done around the insurance premium tax that this would save about $9 per household. I don’t think that that is really what strata owners are looking for. They’re looking for the option to have choice in the market, and that’s the work that we’ve been doing.

We’ve certainly had conversations with the opposition last year, I think, a year and a half ago — again, pre-COVID — about that that was the solution and making sure that the market would operate better. We are starting to see a bit of change, and that’s a good thing.

Clauses 43 and 44 approved.

On clause 45.

M. Bernier: I’m going to incorporate probably a few things here if I can to save some time and help the minister, because whether…. In 45, we have the Land Tax Deferment Act; in 46, the Logging Tax Act; and then further, in 52, the Motor Fuel Tax Act. I just want to incorporate, maybe, a whole bunch of those together. I could have even done this a little earlier, possibly.

[2:35 p.m.]

As we’re talking about in all of those acts, again, it’s about gathering the information or using the information for fiscal policy formulation. Is it fair to say, then, for almost all these areas, for this situation, that, again, the privacy impact assessment was done on all of these? Again, it’s back to the same situation that I asked earlier. Maybe I’ll ask it again for the remainder of all the ones in the bills. If there was a change that was being made without that impact assessment, maybe the minister can let us know.

Hon. S. Robinson: Privacy impact assessments were done for all of these, and no concerns were raised.

Clauses 45 to 51 inclusive approved.

On clause 52.

M. Bernier: We’re looking at section 52. It’s the Motor Fuel Tax Act. As we’re going into the summer months here, I’m just kind of curious. With the information that’s being used and gathered for formulating policy we talked about, is there any opportunity, then, for the government to use the data to deliver some relief at the pumps this summer to help people as we see these skyrocketing gas prices?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question, given that we saw such a dip back in, I believe it was pro­bably March, April last year. Gas, certainly in my community, was well below $1, but no one was driving anywhere. No one was going anywhere. Although I do know that everyone filled up, because they knew that that was not likely to last for very long.

Of course, life has gone back to somewhat normal, as have gas prices. This amendment really is just about making sure that we can understand how these different taxes impact each other so that we can make the best decisions possible on behalf of British Columbians.

Clauses 52 to 61 inclusive approved.

On clause 62.

M. Bernier: If it helps at all, we’re getting closer to the end of the bill. In clause 62, I’m just looking for a little bit of information here. Clause 62 talks about, I guess, the “grey market” area around export cars that was detailed in the German report.

[2:40 p.m.]

It’s now looking at requiring forms for resale, registration. I think I can understand the intent for this. Maybe the minister, though, can provide a little bit of an overview of how those forms will be processed, examined and enforced. How is that going to be dealt with internally?

Hon. S. Robinson: Purchasers can use a PST number if they already have it. There is an exemption form that al­ready exists that is available as well.

Clause 62 approved.

On clause 63.

M. Bernier: I’m sure the minister was anticipating some questions here under clause 63. Government brought in, obviously, an extra tax, a new tax, that they announced for carbonated soda drinks. Can the minister explain why, if I’m reading this correctly under section 63, they are now adding bottled water into the additional tax that will be added for carbonated sugary drinks. Why is water added now?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, the people talking in my ear have lots of information, so it’s great to hear from them.

This is not a change. This is just addressing an ambiguity to make sure that there’s no ambiguity about interpreting that there is no additional tax on water.

M. Bernier: Maybe I’m not quite understanding what the minister means there. Maybe she can explain to me then, because section 63 specifically says: “Removes water that is dispensed by a vending machine,” and all that, from products “that are exempt from the tax.”

Maybe it’s just my wording. Does that mean that…? Is the minister saying that I’m reading this incorrectly, that water is not being taxed — bottled water that would be in a vending machine, water through a soda fountain or soda gun? Does that mean that that water is not quantified in some way and taxed? Because unless I’m misunderstanding the wording here, it makes it seem that water is no longer exempt from the tax.

Hon. S. Robinson: This is really administrative. What we’ve learned is that if there are sweetened beverages in a vending machine and then there is one compartment that is for water, the vending machine can’t distinguish. It’s a programming issue.

[2:45 p.m.]

That’s been one of the challenges. So it’s just about making sure there is clarity about how to address that. As part of…. All beverages dispensed from vending machines or similar equipment are taxed unless the vending machine or equipment does not dispense soda beverages. Similarly, all beverages dispensed by a soda fountain, soda gun or similar equipment are subject to PST.

M. Bernier: Through that answer, it’s not quite what the minister said the first time, if I understand then.

So bottled water does get taxed if you are buying it through a vending machine. The minister said water wasn’t, but it sounds like if you’re buying it through a machine where there are already carbonated drinks that are being taxed, because the machine is not set up to tell the difference…. That means if you buy a bottle of water now at a vending machine at the airport, at the SkyTrain station, you’ll be paying additional taxes now on that bottle of water.

What about…? Under that same section, in the wording in section 63, it talks about not only vending machines. It talks about soda fountains and soda guns. I mean, many people go to restaurants and ask for water, and they dispense the water out of a soda gun. How do we differentiate them? For the minister, how does she explain that sometimes there is tax applied, sometimes there is not, when the wording says, in the act, that those would be taxed?

Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to remind the member that these changes came in last budget, and this is just looking to clarify that.

Under those special equipment rules, water can be taxable in some circumstances, when a bottle of water is purchased from a vending machine that also sells carbonated sweetened beverages. This, again, is intended to simplify recordkeeping for businesses — it really would be very complex to try to sort out those elements — and reduces the likelihood of disagreements, of course, in PST audits. The same applies if it’s a soda gun or soda fountain and someone asks for water. Most operators, most restaurateurs, do not charge for water.

Again, this is really just to clarify the time when it might be operationally very difficult to separate it out. That’s all we’re trying to do here — just to clarify where it could happen in those places where there is a machine that has 15 different sweetened carbonated drinks and one little thing for water. Being able to program these machines to be able to differentiate is next to impossible, and recordkeeping is very, very difficult for the owners.

M. Bernier: I’m not trying to water down this issue at all with the minister.

Does that mean, if I went to a vending machine that sold just water…? That’s what we’re trying to do here. The whole point of this government bringing in this additional carbonated sugary tax was to incentivize people to drink things like water, to not drink carbonated and sugary drinks. So if I went to a vending machine that sold just water products, I’m not subject to the tax, but if I go to a vending machine that sells a combination, I am. Is that what the minister is saying?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, that is absolutely correct.

M. Bernier: I just want to acknowledge that the minister just drank some water that was dispensed from a bottle of water, so I’m not sure if that was taxed before she drank it, but just wanted to throw that in there as a bit of a jab at the minister.

I think it’s important to highlight this, because I don’t remember, at any time when we were debating and discussing this additional tax last year, that it was also going to mean bottled water would be taxed. I understand the minister is adding that in now as a clarification, probably because they found out, through the course of the last year — through administration of remittance of taxes through different companies or corporations that deal with, let’s say, vending machines, fountain machines — that it was hard for them. I assume that means that they have asked for it?

Obviously, at the end of the day, we’re trying to incentivize, through this tax the government has put in, to not drink those products. Did the minister or government not look at any other way around this issue, rather than just adding another tax to water that wasn’t really announced in the initial part of this program?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, this was canvassed as part of Budget 2020. This was listed as part of that budget. I guess it was clear, but not as clear here, where we are adding, “unless it is a beverage described in paragraph (a),” which points to some very specific things. So it’s really about adding a fine point on a budget bill that was already adopted.

Clauses 63 to 69 inclusive approved.

On clause 70.

M. Bernier: In clause 70, we’re talking about the B.C. training and education savings grant. Looking through this, can the minister explain why it appears…? Why is the minister ceasing these payments? What is the change? Why are we stopping this?

Hon. S. Robinson: After operating the program since 2014, it’s become apparent that the annual transfers have resulted in an overallocation of funds to the special ac­count. It’s because the uptick for the program has been below 50 percent, while the current formula, as originally set in section 9.4 (2), allocates $1,000 for every child born or adopted here in British Columbia.

There is a current balance of over $500 million in the account, and the amount can support eligible B.C. recipients for an additional ten years before any additional contribution to the account is required. This amendment will ensure that the balance of the special account better re­flects the cost of the program. Program eligibility and payments to qualified recipients are not impacted by this proposed amendment.

M. Bernier: Taking the minister’s answer there, just for clarification, that means that there are no plans, then, under this government or this minister, of cancelling the grant?

[2:55 p.m.]

It sounds like there is enough in the piggy bank to continue it for a while. Is that what the minister is saying? There are no plans of changing it?

Hon. S. Robinson: Exactly.

Clause 70 approved.

On clause 71.

M. Bernier: I think this will be my last question. I just want to flag that for the Chair, if that helps for him to move through the remaining sections quicker.

Under section 71, we’re talking about the speculation tax. We specifically, as we go forward in here, talk about some of the charities being exempt now. I’m just kind of curious, if the minister can run through a timeline quickly for me, on the speculation tax being applied in the past to charities. Is it just now that they’re being exempted? And if that is the case, are there any retroactive applications allowed for charities who may have paid the speculation tax — that they can apply to get that money back to help these charities?

Hon. S. Robinson: I believe the member is referring to clause 73 in his comments. I just want to make sure that if anyone is watching at home — this riveting exercise — they know where we’re at.

Subsection 20(a) already provides an exemption when a registered charity is on legal title for a residential property. This amendment ensures that a registered charity is also exempt when it is not on legal title and instead holds property through a trust. Often registered charities are required by law to hold property through a trust, so we wanted to make sure that they were captured here.

Clauses 71 to 85 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank my staff, who have been incredibly diligent and speaking in my ear. I want to thank the member for Peace River South for his thoughtful questions.

I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:58 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:00 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 4 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2021

Bill 4, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2021, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Robinson: We call second reading, Bill 7.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

B. Bailey: I’ll continue from where I left off yesterday, essentially focusing on the very important democratic principle that everyone’s vote should be reasonably equal in weight in choosing elected officials.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I want to speak a little bit about independence. The Electoral Boundaries Commission is an independent, non-partisan commission. These changes actually restore that independence. Under the EBCA, a commission must be in place within a year of the last general election, as we’ve mentioned. It’s important that the commission have certainty as to its mandate before they’re appointed, and that’s why the government is introducing amendments to this act.

Every province and territory has similar legislation that provides guidance for commissions to recommend electoral districts. These changes will remove restrictions in the commission’s independent decision-making and enhance the commission’s ability to exercise independent judgment in recommending electoral district boundaries that best provide effective representation for all British Columbians. B.C.’s act has been in place since 1989 and has been amended several times in the past to support the commission’s work.

[3:05 p.m.]

