Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage, Bill 6, the Accessible British Columbia Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

Then in the Birch Room, I call the Ministry of Agriculture.

Once the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions is finished, then I will be calling the Ministry of Attorney General.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — ACCESSIBLE
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 6; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:07 p.m.

Clauses 16 and 17 approved.

On clause 18.

S. Cadieux: This clause talks about how, in the development of standards, there must be consideration of all of the other relevant laws of British Columbia, relevant standards in other jurisdictions and the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Can the minister explain how relevance will be determined under this section?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. N. Simons: Mr. Chair, welcome back for our afternoon session.

[1:10 p.m.]

Thanks for the question to the member opposite. The minister, in conjunction with the accessibility committee, will be ensuring that the standards are developed with the express interest in ensuring that there are no conflicts with any other laws, and “relevant” would be based on if it has relevance to the standards that we’re developing at the time.

I just wanted to make sure that that’s why we’ve ensured that the technical committees for particular standards have representatives from other ministries or ministries particularly associated with that standard of development.

S. Cadieux: I guess I understand that, but I guess I also find that concerning, given that if the subject matter experts in ministries haven’t managed to erase the barriers themselves and if there’s a committee that now needs to come together to show them how to do that, where is the weighting between those who are needing to make the changes but have not yet made the changes, without being forced to by a standard that is coming into force as a result of this act?

The UN convention, for example, requires that all “buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and out­door facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces,” be accessible, but we know that isn’t the case. I would hope that that’s what we’re seeking to get to with this act.

Again, if the decision rests with government and with the minister on when and how to direct the committee to work on various pieces of this work and there is no stated requirement for all of these things to be working together, how do we feel confident that the principles, for example, in the UN convention will be enacted by the work?

I guess the best way I can…. Is this just a box-ticking exercise? “Yes, we’ve considered it. We’ve looked at it. Check mark.” Or is there something more concrete so that people can be assured [audio interrupted]?

Hon. N. Simons: Just to ensure that the member knows that this is in no way attempting to limit the breadth of our work. My notes on this section remind me to mention that proposed accessibility standards draw on experience and best practices from current or proposed standards in other jurisdictions, for one thing. I hope that confirms her wishes.

[1:15 p.m.]

Section 18(c) signals our commitment to the United Nations convention and aims to ensure that the proposed accessibility standards align with the principles in that convention.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister. So let’s propose and suggest that at some point in the future the accessibility committee and the technical committee have proposed a standard, and it’s gone through the consultation period and the minister has approved it. LGIC has approved it. It is now part of the law. Let’s suggest that standard provides greater access in some capacity than in existing law in British Columbia — just for argument’s sake, the building code.

There is nothing in this bill, which we’re debating today to become law, that expressly states which standard will then win in a dispute between laws. The AODA has a clause specific to this that basically states if there’s a conflict between the AODA, including its standards, and any other provincial law, the final authority is the law that gives people with disabilities the most access to fully participating in Ontario in the areas of goods, services, facilities, employment, accommodation, buildings. That’s part X, section 38. Can the minister explain why this bill does not contain a similar provision?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: I’m assured and confident that a considerable amount of discussion went into all parts of this legislation. Of course, when we look at other jurisdictions, some do and some don’t have this kind of specific statement. But after the deliberations and ongoing consultation, it was felt that this protects the integrity of the standards by ensuring that when we create the standards, we proactively avoid the conflicts that the member refers to.

Under the very strange situation where there might be a conflict, we would expect the normal common-law practice rules to apply. I don’t actually think it’s necessarily practical to simply say that one law will supersede the other. That, I think, leads to a messy kind of legislative system. It’s also very difficult sometimes to determine which law supersedes the other. Our goal is to avoid any potential conflicts like that. If they do arise, we’ll deal with them, obviously, in favour of ensuring that British Columbia is the most accessible place and that all barriers that are identified are removed.

S. Cadieux: Well, I can see already that this is going to be a challenge. For another attempt at clarification, is the minister then suggesting that the committee won’t be able to make changes to the building code or that government will make changes to the building code to align with any standard that the accessibility committee might make, for example?

Again, the building code is just an example, but our buildings are built to that code. If the standard isn’t high enough in the building code and people are being ex­cluded, as they are today in some cases, then what is the purpose of the committee setting a standard that would actually provide access if, in fact, they can’t if the other law that exists on the books today provides a lesser standard?

I need the minister to clear this up for me, please. I do not see how, without a statement or a commitment expressly from government, these changes are going to be made — that, in fact, anything will change.

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: I just want to point out that the legislation specifically is geared towards not just removing and preventing barriers but identifying where they exist. So if, during the process of standard development, we run across a place where a barrier exists in a piece of legislation or in a regulation, that could trigger the ministry, the act, to address that particular area.