I want to speak a little bit about timing. Under the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, a commission must be convened within one year of the last general election — October 24, 2021. The commission will present an initial report to the Legislature within 12 months of being appointed and then have six months to hear from the public and consider any further input before a final report is presented before the Legislature.

The Legislative Assembly will then review the commission’s proposals and determine whether to implement the recommended electoral boundaries, the amendments to the Electoral Districts Act. These changes would need to be in place before the 2024 scheduled general election.

In regards to choosing the membership, the act requires that the commission be made up of three people: B.C.’s Chief Electoral Officer, a judge or retired judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal nominated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and another person nominated by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in consultation with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition.

In regards to cost, the previous commission’s work took around 16 months to complete for a total cost of just over $1.5 million. We expect the cost of the upcoming commission to be similar. The cost includes salaries for one or two of the commissioners, administrative and communication support — for example, the website — and travel and public hearings if public health rules allow for it.

Previously, Elections B.C. provided administrative support to the commission, and we understand that they are willing to play the same role for the upcoming commission as well.

I want to reiterate this is not an attack on rural B.C. — absolutely not. This is about ensuring effective representation for people and the core democratic principle that everyone’s vote should be reasonably equal in strength. Most other provinces do not have the kinds of regions that these previous restrictions did. The 2014 changes made B.C. an outlier, in fact.

There is one part of the current legislation which 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. The proposed amendments further 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 manageable geographic size for electoral districts.

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 supporting effective representation in northern and Interior electoral districts.

B.C.’s legislation will arguably be one of the more flexible legislative frameworks across Canada with respect to allowing for the possibility of lower-than-average electoral district populations. As an example, Alberta’s legislation allows for up to four electoral districts to be outside of their plus-minus-25 deviation range, and those four districts can be no more than 50 percent below the average district population. B.C.’s proposed legislation does not set any such cap to ensure that the commission has the tools they need to support representation in less populated regions.

While we don’t know yet what the Electoral Boundaries Commission will recommend, allowing for up to six new districts means that the commission has the authority to adjust electoral districts to better reflect B.C.’s growing population while still maintaining effective representation for British Columbians in less populated regions. But there’s nothing saying that six seats will be added.

Commissioners have had the discretion to propose additional electoral districts since 1996 yet have not always recommended establishing the maximum number permitted by the act. Both the Wood commission in 1998-99 and the Cohen commission in 2005-2008 had the option of adding six extra seats but recommended four. However, the Legislature at the time chose the Cohen commission’s alternative suggestion of six additional seats because it maintained the existing number of electoral districts in the north and Interior with no loss in rural representation.

As the population grows, it becomes more difficult for elected officials to respond effectively to the diverse needs of their constituents. The current legislative framework has solidified a significant differential between the least and the most populated electoral districts. Some MLAs represent in the realm of 20,000 to 30,000 people, while others have populations of 70,000 people.

[3:10 p.m.]

At the time the last commission completed its work in 2015, none of the boundaries were more than 20 percent above the provincial average, and ten were more than 25 percent below the provincial average. Two of those were 50 percent below. It’s clear from population estimates that most of B.C.’s population growth has been concentrated in the Okanagan, the Lower Mainland and the south Island. Continued growth in these areas means that it is likely that the next commission will find that some electoral districts are more than 25 percent over the average electoral district population.

What are the implications for Indigenous communities? Well, we don’t know yet what the independent Electoral Boundaries Commission will, in fact, recommend, but that’s one of the reasons we’re proposing an amendment that specifies that the commission may take into account special considerations respecting demographic factors, which could include Indigenous representation.

Currently, though, 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. That’s also why we’re proposing to give the commission the option of adding more electoral districts. We’re giving them the ability to support population growth in urban areas while supporting effective representation in northern and Interior electoral districts.

In conclusion, I just want to say again that everyone’s vote should be reasonably equal in weight in choosing elected officials.

G. Kyllo: I’m immensely proud and honoured to be able to rise in the House today and speak to Bill 7, the boundary review of our provincial ridings. I’ll just take a few minutes to talk a little bit about my home riding of Shuswap. The Shuswap riding is about 8,400 kilometres in size. It has approximately 56,000 constituents, which is right about the mean average if you take the population of the province and divide it by the 87 ridings. So I would say that the population of Shuswap represents the average size, population-wise, of ridings across British Columbia.

I think what’s important as we speak to the boundary review that’s being undertaken today is to give consideration to the differences. B.C. is a very vast geographic area. Many different types of terrain. We have a significant amount of different diversity. There is need to give consideration to minority representations — obviously a significant number of First Nations communities; 204 different First Nations bands in the province — as well as just, I think, giving a bit of consideration to where we have come from.

The term “riding.” When I was first elected back in 2013, I certainly understood what a riding was, as far as the fact that B.C., at the time, had 85. We now have 87 ridings. Where did the term even come from? I did a quick search on the Internet. The term riding comes back from some of our heritage with the British parliamentary system. Even back when the term riding was first utilized in the U.K., it took into consideration not just the number of constituents that a representative or a member would actually be able to service but also their ability to be of service to a specific set of constituents.

It took into consideration how far a member could actually travel on horseback over a certain number of days, and that was determined by the size of the riding. How far could you actually be of service to your constituents? Although population was one of the considerations, I think it is very important to have a look at our historical traditions and that the fact that the term riding also took into consideration the ability to provide effective representation to constituents.

Now, as I mentioned, the Shuswap riding is 8,400 square kilometres. Some ridings in this province are close to 100,000 square kilometres, so a vast area. Some of the ridings of this province will take upwards of eight hours of driving time just to get from one end of your riding to the other.

[3:15 p.m.]

As we have a look at the great variety of the size and con­figuration of different ridings in the province, I think it’s really important to have a look at, really, what representation is. The ability of constituents to have access to a representative also must take into consideration the actual geographic location and the geographic size of some of these ridings.

As I mentioned, Shuswap is only 8,400. I can travel from the north end of my riding to the south end. It’s about a five-hour drive from Seymour Arm to Mabel Lake. If I’m going east to west, from the community of Revelstoke all the way down to the west side of Okanagan Lake to Parker Cove, it’s about a four-hour drive. So a pretty significant area to try and represent.

There are five different municipalities within the Shu­swap riding. We have Sicamous and Enderby, Armstrong, Spallumcheen and Salmon Arm. There are two regional districts, both the Columbia-Shuswap regional district and a portion of the regional district of the North Okanagan. So as we have a look at the number of relationships that rural ridings quite often are incumbent to actually foster with the different municipalities: five mayors, two regional district chairs, 30 councillors, about another 14 regional district representatives.

We also have in Shuswap four First Nations communities, including the Splatsin First Nation in Enderby, Okan­agan Indian Band, Neskonlith and Little Shuswap Lake Indian Band. So there are a considerable number of other locally elected governments that do work directly with the constituency office in Shuswap, my office, in providing that access to representation on any provincial matters.

If we compare the size of Shuswap riding to some of our northern ridings, Peace River North or Peace River South — these are vast areas. As some of the members opposite have indicated, they have a smaller population, but they have a vast geographic area for which they have to provide service. And in many of these rural areas, they are not afforded the equity with respect to access of services as we might find in some of our metro ridings — things that I believe are probably taken for granted if you’re living Victoria, capital regional district, or in Vancouver, like transit.

Many ridings around the province are not serviced by transit. They have limited access to cellular service. They have limited access, if any access, to broadband. Many rural communities — and there are number of communities even within my riding of Shuswap — are not serviced by fire protection. And they are unable — can you believe this? — to even access fire insurance.

In addition to that, there are some communities in the Shuswap riding and, I know, other rural parts of the pro­vince that are not even covered under building codes. So if an individual is looking at purchasing a house in a rural area, there may not have even been a requirement for that house to have followed any particular building code standards when that home was constructed. In many rural parts of the province, the only requirements are for an electrical permit and for a health permit. That would be to cover the installation of water wells or septic systems.

But for the vast majority of the province, there are great differences. One of my colleagues was mentioning to me earlier today…. My colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie was doing some quick math and having a look at the geographic area of the province and where our main population centres are located. He shared with me that 60 percent of the population of British Columbia is located within 0.5 percent of the geographic area. Just think about that. Half a percent of the geographic area holds 60 percent of the population.

Now, the member that just spoke before me, the member for Vancouver–False Creek…. That riding was previously held by a friend and colleague of mine, Sam Sullivan. Sam Sullivan was sharing with me how Vancouver–False Creek is one of the most densely populated ridings within the province of B.C. Sam shared with me that his riding was approximately six city blocks. Sam uses an electric wheelchair, and he said that he could actually ride around the full perimeter of his riding in his wheelchair in about 2½ hours.

[3:20 p.m.]

When you have a look at the concentration of population and the concentration of services…. When you’re in a metro riding, there’s very limited need or necessity for Vancouver mayor and council to reach out to your locally elected representative. A city the size of Vancouver has direct access to the provincial government, so there is less of a need to actually reach out and acquire the services and the support and the advocacy of your local MLA. I believe that Vancouver has upwards of ten MLAs that provide representation for that geographic area.

So as we look to the work that needs to be undertaken by the electoral boundaries review committee and commission as they start to undertake their work, I think it is incredibly important that they look not just to the population but also to the geographic area and then also give consideration to the complexity of issues that are borne by different ridings around the province.

The colleague for Cariboo North, in her opening re­marks, shared some of the significant challenges. The particular riding of Cariboo North has a reduced population. I don’t have the exact numbers, but I believe it’s significantly below the provincial average. But the complexity of issues that a rural MLA has to be confronted with are significant.

If we compare, again, how the rural ridings compare differently to a metro riding like Vancouver–False Creek, there are a significant number of issues that rural MLAs are forced, or actually incumbent and have the opportunity, to address — things like snow removal. In Vancouver–False Creek and the city of Vancouver, snow removal is all looked after by the city of Vancouver. There’s no provincial involvement and no requirement to deal with some of the complexity of issues that Cariboo North has dealt with, whether it’s fires or floods or even subdivision approvals. Many folks that I have spoken to from metro areas — largely, more densely populated areas — don’t understand the differences.

In rural British Columbia, even in Shuswap or Cariboo North, as an example, as soon as you get outside of a municipal region and out into the regional districts, things like road maintenance and snow removal are all a function of the Ministry of Transportation, which is a provincial responsibility. So if you’re living in rural B.C. and you have a challenge, or you’re maybe a little bit unhappy with the quality of the services being provided with snow removal or grading on many of the gravel roads, you will be reaching out to your local MLA to make those inquiries. The rural MLA then has the responsibility of working in conjunction with the constituent and the Ministry of Transportation to try and provide resolution.

Those concerns and those issues do not exist in metro British Columbia. Metro MLAs are not faced with those same concerns.

When we look to subdivision approvals, again, within Metro Vancouver, if there’s a new development, if there’s a new subdivision going in, all of those issues are dealt with by a municipal government. But as you move out into rural parts of the province….

Even within the two regional districts that reside in part within the Shuswap riding, if you’re looking to do even a simple subdivision, even a simple two-lot subdivision, it is the Ministry of Transportation that actually has the final responsibility for subdivision approvals. And if there are challenges or delays or questions, and if a constituent is unable to have those concerns addressed, they will reach out to the local MLA’s office to seek out assistance and advocacy to try and assist with the actual subdivision approval process. I actually have two particular subdivision approval processes in rural parts of the Shuswap riding that I’m trying to provide assistance to currently.

Again, I certainly welcome the opportunity to always provide support to constituents, but it is very different. An MLA that provides representation in a metro riding is not faced with any of those complexities of issues. So I think it’s really important, as we look at the opportunity to better inform the commission as they start to undertake their work, to have a look at some of these considerations.

[3:25 p.m.]

As I’ve set out, it’s not just population. It’s the geographic diversity. It is about equity — the ability of a constituent to have ready access to their representative. Again, in Vancouver, that could be a couple blocks, or maybe 20 minutes on the SkyTrain. If you’re in Fort Nelson and you’re looking to go and have a meeting directly with your representative for Peace River North, that’s about a 3½-hour drive at minimum.

Now, in today’s day and age, with improvements in technology, people will automatically say: “Well, you just pick up the phone, or you can do a Zoom call.” Many areas of rural B.C. still have no cellular coverage and limited, if any, access to broadband services. They are not serviced by any form of public transit.

We know what has happened with Greyhound services, as they pulled out of British Columbia. Government had an opportunity to encourage and provide some financial assistance so that we would still be serviced by Greyhound, but that opportunity was lost. We now have a hodgepodge of different transportation companies providing some limited service around British Columbia.

But if you’re living up in Pink Mountain in northern B.C. and you want to try and get down to see your representative in Fort St. John, that is extremely challenging. There is no service. There is no transit service. Best you could do, if you don’t have your own automobile, is maybe thumb a ride or get a ride from a neighbour. So there are many, many differences that the geography of this province actually creates.

As we look at effective representation, I think we have to also have a look at equity and fairness. I’ll just come back to, again, some of the different complexities of issues that vary between different parts of the province.

Health care access. We could talk about what is fair. Where is the fairness in having ready access to health care services? Your ability to have access to health care services in northern B.C. or remote areas of the province is very different than it is if you actually live in a 604 area code somewhere close to the Lower Mainland or here in the Victoria capital regional district.

There are many inequities across the province. The fact that a representative of a rural area may be representing a reduced number of constituents does not take away from the workload or the complexity of the issues or the access to representation that that constituent is entitled to.

I referenced fire protection, building codes. We also have to look at the maintenance of bridges, especially in rural B.C. Cariboo North has had a considerable…. The challenges that have sprung initially from the wildfires now is increasing the amount of flooding in the area. The number of rural roads — there are constituents that literally cannot get to and from different locations within their riding.

Significant detours. I believe I recall the member for Cariboo North indicating that there was one road washout which required children on a school bus to be detoured an hour and a half out of their way. Just think about that for a second. A road has been washed out. The Minister of Transportation has failed, I believe, to rebuild or resurface that road in a timely manner and put it back into operation. Families’ children are having to spend three hours a day on a school bus just to get to and from school. That, again, represents an inequity.

Now, those that are listening from home may say: “Well, people have choice. You may choose to live in a metro area. If you move out to the hinterland of B.C., well, that’s just something that is understood, and you should just accept that.” Might be a valid argument. But I think those residents who are living in rural B.C. are also providing very important services that are of benefit to the rest of British Columbia, whether it’s natural gas, hydroelectricity….

You know, there really seems to be a bit of a lack of understanding about the resource development in our province. I certainly don’t want to disparage any of our metro folks. I’ve got many friends that live in metro areas. But I think it’s just assumed, if you live in metro area that, yeah, there’s access to transit.

[3:30 p.m.]

There’s good Wi-Fi and good cellular coverage. Beef comes from a package in the grocery store. Natural gas just magically appears out of a pipe in the ground and plumbs into my house to heat my home. Electricity just wings in from overhead, and everything is good.

If you have a look at the impact on the land base and those residents of British Columbia that work important, very hard, diligent family-supporting jobs to provide those benefits that the rest of us enjoy…. There also needs to be, I think, better consideration for what they provide.

Again, back to the comment that was shared with me by my colleague from Prince George–Valemount, 60 percent of the population resides in an area that represents only half a percent of the geographic area of British Columbia.

My colleague from Penticton was sharing with me…. He was doing a bit of research. He said that from the B.C. border, it is further to get to the Yukon border than it is to get to the border of Mexico. I believe the member mentioned that it’s around 1,480 kilometres to get from the south end of the province of B.C. to the B.C.-Yukon border, and it’s only around 1,420 kilometres to get from the B.C. border to Tijuana, Mexico.

There are considerable geographic differences and challenges, and the complexity of issues which rural MLAs are required to actually be aware of in order to represent their constituents…. As the commission goes to undertake their work, I certainly believe that there is a responsibility and a necessity to give consideration…. Representation is not just a representative for 50,000 constituents. The complexity of the issues and the number and quantity of issues that a representative must undertake in order to provide beneficial service to those constituents are also absolutely paramount.

The member for Abbotsford West, a very wise colleague of mine who has had probably more experience in this House than any other at the present time, spoke about the need to ensure that existing constituents in some of these rurally located ridings do not see their access to representation further diminished or further reduced.

A riding may be 600 kilometres from one side to the other. If the population of that riding is below a threshold, well, the only way in order to increase the population of that riding is to increase the size. By increasing the size, you’re, thereby, reducing or putting in an additional impediment for those existing constituents to have ready access to their duly elected representative.

I’m certainly concerned about the manner in which the commission is being informed through this legislation. I certainly believe that the rural MLAs, although they may represent fewer constituents than some of the Metro ridings, work doubly hard. They have a significantly higher complexity of issues. There are more elected representatives that they are being leaned on for representation, whether it be local government, regional districts, First Nation communities.

It’s interesting, also, when we give consideration to this particular piece of legislation…. Government took significant effort to undertake and to have approval in this House, by all members, of the UNDRIP legislation, which requires consultation. Yet in drafting this legislation that’s before us today, it’s my understanding that that consultation has not been undertaken.

[3:35 p.m.]

I certainly believe the 204 First Nations in this province would be very interested to find out and learn, as this legislation comes to light and the commission undertakes its work, that the manner in which this legislation has been brought forward to direct the commission puts in place parameters which will likely and largely mean that their access to representation will be diminished. The hours of travel — the distance by which First Nations communities will have to travel in order to meet with their locally elected representative — will only increase and, by increasing, will actually diminish their opportunity to have that ready access to duly elected representatives.

We have a government that says one thing and does something quite different. There are two different bills that I had the opportunity of making inquiries on in this House in recent weeks. I have to admit that I was equally disappointed by the lack of effort and undertaking, or even the slightest initiative, by government to try and actually bring to light and to improve the communication and consultation with First Nations. I think that in itself, that piece alone, the fact that this government is continuing to bring forward legislation without the smallest degree of respect or consultation with First Nations, is troubling enough.

Government has a majority. They will hammer this bill through, like they have with every other piece of legislation they have brought forward, as ill thought, as ill timed and with the errors that exist within.

I just can’t say enough about how proud I am to represent the hard-working men and women of the Shuswap riding. I certainly look forward to hearing my colleagues with some further commentary with respect to Bill 7.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’ve been interested in this legislation, interested in learning more about where my colleagues stand. I’ve got to say it’s….

Listening to the last member, he seemed to suggest be­ing an urban MLA was easy. He claimed that rural MLAs have to work doubly harder than urban MLAs. A little insulting and not true. I will never denigrate the work of my hard-working colleagues who represent rural ridings across B.C. They work very hard. But I will not denigrate the work of MLAs who represent urban ridings or suburban ridings. They work very hard too. The issues are sometimes different. They’re sometimes the same. But they are complex.

A speaker yesterday was complaining about ten-hour days. Well, many MLAs all across this province are used to ten-hour days. We do that because…. We put in the time for our constituents who elected us. We ran for this work because we wanted to accomplish things. That takes hard work. That takes complex conversations. That takes challenging debate.

When I first ran to be an MLA in 2008, the constituency that I ran for, Vancouver-Burrard, was 59,000 eligi­ble voters. I think, actually…. No, let me check that. So 59,815 eligible voters, I believe, according to Elections B.C., at the time.

We know that there are MLAs who represent 14,000 eligible voters and 15,000 eligible voters. MLAs who represent those communities make very strong cases for how challenging it is to get out to see those people. I don’t doubt it. I’m not arguing against that issue. I just don’t think it’s right for MLAs on the opposition side to claim that only rural B.C. matters. Urban B.C. matters too. So does the strength of the urban B.C. voter matter too.

I said I represented 59,815 people at the time. Well, when you dial that back, if folks are representing 14,000, that means that the MLA that represents that community could arguably have four times the voting power that I do. So my constituent’s vote is worth one-quarter of the vote of the MLA that represents many fewer people but in a much bigger constituency.

[3:40 p.m.]

That’s the challenge that Electoral Boundaries Commissions face. They want to balance the need to allow effective representation with the need to represent folks as close to equal as you can. Now that’s hard. I don’t think you’re ever going to get a perfect situation where it’s just one member, one vote per community.

Of course, with the geographical challenges people face and with the communities of interest, with diversity, and so on, you want to make sure that you give a commission the ability to think of those issues. I think this bill meets that test by giving the opportunity to add some seats. I know very few people want more politicians. But this allows us to make sure that we don’t get to such a distorted place where you can have four times the voting power as somebody in an urban community does, because of course, that’s not fair either.

I get it — that it’s challenging to travel very, very long to reach people and to give them the chance to have their say. But it’s also very hard to represent twice the number of people or three times the number of people as another MLA, because those people have demands. Those people have wants. Those people have dreams.

In my case, in the community of Vancouver–West End, my office is right there on the main street. So access to my office isn’t a challenge. The challenge is just the sheer number of people wanting meetings, phone calls, requests, demands — about any number of issues. There are quite a wide variety.

I think it is important we acknowledge that when you represent three times or two times the number of people as somebody else, that also has an impact. It’s not often talked about, but it’s important, because those people deserve just as much representation as a community somewhere else. They deserve just the same ability to have their votes count, their voices heard.

But you know, if it’s just phone calls…. In a Zoom world or a phone call world, when you have two times or three times the number of people wanting to talk to the MLA, that’s a challenge of representation as well, because there are only so many hours in the day. I think commissions are going to balance those out, as they have for many, many years, to try and find that happy medium [audio interrupted].

The issues in my community are complex. We have challenges of rental housing on top of homelessness, mental health, addictions and then the impact on residents around those scenarios, around those situations. I understand that the speaker before me seemed to suggest that no, there was no need to talk to the mayor or council about issues, as he has to. But that is just dead wrong. I talk to councillors, the mayor, the park board, the school board all the time to represent my community of Vancouver–West End.

I know it’s easy to try and pit rural B.C. against urban B.C. The opposition, in this case, seems to think that’s an effective political strategy. But I don’t think that brings us together. I don’t think that’s, in fact, what the facts would suggest. I think we have to work together and listen to each other. That’s why I will never denigrate the hard work of MLAs that represent communities like the Cariboo, the north coast, the far north, the Peace River country or the work of MLAs that represent places like Vancouver–False Creek, like Quilchena, like Surrey South, Surrey–White Rock and other urban communities as well. They do work incredibly hard.

Maybe it was just poor phrasing from my colleague before to suggest that only rural MLAs work doubly hard. But he was wrong then, and I would hope he would reflect on that, because urban and rural MLAs work very hard to ensure that they can speak on behalf of their constituents — that they can represent their interests, that they can advocate for them and that they can get change on their behalf. That’s a very important thing.

This bill ensures that the Electoral Boundaries Commission can make sure that the challenges of representing large, rural areas are taken into account. But it also ensures that communities like Vancouver–West End and our needs are taken into account too so that you don’t have such outsized voting power for a small number of people and such reduced voting power for a large number of people. You don’t want a situation where it’s the tyranny of the minority, but you don’t want a situation, of course, where only the majority in large urban centres can ever be heard as well.

[3:45 p.m.]

That’s why the commission is set out in such a way to ensure that representation can continue in the way it has, in giving the sense that those communities matter just as much as communities like mine, even if the voting power might not be quite the same. It’s now, I think, 44,000 eligible voters that I represent, compared to some constituencies of about 15,000, which, you know — three times the voting power in a small population community and large geographic community compared to my constituency.

But certainly, constituents can understand that the challenge of representing those communities is difficult. We wouldn’t denigrate that, nor should MLAs in rural B.C. denigrate those of us who represent urban B.C. and the hard work that we do on behalf of our constituents.

So I will vote in favour of this. I do support the legislation, because I think it meets the right balance between the needs of representing communities of interest, the needs of representing rural and urban constituencies and the needs, really, of the people. That’s, in the end, who we do it for. We want to make sure that they have a chance to have their voices heard.

It’s an independent process, so it’s not the situation we see in some communities of gerrymandering, as the term is, of switching boundaries just to represent one party or another. It’s about representing the people of B.C.

I thank the Attorney General for moving this legislation, and I will be supporting it.

T. Halford: I thank the member before me. I thank the other members before me that spoke on this bill.

I believe that all politics is local. I’m from the riding of Surrey–White Rock. I have, obviously, two municipalities in my riding. Surrey is growing at a rapid race. I don’t think any of us in this House would deny that. I do realize, though, that when we talk about MLAs….

One of the privileges that we have being in this building, whether you work in this building or you’re elected into this office, is you do have the great chance to travel this province. You go in areas that many British Columbians never get to. I can list off the communities that I’ve been able to travel to while I was staffing ministers before. I understand that one of the great joys of being in this House, whether it’s in opposition or government or on different committees, is you get to travel to a lot of those communities.

A fair number of those communities are, as previous speakers have spoken, very remote. The member for Shuswap talked about eight hours of driving time in some ridings. I can do my riding in about five minutes from end to end. That is going the speed limit, except if you’re going down Marine Drive where it’s 30 kilometres an hour, so I would avoid that.

I do realize, though, that we have to acknowledge the fact that every MLA in this House deals with different sets of issues, based on their own constituencies. My constituency is predominantly seniors. My neighbouring constituency Surrey South has a fair number of seniors in the riding but also a lot of young families. Even though we’re neighbouring MLAs, the needs are much different. That is obviously the case across all 87 ridings. Every riding has its own unique challenges.

When I first got up in this House, I guess six months ago, or maybe four, I spoke on the throne speech, and I spoke about a story that was fairly near and dear to my heart. It was actually somewhat life-changing. I fear that this could get lost in this bill.

When I was in high school, I struggled quite a bit. I didn’t enjoy high school. I was having some issues, and my parents decided that it was time for me to go and see my MLA. Now, my MLA at the time — it was 1998 — was somebody I think this House is very familiar with: Gordie Hogg. Gordie Hogg kind of transcends partisan politics, I think. I’ve never heard anybody say anything disparaging about the former mayor, the former MP and the former MLA for Surrey–White Rock.

[3:50 p.m.]

But I went in there, and I sat with my MLA for an hour. One of the great things about Gordie is that Gordie had a lot of experience dealing with youth in his previous career. He’s obviously still a big advocate for youth and his work in KidSport.

The conversation that I had with Gord at the time and the amount of, I guess, self-esteem that he inserted into me and the follow-up that he did to ensure that I was going on a better path is something that him and I talk about to this day, quite often. It is something of a gratitude to him that I will never forget.

Growing up, I always knew who my MLA was. I was fortunate enough to have Gord there for a number of years, followed by Tracy Redies. I will never, ever forget the importance of that relationship, of that conversation, and what it meant to me, what it meant to my family and, ultimately, how it guided me in my life.

I will say that I’ve been here for a number of months, and I still think that I’m obviously relatively new. It’s a very humbling experience to come in here every day and to speak in this House. A lot of times I catch myself realizing what a great privilege this is.

I hope that I have that same opportunity to one day have a conversation with a kid like myself in my constituency office. I am sure that members on both sides have had that conversation.

I worry that when we are looking at ridings the way we are in rural B.C…. We’ve got to make sure that we’re not missing any of those conversations. We need to make sure that we are accessible. We need to make sure that people know who their MLA is and that they can access their MLA.

We already have, when we look at some of these ridings — we talked about the eight hours of drive time — MLAs that span multiple municipalities. One of the things I’ve learned, being a new MLA, is how important it is to foster those relationships with those municipalities. I’ve got two. I spend a fair amount of time trying to work and improve those relationships every day, because they are vitally important.

I understand that it doesn’t matter whether you’re an urban MLA, a rural MLA or a suburban MLA. You still have to foster those relationships with municipalities, regional districts. I fear that changes to this legislation could greatly impact that. I fear that those relationships are really at the value of what we do in this House; what mayors and councillors do. I fear that…. We need to keep in mind that effective representation is crucial to what we do in this House.

A lot of MLAs have to have two constituency offices, because if they have a meeting at one end of their riding, they’re not able to make it home in time. That is something that we have to reflect on in this House.

I have the luxury of leaving here when the bells ring and being able to sleep in my bed by ten o’clock. A lot of MLAs do, but a lot of MLAs don’t. I think that’s a massive sacrifice, on both sides of the House, that we need to thank those MLAs for and we need to thank their families for. There are a lot of MLAs…. When we’re going from week to week, they’re at home for 12, 14 hours.

None of that’s a surprise. They know what they signed up for, but it is a sacrifice. It is, I think, one that we need to reflect on and always give thanks to those MLAs. Those MLAs are on both sides of this House.

I really do recognize the growing needs of urban B.C. — I see it — but I also recognize the challenges with our rural communities. I listened to the entire speech from my colleague and friend from Cariboo North. This has not been an easy past few weeks for that member, for obvious reasons, given the challenges that she’s faced in her community, the devastation that she’s seen from the transportation sector.

[3:55 p.m.]

I do not experience forest fires — I hope I don’t — in my riding, or floods or avalanches. When we look at some of the challenges we’ve seen from forest fires, from other natural disasters, and we look at how important it is to have that support from that local MLA…. But for those regional emergency services, knowing they can depend on and have access to their MLA, I think, is vitally important.

I will not be supporting this bill for the reasons that I’ve just stated, and I look forward to listening to the following speakers.

S. Chant: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the group on this rather important bill, in my opinion and the opinion of many, I think. Bill 7, the electoral boundaries act, is really looking at realigning the electoral act with what was the original intent of it.

As a democracy, we’ve always wanted to believe that each vote has equal weight, which isn’t quite true at this point in British Columbia, which makes us an anomaly in Canada, actually. There are no other provinces that have the distribution of ridings with the same parameters as we do.

In 2014, a certain government, who shall not be named, passed an amendment on the Electoral Boundaries Act that was already established and set it up so that some areas were protected, even though many less people lived, worked and played in those regions. The result of this was that a riding that perhaps had 20,000 voters in it could elect one representative MLA and a riding with 70,000 voters could elect — oh, wait for it — one representative MLA. Even my math doesn’t make that work.

It’s very difficult to explain to a voter that their vote doesn’t mean as much, should they happen to live in one part of British Columbia than another. The people of B.C. are not terribly comfortable with that, probably.

Bill 7 has, of course, the underlying premise of the commission being appointed to work on reviewing and, if necessary, revising electoral boundaries. This is to be done after every second general election in order to accommodate the changes in our ever-growing province. Our population grows, the distribution of the population evolves, and it is very important to be able to reflect those changes when it comes time to elect our leaders.

Additionally, the commission needs to have autonomy and do its work without constraints imposed based on old doctrine or old data. The commission is an impartial body of folks who are in trusted positions, trusted to be able to evaluate information, input situations and circumstances and come up with recommendations that make sense.

Who gets to be on this commission? Who gets this trust? The given member is B.C.’s Chief Electoral Officer. This is an individual who, with staff, oversees our elections and makes sure the rules are followed. It makes sense that this individual would have an intimate knowledge of the current state of ridings to bring to the table as well as be able to access current and historical information.

The next candidate for the commission would be someone nominated by our Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, who we’ll be seeing in the chambers this afternoon giving assent to bills that have been debated and passed. The pool that she chooses her candidate from is that of judges, current or retired, of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal.

The third person for this tribunal gets nominated by our hon. Speaker, who would work with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in order to find a candidate that can fulfil this most important role.

[4:00 p.m.]

This commission is a tribunal of people who believe in British Columbia, who know that it is important that we are well represented in our Legislature, who understand the work of the government, who understand the work of the MLAs and are able to look at things and say: “Okay, this is reasonable. This is fair.”

They’re not just going to do it in a vacuum. They will be doing it based on information and data and also on input from the people who it impacts, which is critical. We need to make sure that that is reflected and transparent to the people that are involved in any changes that end up happening.

Every MLA in this chamber knows that their own riding is unique, whether it’s the geography, the people, the ethnicity, the history, the agriculture, the economy, the hunting, the fishing, the shopping. There is a myriad of variables that create the character and profile of a riding. Coincidentally, every MLA is unique, sometimes in ways we don’t discuss.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

However, the common thread is that we want to represent our constituents effectively, fairly and appropriately. We want to be able to advocate, to understand the characteristics of our riding and be ready to speak to the amazing things, such as those that I hear every day in members’ statements.

Understandably, if you’re an MLA that represents a large population in a small geography, this can be extraordinarily challenging. If I talk about my friend Joanne the nurse, why aren’t I talking about all my other friends the nurses, who also do amazing jobs? If I talk about the folks that run one of our seniors support areas, why aren’t I talking about all of them? Daycare, schools — everything that brings our society together. If I talk about some of them, I should be able to talk about all of them fairly.

If I’ve got 70,000 people in my riding, it’s going to be pretty darn difficult. That’s just talking about the things that come to the surface. What about all those other things that go on, the things that need a little bit of heat and light to look at them and say: “Wait a minute. How do we solve this? How do we make this better?” If you’ve got a huge population, you’ll never do it, and you might not sleep.

Conversely, if you’ve got a small population and a huge geography, you’ve got similar problems or different problems. You’ve got all sorts of opportunities to test your knowledge, skills, history, relationships, map reading and other pertinent topics. You have as much of a challenge as the person does with the large population if you’ve got your large geography.

Somehow or other, this stuff all has to be balanced out. Somehow or other, we have to make a way to make it equal. We do have, already, an established process that says that after every second general election, our ridings and constituencies will be reviewed. Got that. Have it. It’s in place. It’s used. However, what we don’t have is the freedom of that commission at this point to do its job without constraint. That’s what we’re aiming for in Bill 7.

Another example is in my riding. We’re very lucky. On one side are beautiful coastal mountains, and on the other side is the Salish Sea. Related to my geography here is the access to marvellous trails for hiking, running, walking, bike riding and horseback riding. Our mountain-biking network is famous, world famous. The trail names are spectacular. We’ve got Oilcan, Ladies Only, Executioner, Upper and Lower Griffens and Forever After, just to name a few. Who knew that I, as an MLA, should be familiar with these in order to speak the same language as some of my constituents? Max, age nine, who lives in my riding, knows all of the trails and can map them out if asked.

We have Quarry Rock, Lynn Canyon Suspension Bridge, Seymour Demonstration Forest, Lynn Headwaters and other parks and natural attractions. The Tsleil-Waututh Nation, an intrinsic part of this riding, is engaged with so many of these things.

How do I represent those people? How do I do it properly? How do I do it effectively? An important piece is that I know what my boundaries are, I know who my riding is, and I have the ability to work within that knowledge.

[4:05 p.m.]

The other thing that comes as an interface with this nature? My voters are interested in the environment. They are interested in animals. Oh, wait a minute — they’re also interested in housing, traffic, the economy, health and surviving and getting beyond COVID. Are all these and other issues pertinent only to my riding? Heck no; of course not. However, these will always be considerations that are applicable to North Vancouver–Seymour and may or not be applicable to Penticton or Nechako Lakes or Vancouver-Fairview or Surrey-Fleetwood.

This bill allows the commission the freedom to take considerations under advisement in order to ensure that each of our voters has an equal opportunity to be represented fairly. Bill 7 also frees up the commission to do its assigned job and make recommendations that can support B.C. to remain a democratic province.

If new ridings are needed to reflect population changes, that possibility is there. If boundaries need to move in order to ensure sufficient people are well represented, the commission can make that recommendation. If we need more seats to represent the diversity in the population, that opportunity is there. I’m not quite sure where we’ll put those seats in the chamber. However, that is something else to be decided.

Bill 7 is a relook, like we have to do with so many of our things. It’s a way of bringing the legislation into current state. Bill 7 gives us that opportunity to update it and revise it, like we have to do with many other things because they need that current lens on them.

Excuse me for one second, Mr. Speaker. I’m just going to close my door. Sorry. Shortly there’s going to be a compressor going on in the background, and you guys don’t want to hear that.

B.C.’s population is expected to grow at a rate that can be estimated fairly accurately, and the diversity that’s already present can be counted on to expand as well. Bill 7 needs to be in place in order to allow the B.C. electoral commission and Electoral Boundaries Act to do and be as effective and appropriate as possible, given the future that we expect B.C. to move into.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Thank you for thinking of us with that compressor.

All right, recognizing the member for Nechako Lakes.

J. Rustad: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to be able to speak, I guess. I was going to say stand, but of course, I’m not standing. I’m sitting at home.

I’m pleased to be able to speak to this bill, Bill 7, and to continue to represent the good folks who live in Nechako Lakes. I’ve listened to some of the debate that I have been able to listen to from both sides. I listened to the member from the Green Party, the leader from the Green Party, and her comments. But I want to relate, in terms of Bill 7, a few stories from my riding, because I do believe there is a difference when you think about equitable representation.

I fully understand that when you’ve got a large riding, population-wise, it puts a lot of pressure on MLAs. I had the good fortune, when I was first elected, of representing the riding of Prince George–Omineca, which had a significant component of my current riding, but it also had a large chunk of Prince George. There certainly was a big difference between representing the people in Prince George and representing the people in the Omineca side.

When my riding changed in 2009 to what is now Nechako Lakes, a lot of those same issues that happened in Prince George that I had to deal with weren’t around. The types of issues, the types of things that you had to deal with changed dramatically. I understood that, because it’s more of urban issues and the complexities that happen with that versus the rural issues. So there are significant differences across the province.

[4:10 p.m.]

I understand that with the growth and population, you need to be able to make sure you can have that balance, in terms of representation, but I want to make the case to think about the rules for using very special circumstances.

Now, that opportunity to use those very special circumstances, those opportunities to go beyond the 25 percent variation exist in this change to the act and to Bill 7. But I’d like people, not just the MLAs here but also the Electoral Boundaries Commission, to think about what that means. What is a very special circumstance? What would be the rationale for saying that a riding can be outside of that 20 percent variation of the average population or the electoral quotient?

Obviously, distance travelled is one factor. Certainly, that needs to be thought about. The uniqueness of communities. The uniqueness of the population in some of those communities. The geographic challenges, like mountain ranges and these types of things. The vast area, obviously. That needs to be considered, as well as some very unique situations in terms of some of the very social factors that could come up in areas. So there are a number of things that could be looked at in terms of very special circumstances.

I started thinking about that. I started thinking about…. Okay. Nechako Lakes, which is, I think, about the third-largest riding, is about 72,000 square kilometres. It’s about 2.2 times the size of Vancouver Island. To put it in other terms, it’s the size of Belgium and the Netherlands put together. What makes that very special in terms of the circumstance of representation?

Well, you come up to Prince George, and you drive 2½ hours west of Prince George to get to Burns Lake, then you turn south for about 20 minutes, and then you take a ferry across Francois Lake to an area most people don’t even know about and most people have never even seen, too, which is Grassy Plains and Southbank and all through that area. That’s got about [audio interrupted] my riding. Without the ferry, it’s almost a three-hour drive to go around Francois Lake even to get into Burns Lake.

The reason why I talk about that as being unique is because that’s an area that doesn’t have cell coverage through most of it. It doesn’t have very good Internet coverage through most of it, yet there are a lot of people living in that area. So you would say it’s pretty unique compared to most areas that you could think of around the province.

My riding is almost 300 kilometres of Highway 16, probably just about 400 kilometres north-south. It takes significant effort. If you had an electric vehicle, for example, you couldn’t go from one side of my riding to the other and back in a day. You just couldn’t do it. There aren’t vehicles with the range. Certainly, when you’re thinking about winter conditions and having to have a heater on, you wouldn’t even have a chance to be able to do that sort of thing.

So the connectivity, the distance make it unique, but it is not unique when you compare it to other rural ridings. You think about Stikine and the vast distances and spread-out population — one of the largest ridings in the pro­vince. Think about Peace River North. I think about Peace River South or even a riding like Prince George–​Valemount, where you can drive for more than three hours going east, just to get to the border with Alberta, to be able to represent communities like Valemount and McBride.

Prince George–Mackenzie, another very large riding, particularly when you want to go up to places like Fort Ware or all the way up into some of the more rural areas. What about the Cariboos? Whether it’s Cariboo North or Cariboo-Chilcotin — very large areas, very diverse populations.

My riding, for example, has six mayors and councils, two school districts and, of course, one regional district, more than a dozen unincorporated communities, more than a dozen First Nations. My riding is not unique compared to many of the other rural ridings, but certainly compared to the vast majority of the ridings in the province, it is unique. Does that fit the very special circumstances? If it does, how different is it from those other rural ridings?

[4:15 p.m.]

When we brought in, in 2014, the act, when we asked the Electoral Boundaries Commission to look at the pro­vince, we said: “There really aren’t a lot of differences be­tween North Coast, Skeena, Stikine, Nechako Lakes, Prince George–Mackenzie, Prince George–Valemount, Peace River North, Peace River South, Cariboo North, Cariboo-Chilcotin and the Kootenay ridings.”

There really wasn’t a lot of difference because they all shared one common characteristic: they could very easily fit into those very special circumstances. So instead of putting the burden on the Electoral Boundaries Commission to make a judgment as to the difference between Nechako Lakes or Stikine or Kootenay West or Peace River North, we said we would make that decision. We would make that decision that those areas all share the similar characteristics called very special circumstances. That’s why it was put in.

The expansion of the number of MLAs and the need to be able to do that to be able to represent the urban areas — I get it. There are some real challenges, when you’ve got large populations, with being able to service the individuals. There is the community of Vancouver. You’ve got — what is it? — ten MLAs that are all advocating for the same thing.

But in a riding, for example, like mine in Nechako Lakes…. When the mill blew up in Burns Lake and we made the efforts to make sure that we could get that mill rebuilt, my neighbouring communities didn’t want it rebuilt.

I actually had to fight for a community, even within my own riding, because my other communities had different priorities. It wasn’t an issue of ten MLAs arguing for the priorities of a community. It was one MLA having to stand up for the needs of individual communities and the challenges associated with that. It wasn’t because the other communities didn’t want to see Burns Lake being successful. No, it was because they had their own issues. They had concerns that they wanted to get dealt with. So as a rural MLA, you have to deal with a lot of competing issues, even within our own riding.

Some First Nations and other First Nations don’t get along. You have got to be able to try to work with both. You’ve got to be able to try to work through these issues. Those are some of the things that make it unique. Like I say, my riding is not unique compared to many of the other rural ridings.

My hope, in terms of this…. I have to admit now that this is the third time that I’ve had the honour of speaking in the Legislature to an Electoral Boundaries Commission bill. The first was back in 2006, the second one was 2014, and here we are now in 2021. I could very easily have pulled out the speech I gave in 2006 or the speech I gave in 2014 and regiven that speech here, because the reality is that it hasn’t changed. The issues are the same.

I can remember back in 2006 when the Electoral Boundaries Commission came out and went around, there was a very good presentation that was given by an individual from the Cariboo. I went and I attended sessions in the Cariboo. I attended sessions in Prince George. I attended sessions west of Prince George. But this presentation from this individual in the Cariboo was quite interesting.

He said: “You know, in the most inclement weather, in some of these ridings on the Lower Mainland, you need a good pair of boots, an umbrella and a good rain jacket, and you can get across your riding usually in an hour or less, sometimes two hours if it’s really bad or the riding boundaries are a little more challenging because of traffic and other things. Yet in some of the ridings, like perhaps Cariboo-Chilcotin, to get across that riding in the most inclement weather, you would need several tanks of gas, perhaps a couple of days and even an act of God, in some cases, to be able to get across the riding.”

It can be that challenging. Roads can be closed. You can have all kinds of issues. So when I think back to my experience in Prince George–Omineca with the urban issues, there’s no question there needs to be the balance of good representation and the opportunity to be able to have reasonable access to MLAs. But the same goes in terms of rural.

[4:20 p.m.]

The issues that rural people face are just as important. To be able to have access to MLAs, one could even argue, is even more important, because there isn’t the same level of services. When you look at the community of Houston, it doesn’t have the social services that, say, Smithers does. When you look at the level of health care in various communities, they’re not the same. Yet as an MLA, you’ve got to try to balance and deal with all of those things and try to make sure there’s effective representation.

I get this process we’re going through and the speeches that MLAs on both sides are going to give. Just one comment to make about what the leader of the Green Party talked about. She wished there was more of this open debate and an opportunity to be able to change and shape policy in the Legislature.

Unfortunately, our political system isn’t like that. The reality is that when a bill like this comes forward, it’s de­bated in a caucus. It’s debated in the NDP caucus. It’s debated in cabinet. It’s brought to the NDP caucus and debated. They make a decision on it moving forward, based on whatever principles or values that they feel are important, and they’re united in bringing it forward into the House.

I know speeches like the one I give and the ones that the rest of us give aren’t going to change, or have very little opportunity to change, people’s minds and perspectives. It’s already talked about. It’s already decided. The majority have already made that decision.

My hope, in giving these speeches, is that the people who will serve on the Electoral Boundaries Commission, the independent individuals on the Electoral Boundaries Commission, will review Hansard, will listen to our speeches and will understand the challenges and issues. Why the rules that were brought in, in 2014 were brought in. Why the decision was to help the Electoral Boundaries Commission in terms of being able to make those de­cisions around very special circumstances without having to try to weigh or judge the difference between one corner of our province and another. How that also struck the balance by being able to add additional seats in urban areas, where you’ve got the growing population and you can meet those needs.

I remember talking to one of my colleagues back in, I think it was, the 2014 Electoral Boundaries Commission and the process it went through. There was a heated argument in the community about which side of the street the electoral boundary line should be on, whether it should include both sides of the street or whether a street should be divided. It’s an interesting reality, when you’re talking about an area that is 72,000 square kilometres. But I get it. I get the difference. I understand it.

As we go through this process…. The current government is going to use its majority, and it’s going to push this bill through.

Like I say, my hope is that with the Electoral Boundaries Commission being independent, there will be the opportunity for them to review and hear this. Certainly, I intend to present to the Electoral Boundaries Commission. I know they’ll have an opportunity for MLAs to do that, but I’ll make sure that I’m attending the meetings. Hopefully, those will be able to be done in public as opposed to online.

I will be encouraging other people to come forward and talk, whether it’s local representatives or people in the ridings, and to share their stories. For example, back in 2018, the wildfires that hit Nechako Lakes, and the people that were on the south side of Francois Lake, the people I talked about earlier, whether it’s in Grassy Plains or Southbank or any of the other communities that are in that area.

Talk about what it felt like to be blockaded, to not even be able to have supplies come through, to have to sneak through the blockades, to actually take heavy equipment and to punch through a road so they could get into the area, to get out and take equipment and fight the fires because nobody else was able to get into those areas to do it and to try to protect their properties. Have them talk about what it means to have that representation, for people to understand what they had to go through.

Back in 2014, when the Electoral Boundaries Commission was going through the process again, I remember talking to the folks in Houston. There was some conversation at the time of splitting my riding, reforming the old Prince George–Omineca riding and having components move back into the old Bulkley Valley–Stikine riding.

[4:25 p.m.]

The people in Houston told me they didn’t want that. They didn’t share the same types of issues and characteristics with Smithers and with the good people living up in the Stikine riding as they did with the people in Vanderhoof and Fraser Lake and Fort St. James. Because of that, they would rather be able to be together as a unit that way. It made more sense to them to be able to do that, simply because there were more similar characteristics.

Similarly, the people in the eastern half of my riding didn’t want to be combined back together with Prince George again. There’s always this fear that the large community will garner the majority of the attention, and they won’t be able to have the kind of support that they need from an MLA.

I found that interesting because that was just six years earlier. That was what the old ridings were, with the Bulkley Valley–Stikine and the Prince George–Omineca. Yet clearly, there was this concern, from historical representation or historical alignment, that they weren’t interested in going back to. It just, like I say….

There’s the old saying that you should walk a mile in another person’s shoes to really be able to understand them. I really wish that all the MLAs in this Legislature would have an opportunity to be able to experience each riding, whether it is Victoria, whether it is the north Island, whether it is Kootenay East, whether it is Kelowna-Mission. Then we would all have a better understanding of what that representation means and the issues in a riding.

My riding is dominated by forestry, mining and agriculture. We’ve got a little bit of tourism, some manufacturing and other things that are part of it. There are ridings in the Lower Mainland which are dominated by consumerism. They don’t have the kinds of things that we have up here.

The issues, for example, of the agricultural land reserve and the changes to the Agricultural Land Commission are irrelevant to many ridings in the Lower Mainland or other areas of the province. Yet at the same time, some of the social issues, like what’s going on in Strathcona Park, are not something that’s happening in Nechako Lakes. Yes, we’ve got homeless. Yes, we’ve got mental health and addictions issues. But we don’t have a tent city, a tent community, in the riding.

Even though we’re all different, even though we all represent different political perspectives, we are all the same in the sense that we have this desire to be able to represent our constituents. We have this desire for equal and fair representation and this desire for equitable representation across the province.

I think the people of British Columbia have that sense of fairness. They can understand the differences. They can understand why you might have ridings like mine that have 30,000 people in it versus a riding that might have 70,000 people in it. There are differences between those ridings. There are very special circumstances that do need to be considered.

My hope through this is that, perhaps, people will have a little bit better understanding of where each of us comes from in our area of the province and that we don’t allow politics to supersede what is fair and what is right in this province in terms of being able to have equitable representation across British Columbia. My hope is that people do get engaged. It should be an interesting process.

The Electoral Boundaries Commission, which is independent, will come out and look through this. I’ll certainly be making the argument to them about why the very special circumstances should be applied to a region and not just individual ridings, why there are those similarities.

My hope is that, at the end of the day, when we go into the 2024 election…. I’m assuming the government doesn’t change its mind about its election date again.

[4:30 p.m.]

I hope that when we go into that election, there will be the opportunity for effective representation and to be able to be elected from any corner of the province, regardless of the party. The people of British Columbia…. Despite the fact that we’ve got declining voter participation, the people in this province depend on a democratic system that allows their voice to be able to be heard through their representative.

I can tell you that in the time I’ve had the honour of serving the people, first in Prince George–Omineca and now in Nechako Lakes, it’s been an incredible experience. I look forward to carrying on and continuing to fight for their issues and their needs through this, but it has been an incredible experience, to date, because of all the diversity, because of the challenges and the issues that come up, and because, quite frankly, of the difference that an MLA can make.

The difference of a grandparent fighting to adopt a grandchild, and what an MLA can do to be able to help through that process and the frustrations that that family had to go through. The difference between being able to help an individual who is just trying to get a power line at­tached to their home and advocating and fighting through with B.C. Hydro to try to get that process done so they didn’t have to wait six months to get electricity to their home.

Or the difference that a company that is extracting minerals with Mount Milligan — that was going to be shut down because they didn’t have access to enough water — and being able to advocate through the various ministries, even all the way up to the Premier’s office, to get the change in place so that people didn’t have to be shut down for a period of time and could work through that sort of thing. Those are the differences you can make as an MLA.

There are all the openings with things like hospitals and roads and all that kind of stuff, but it’s the difference you can make for individuals that really makes the job rewarding. I can tell you, the larger the ridings, the more challenging it is to be able to make that difference for individuals. I truly hope that those sorts of things will be taken into consideration when this electoral boundary process is put in place, because I do believe people need and deserve that ability to be able to have effective representation across this province.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill in its current form. I have to admit, I can’t support it because it doesn’t do what the intention was before, but regardless of that, I do hope that the Electoral Boundaries Commission will take these sorts of things into consideration and make sure that ridings and the people of Nechako Lakes, as other areas of the province, will have that ability for that representation.

M. Dykeman: It’s a privilege to rise today in the House to support Bill 7, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act.

It was interesting listening to the member opposite speak previously, when he was talking about fairness and then ensuring that there is equity. That’s the intent of this bill. These amendments are actually intended to ensure that the commission has more ability to act independently. Our province is growing rapidly, and I want to talk a little bit about where I’m from, in Langley East.

My riding is actually split almost half-and-half, with a rapidly growing urban area and then quite a bit of agriculture. As a farmer myself, I know what it’s like, having sat on the school board, watching some schools shrink and some schools grow at a rate that you just can’t keep up. Living in the south, often schools that my children were at were shrinking.

That balance is always very challenging. An interesting thing about Langley East is that its population has grown between 2.4 percent and 3.1 percent. The average rate in growth in the province sits at about 1.1 percent. So the population of Langley East actually had grown by quite a bit and sat at 66,005 — my riding in 2016. I can assure you, it’s well in the 70,000s now. Previous to that, just a couple of years before that, it was sitting at 61,000. That’s an incredible amount of growth, but it was all concentrated in one area.

[4:35 p.m.]

So we have this situation where we have four MLAs that share different, various parts of Langley. Some are growing and some are shrinking. But where it’s growing, it’s really, really growing. We’re definitely in a situation where we need to examine that, because we have part of a riding that’s just got all the population. So that’s what excites me about this, about these amendments. It’s giving the Electoral Boundaries Commission the ability to actually look at regions and figure out how they can rebalance them.

B.C.’s population is expected to have grown by over 500,000 people since the last electoral boundaries were set. However, under the current legislation, there’s a maximum number of electoral districts capped at 87. It doesn’t make sense to have a cap and also to have these regions where, in 2014, it restricted the commission’s ability to independently recommend boundaries and establish three regions that collectively guaranteed a minimum of 17 electoral districts, regardless of the population.

It did create a situation that where the growth was couldn’t be addressed. So this will allow, at least, the commission to look at it, to have the ability to hear submissions. As a member previous just stated, there are a lot of factors that need to be taken into account. But that independent commission needs that ability to look at things through a lens that allows them to balance the many factors.

I know that even within places like the Fraser Valley, one area has different concerns than the other. So the Langleys — myself and my friend and colleague, the MLA for Langley…. Our towns, when we were one, used to fight about streetlights and ditches. We were one town at one time. The growing urban population wanted streetlights. The rural population wanted ditches. Apparently that wasn’t something that we could agree to, so we’re now two towns.

It’s not just geographic. You don’t have to be really north to find these disparities between places. They exist everywhere, and we need to have those conversations. We need to have a commission that can look at that.

When you look at the township of Langley, like I mentioned, they’ve grown between 2.4 percent and 3.1 percent. A decade ago, our population was 106,573. The population had grown to 130,924, just to 2018, and is still growing rapidly. But like I said, it’s all concentrated in one area.

This is about ensuring that you have effective representation for people and having core democratic principles at the centre of it, ensuring that everyone’s vote should be reasonably equal in strength.

Those are the types of considerations that we need to look at. Sort of having a quota doesn’t seem very logical in achieving that. Ultimately, an independent commission will make a recommendation whether or not they think there should be more electoral districts — and under consideration, up to six. This independent commission will look at all of factors that previous speakers have mentioned.

Our province is so diverse. We have such different needs, depending on where you are, and such different considerations. Having an independent commission that can hear submissions and look at all of the matters that need to be balanced is sensible. Having a situation where you’re limited and capped at 87 doesn’t make sense either.

Everyone’s vote, as I mentioned, should be equal in strength. The commission will allow the ability for diverse needs to be looked at. The proposed amendments also recognize the representation concerns for less populated regions by making explicit that the commission may take into account special considerations. The submissions that go in that allow the commission to consider those considerations are what’s important here.

Keeping a manageable geographic size…. As the previous speaker talked about, although you may have a lot of constituents, it’s also equally challenging to balance a geographically large area. These are the types of things that the commission will be considering when making their decisions. The current legislation, unfortunately, requires these 17 regions to just be treated differently.

[4:40 p.m.]

Also, the current legislation requires that the population in electoral districts is no more than 25 percent above or below the average district population, unless there are very special circumstances. This will allow the commission to have more clarity around what those special circumstances are. In the growing areas, it’s a welcome change to look at adding some more, because we just had this incredible growth.

I’ve heard speakers talk about how it might be an attack on rural B.C. — absolutely not. Making sure that there is effective representation for people is a core democratic principle. Everyone’s vote, as I mentioned a couple of times before, should be equal in strength. Right now, that’s not being achieved. When you look at other provinces, they do not have those types of special regions. In 2004, B.C. became an outlier.

One part of the legislation that we also need to talk about is that the representation concerns for less populated regions is being protected. It’s explicit that the act needs to take into account special considerations. This isn’t about an attack on rural B.C. This is about looking at our entire province and ensuring that we have representation right across it. B.C.’s proposed legislation does not set a cap, so it ensures the commission has the tools they need to support those regions.

As I mentioned, my riding in the rapidly growing north, compared to a shrinking south with farms, definitely welcomes these types of changes and sees the value in ensuring that an independent commission has the ability to make changes to ensure that people are properly represented. Removing amendments made to the act in 2004, which limited the commission’s independence by establishing three regions that were collectively restricted to a minimum of 17 seats, regardless of the population or preferred recommendations of the commission, is a welcome change.

B.C. doesn’t need to be an outlier in this area. We need to have a sensible approach with an independent commission to figure out how to balance those diverse interests throughout the province. These amendments will certainly enhance our commission’s ability to respond to B.C.’s significant growth.

Factors to consider in deviating from equally weighted votes throughout the province are principles that the commission must seek to recommend electoral districts with populations within plus or minus 25 percent of average electoral district population and the fact that the commission may recommend electoral districts with populations outside that range.

These are welcomed by my riding, which is rapidly growing. I look forward to seeing the commission start its work.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

D. Ashton: Before I start, I would just like to welcome…. I’ve had the opportunity to be here for two and a bit terms. I see some new friendly faces. I hope to be able to see you without these on after. Pretty soon, we’ll all be back in here, and we’ll be able to recognize each other without just looking at the eye part. That’s on both sides of the House, so thank you. It’s so nice to be back. My first time back since this session started. Thank you for giving me the quick opportunity, really quickly.

Today I rise to continue the debate on Bill 7, a piece of legislation that could have profound implications for the future of how British Columbians are represented in our province.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like, with your permission, to recognize and thank all the citizens of the area that I am so incredibly fortunate to represent — Peachland, Summerland, Naramata and all the regional areas between — that have given me the honour to represent them here in the people’s House, the Legislature of British Columbia.

As I have always said, whether you voted or you didn’t vote, I’m always available to help with your issues. The incredible individuals that I have the opportunity to work with in the Okanagan — Dick, Sue and Rudy — hold down, actually, two full-time offices and a part office in Peachland. They’re there, always, to try and make a positive difference in your lives when you contact them.

[4:45 p.m.]

I would be very remiss in not recognizing all the work within these legislative walls that transpires and all the associated government offices in the neighbourhood for their efforts. I would like to thank you on behalf of all the citizens of this incredibly wonderful province.

Following every second election, the Electoral Boundaries Commission is appointed to examine the current electoral boundaries and make alterations as needed to keep up with the changing democracy and demographics of this province. We know it’s the fastest-growing province in this wonderful country of Canada. While the appointing of this commission is routine, the changes proposed in the legislation before us are not, as it seeks to remove protections that have been put in place to ensure that rural British Columbia is represented in our Legislature, a representation that all B.C.’ers deserve in equality, regardless of where they live.

Specifically to this bill, it seeks to remove the statutory protections of three regions: the Cariboo-Thompson, Columbia-Kootenay area and the north — the areas my peer from Nechako Lakes just spoke so eloquently about. He had made mention about the opportunity to wear another person’s shoes and to walk around and see what this wonderful country is like.

B.C. is big. It’s beautiful. As a peer before me said, did you know that the Mexican border is closer to us here in Victoria than the Yukon border is? That’s according to Google. More than 70 percent of British Columbia’s population live within 100 miles of the American border. If you’re heading north, when you reach Vanderhoof — and many of us have been into that lovely little community — you’re only halfway to the top of British Columbia, Vanderhoof being the geographic centre of British Columbia.

These regions have been protected because they have a lower population to the densely populated Lower Mainland. They’re vast geographic regions full of diverse people who deserve to be fairly represented in Victoria. The purpose of the Electoral Boundaries Commission is to make sure that the political boundaries of this province are drawn in such a way as to provide every British Columbian with the opportunity of an effective representation.

I’ve heard the members of this House say that MLAs should not be trying to direct the Electoral Boundaries Commission. I agree wholeheartedly, but the nature of the political parties at this point in time seems to be a little bit diverse in the direction that they want to take the Electoral Boundaries Commission. In my opinion, every citizen of this province deserves to have an effective representation, and the numbers being discussed, in my opinion, should not be the deciding factor.

This is something, in my opinion, that we’re all in favour of. We’re in favour of effective and elected representation. I know it’s something that the side of the House that I represent has always been an advocate for. As I said before, B.C. is a very vast province with varied geography, varied terrain, very diverse people groups and communities and very, very different needs.

I’ve had the incredible opportunity to drive a substantial amount of British Columbia in a car, on a motorcycle, and I’ve flown a lot of British Columbia, both commercially and as a pilot in a single-engine aircraft. I can tell you that you don’t need to look much further than out our windows here, and you can see the gorgeous mountains not that far away across the puddle. I can tell you that some of those mountains get steeper, taller and more dense, and the populace gets less and less.

When you’re up there flying, heading north for various reasons, you start to think: “Boy, if I ever got in trouble here, where am I going to go? Who is going to come and get me? How am I going to get home?” Unfortunately, I’ve had that incident a couple of times in my lifetime.

This is why the Electoral Boundaries Commission itself has said that effective representation is not simply anchoring to the equality of population. A 2015 report says that factors like geography, community history, community interests, minority representation should all be taken into account of where we draw our electoral boundaries. It acknowledges and leaves space for the fact that the needs of Prince Rupert are different from those of Surrey, and those of Atlin are different from those of Prince George.

[4:50 p.m.]

Did you know that some B.C. rural ridings are almost 100,000 square kilometres? The area I represent is approximately 1,100 square kilometres, with a populace of about 52,000 citizens. Can you imagine a riding almost 100 times larger than the one that I represent in the beautiful part of South Okanagan? I have trouble with that.

I’m fortunate to be able to drive from the Naramata Bench to Peachland through Penticton and Summerland in about an hour. In a fast boat, it takes about ten minutes to get across beautiful Okanagan Lake. But can you imagine having to navigate and commute around 100,000 square kilometres in a riding? It’s almost unimaginable. It’s unimaginable for me, and I’m not in that dense of an area — i.e., the south part of the Okanagan.

Additionally, we must also consider that a large percentage of First Nation communities in British Columbia are located in the regions that are set out to have statutory protections removed. Around 30 percent of First Nations in British Columbia live in the north and the Cariboo-Thompson regions and some other incredibly remote locations in British Columbia. We need to ensure that they also have equal access to the representation that they are entitled to underneath the law.

I know that all MLAs in this Legislature work hard for their citizens, and they are so fortunate to be able to represent those citizens. I’m not here to pit urban against rural, each against each other, as what is being represented and I’ve heard some of my peers in the House talk about. What I speak about today is that there is a lot more for representation. It has to be fair. It has to be full representation. It cannot just be the population. In that light, we must also maintain a system that ensures…. Communities such as we have in this wonderful province have varying needs. They also have to be represented effectively and fairly in our Legislature.

Of course, we also need to ensure that the regions with growing populations are represented. I know cities like Surrey, Vancouver and those in the Fraser Valley, for example, have seen incredible significant growth in the recent years. Electoral boundaries need to be adjusted to accommodate this growth. This will mean adding new ridings in some of these rapidly growing areas. That is good. It’s very good for the citizens of the Lower Mainland, incredibly good, and it’s fair for them.

But at the end of the day, the abilities for MLAs to connect with their constituents is vital. To have that effective democracy and such, neither the numbers of constituents nor the size of electoral districts should serve as a barrier to British Columbians having access to those that they represent and to those that they’re entitled to. We need to protect the trust between elected officials and electors, not dilute it, as this legislation, I personally think, is seeking to do.

I’m going to say it again. Let’s for once, as many of us in this House have stated, myself included, work together for all British Columbians. Let’s consider this bill and this opportunity that it is presenting to all of us in this Legislature but, more importantly, to all the citizens of British Columbia.

It’s always an honour and a pleasure. Thank you very much for the opportunity today. To my peers in here, I look forward to a good debate over the next period of time that we are elected. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

K. Kirkpatrick: Today I rise to debate on Bill 7, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, a piece of legislation that could have significant implications on how British Columbians are represented in the future. To en­sure fair representation of the people of British Columbia and to account for changing population trends, after every second election, the Electoral Boundaries Commission is appointed to examine the current boundaries and make alterations if needed, based on the demographics of the province.

[4:55 p.m.]

Appointing the commission is very standard. How­ever, the changes that are being proposed in this amendment are not standard or routine. This legislation seeks to remove protections that have been put in place to ensure that rural British Columbia is properly represented in our Legislature.

There are reasons these protections were put in place. Democratic and fair representation is not based solely on population size. It’s based on a number of other qualitive measures. I don’t believe our urban constituents need to be the slightest bit concerned about losing the strength of their voices. As my colleague previous said, populations are growing in urban areas, and there will undoubtedly be additional urban ridings created. This does, however, make even more of a compelling argument as to why we need to protect the fairness of the vote and representation of people in the north.

This bill seeks to remove statutory protections in three regions, the Cariboo-Thompson, Columbia-Kootenay and the north. I disagree absolutely with the removal of these protections. Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation need to be taken into account to ensure that our Legislative Assembly effectively represents the diversity of our social mosaic.

The Canadian Charter is meant to give effective representation in a system which gives due weight to the population of the voters, but it also recognizes that there are other considerations in order for something to be truly democratic and fair. I’m going to quote from a Saskatchewan Supreme Court decision in Reference re Prov. Electoral Boundaries. The Attorney General quoted from this when he introduced the bill. “Effective representation and good government in this country compel that factors other than voter parity, such as geography and community interests, be taken into account when setting electoral boundaries.”

Last Saturday I drove to my local mall, and then I stopped by the grocery store on the way home. This one outing took me through three electoral districts, represented by three MLAs in this Legislature. I can drive across my riding in ten minutes, while some of our northern MLAs cannot drive across their ridings in ten hours. Even then, it may involve ferries and back roads. The electoral district of the North Coast, represented by one MLA, is 66,000 square kilometres. The electoral district of Peace River North is 160,000 square kilometres. The electoral district of North Vancouver–Lonsdale is 18 square kilometres.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In my community, on Vancouver’s North Shore, we have four distinct ridings and share many of the same issues, including transportation, issues on our bridges, affordable housing and homelessness. Our constituents go to the same shopping malls, the same restaurants. They drive on the same roads, and they sit in the same traffic. This means that we actually have multiple representatives in Victoria advocating for the same issues for electoral ridings that are, in many ways, indistinct from one another.

I’m an urban person. I’ve never lived outside of a major city or community. Now, I did have the honour of being in the Alberta All Girls Drum and Bugle Band when I was a kid. You learn something new about me every day. I got to travel across British Columbia and Alberta, and I got to march in every small-town parade and every small-town rodeo. It was amazing, and the people were wonderful. I really got a feeling of this distinct difference that you have in small communities and the long distances that you had to travel between these communities in order to connect with one another.

[5:00 p.m.]

I still do, however, come from a very urban-centric perspective. I see things through a very urban lens, and I’m aware of that. I’ve become more aware of it over these past seven months, where I have learned much more about the unique interests and issues in northern communities from my colleagues and from the multiple stakeholder groups that I’ve had the honour of being able to meet with.

Here’s an example of an aha moment. Although I don’t think this makes me look particularly smart, I will share it.

One of my northern colleagues laughed at me when I suggested that they get an electric car. I love my electric car, but I do know that my car’s range reduces by about 25 percent when it gets really cold. This MLA looked at me, and he said: “You know, in North Vancouver, really cold is zero. But in this riding, really cold is minus 30 or minus 40 with the wind chill.” So I then at that point realized that we needed to do a bit more on the technology of electric vehicles before I could truly convince my northern friends to purchase one.

Then there was the issue with ten kilometres from one side to the other of my riding. I’ve got a car with a 125-kilometre range. This person had 100,000 kilometres across their riding. So it did put things into perspective for me.

Then there’s cost of heating a home, the inability to get the roads cleared after a heavy snowfall, and increased cost of groceries. There are a number of issues which are significant and different in our communities. Now, I of course knew these things once I was reminded of it, but it did bring home for me that there truly can be a real disconnect in the simplest things we do to live our lives in urban communities and rural communities.

I think that for those of us living in more urban communities, we really need to be alive to the fact that there are significant differences. We need to consider those when we’re looking at proper representation. Those things matter, and decisions shouldn’t be made without representation of those differences, or we’re going to be making big policy mistakes.

When listening to the MLA for Cariboo North yesterday, I learned even more about the unique challenges of northern communities. I have never had a constituent contact my office because their road was flooded out, nor has anyone let me know that they had to drive for six hours to seek medical support or to deliver their baby. I have not been contacted by anyone who had an issue with raging forest fires that forced them to be evacuated from their North Vancouver home.

I’ll repeat something the MLA for Cariboo North said yesterday. It’s that we must understand that “inequities do 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…affordable, reliable Internet — let alone high-speed Internet…? 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 huge barriers to effective representation.

Mr. Speaker, I’m going to check with you on timing, because as I am new, I’m not…. I can continue? Okay, thank you.

I’d add to what the member said here, also, that to fully participate in the digital economy, access to high-speed Internet is important. I looked at the government’s Connectivity in B.C. website today, and I can see that 92 percent of households in British Columbia that have access to the recommended broadband Internet speeds — so there’s 92 percent of those — live in urban areas. But if we look at rural B.C., only 36 percent of rural communities and 38 percent of rural Indigenous communities have access to high-speed broadband Internet speeds.

In this day and age, this is a huge disparity. There is a digital divide, but that digital divide is also a democratic divide. So much of our political process is done online. I don’t simply mean the nature of these virtual meetings that we’re having right now.

She also spoke about the ability for a constituent to have access to their MLA. Even currently, with the size of these ridings, there is a great impediment for someone to be able to physically be in the office or connect with their MLA. Making these ridings larger would make that just inconceivable, impossible for people to do.

[5:05 p.m.]

I lost track of all of the communities and towns that the MLA for Cariboo North was talking about. She referenced Quesnel, Wells, Likely, Barkerville, McLeese Lake and Horsefly, as well as numerous First Nations. Each of these communities has a mayor, council, community members, and an MLA has to know who these people are in their community so that they know who to pick up the phone and talk to when there’s an issue for one of their constituents.

The MLA for Fraser-Nicola has 11 local governments and over 20 First Nations. It’s inconceivable to think that making a riding larger would not impact the Charter rights of fair representation for those communities. In my riding, I have two municipalities. That means two mayors and two councils. So the district of North Vancouver I share with two other MLAs. The district of West Vancouver I share with one other MLA.

I have never had a constituent contact my office to talk about forest fire devastation, their main road being washed out and not having access to their homes. So I want to assure you that although I’m giving examples of rural issues, communities across B.C.’s north are diverse and face regionally specific issues and need MLAs that understand those and are connected to their community.

The impact of climate change disproportionately im­pacts our northern communities. You heard the member for Cariboo North describe the ever more frequent incidences of fire and flood. We know that the coast of Haida Gwaii will be hardest hit by rising tides in the next century, more than any other coastal communities in Canada. There are the impacts of logging, resource management.

In Metro Vancouver, you have many MLAs advocating for the same or similar urban issues, and while some issues overlap with those in rural communities, many are very different, and without appropriate rural representation, British Columbians living in rural areas are left to feel that they are being left out of the process.

Removing the protections for equitable representation for northern communities risks increasing the overrepresentation of urban issues in Victoria. We need not forget rural roads and infrastructure, forest management, re­source development, lack of addiction facilities and supports, natural disasters. For generations, rural communities have been the drivers of our economy. Rural communities are the backbone of our way of life.

I’ll go back to the comment I made earlier, referencing the Saskatchewan case, which says, “Good government in this country compel that factors other than voter parity” be considered, “such as geography and community interests,” and these must be taken into account when considering electoral boundaries.

I hope the Electoral Boundaries Commission will recognize the unique requirements of true democratic representation. I would ask that all members of this House, re­gardless of where your community is or what party you’re in, support the true meaning of democratic representation and protect the ability for northern residents to have equitable representation in Victoria. There should be, as was previously held, a commitment to protect the voting rights of rural British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further members wishing to participate in the debate, I ask the Attorney General to close debate.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank all the members who participated in the second reading debate. I was certainly paying attention to their remarks. I heard a lot of impassioned remarks about the challenges and the opportunities of being an MLA, both in rural and urban constituencies, and a lot of comments directed towards hoping that the Electoral Boundaries Commission takes into account a certain factor or another factor in terms of different constituencies.

That’s exactly what the commission’s job is — to take into account these considerations, the amendments under this bill, to consider, explicitly, effective representation as well as the constitutional imperative that votes be roughly equal in this province and this country. I have great confidence in the commission. They’ve served our province well over many….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Mac­kenzie.

M. Morris: Our side had not completed our list of speakers yet for this bill. I understand that we still have several members that want to speak to this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Oh. There were none on the list here, so that’s why I said that. So the member would like to speak on this?

M. Morris: Yes. Actually, we’ve got several that would like to speak on it. I thought they were on the list that you had there, Mr. Speaker.

[5:10 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: That’s okay, Member. You can continue. Maybe you can speak for a couple of minutes, and then we will adjourn the debate, noting the hour.

M. Morris: Okay. I plan to speak for probably the full 30 minutes on this, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate this. This is an important issue for all British Columbians.

There are some significant differences, geographical and regional differences, right across the province here. There have been a number of issues contested right at the Supreme Court of Canada that address border equity, effective representation and a number of other things that affect how we do business here in British Columbia. I will be continuing on with this.

Noting the hour, I wish to reserve my right to speak again and adjourn debate for another time.

M. Morris moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2021

Bill 9, Finance Statues Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I am advised that Her Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, is not here yet, but please stay seated and be available. Don’t leave. We will advise you as soon as we get the confirmation.

[5:15 p.m. - 5:20 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain seated while we await her arrival.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

[5:25 p.m.]

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

 

Public Interest Disclosure Amendment Act, 2021

InBC Investment Corp. Act

Finance Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021

Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): Thank you very much.

ÍY SȻÁĆEL NE SĆÁLEĆE.

As always, I would like to thank you for your ongoing work on behalf of all British Columbians. It’s always a personal pleasure for me to come and to see you in action. I do hope that you’ll have a brief opportunity to enjoy some family time this long weekend.

I wish you all the best, and I look forward to seeing you the next time I’m here. Take good care.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday, May 31.

The House adjourned at 5:30 p.m.