I know the member is using the building code as an example, and I understand that, but we are currently working on the building code, and the parliamentary secretary, the member for Chilliwack, is actively involved in that process too. Where we identify barriers, the legislation is specifically geared towards removing them.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. What are we at? Clause 19, “Rights of Indigenous peoples.” Can the minister tell us what consultations were undertaken with Indigenous peoples prior to the tabling of this act?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: Thanks for the question from my colleague the member for Peace River North.

The Indigenous communities were involved in the development of this legislation from the very earliest stages. The consultation process that the province engaged in included funding First Nations, some First Nations further, to undertake their own discussions and consultation processes. We’ve had numerous discussions with Chief Judy Wilson, as well as with legal counsel for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond.

[1:35 p.m.]

As we continue in this important process, now that we have the…. Well, once we have the ability to begin the process of establishing standards and writing the regulations, ongoing consultation will take place.

I’d point out that we had Indigenous representation on the advisory committee for the ministry and a lot of other discussions that took place. In terms of the public consultation, we had over 5,500 individuals provide input to the province, including over 500 people who identified as Indigenous. That’s an important part of the inclusion of all diversity of voices in this province as we move towards the standards and regulation development.

D. Davies: Obviously, there was consultation. That’s good to hear. The involvement, the public feedback…. Presumably there were some concerns or issues that were brought forward to the minister about these. I was just wondering if the minister can share some of those concerns around this act that he may have received by the different Indigenous communities, participants and some of the feedback.

Hon. N. Simons: The member asked a question, very relevant and obviously…. The question he asked was about whether the province made any adjustments or what have you.

We strengthened the legislation, based on the discussions we had, in terms of confirmation of at least one Indigenous person on our provincial advisory committee that Indigenous communities would be consulted on the independent reviews. The member might want to recognize that the legislation is written in such a way as to have a focus on the intersectionality of disability. The community that’s affected is affected in more than one way. So that was definitely an important consideration as we finalized the drafting.

D. Davies: I didn’t really get the answer that I was hoping for, so I’ll maybe dive a little further into the question. The minister had mentioned that there’s at least one Indigenous member on the committee. There has obviously been talk about Indigenous groups being involved from the earliest stages on the bill. We heard they’ve been undertaking many discussions. Presumably, prior to this act being brought forth to where we are today, there have been concerns brought up by the Indigenous groups that the ministry has reached out to.

[1:40 p.m.]

Our question is: can the minister share some of those concerns that were brought up and how the minister and the ministry acted upon those concerns that were brought forward?

Hon. N. Simons: The legislation was a process of months and months of hard work, intense discussions, good discussions, collaborative work together. Differences of opinion were raised by different sectors of the community, Indigenous and other. Our deliberation, our work together, resulted in what I consider to be robust legislation.

I mentioned issues around representation. Specific representation on the provincial advisory committee was an area that was highlighted. I wouldn’t characterize it as a dispute or a conflict at all. We work collaboratively with all of those interested in pursuing the goal that we have, and that’s a more accessible province.

The two points that I mentioned were in direct response, in fact, to the member, who may not have understood that I was speaking specifically to his question. Maybe he’s not used to that. But in fact, as well, the independent reviews would be…. Indigenous views would be part of the independent review process.

D. Davies: I guess, in the event, moving forward, if there is a…. I’m still trying to get past the last answer, which I still don’t think that I got, actually. In fact, I’m going to go back there. I’m still hoping to…. This isn’t to be a challenging question. This isn’t to create any conflict.

We’re hoping to hear…. I mean, it sounds like there were robust conversations with different Indigenous groups, and 500 people participated in the public outreach that identified as Indigenous background. I guess what we’re looking for are — and I’m sure that they’re recorded somewhere — the specific details of where there may have been issues and challenges that did not fit, possibly, or did not work with the X, Y or Z Indigenous communities or individuals in creating this act.

I’m not looking for the entire list but some highlights of some of these concerns that were brought forward and how the ministry dealt with those.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: I know what the member opposite…. I know his role. I was in his role for a long time. So I’m not misunderstanding the purpose or nature of the question. I respect the fact that he’s asking about an important subject area.

I would like to point out that the overwhelming message we’ve heard, broadly across the province, including from Indigenous communities, is that this is important legislation. People are very happy about it finally coming to the floor of the House.

We heard, obviously, how equity and equal access to opportunities is a key component of accessibility. It is fundamental to an inclusive society. I did point out that during the review of the legislation with Indigenous communities, we identified ways of strengthening it. When I pointed out the membership of the accessibility committee and the process of review by the independent review, I was addressing the questions.

I would like just to characterize the discussion and the development of this legislation. It’s not like in here, where we may find conflict with each other. This is a collaborative process, in which all parties at the table really want to get to the same place. Actually, I do think that the members opposite want to get to the same place as well. I don’t doubt that.

The nature of the discussions was that this is important legislation. How can we strengthen it? The process of legislative drafting and the input from the ministry into that drafting process reflected what we heard.

Clauses 19 and 20 approved.

On clause 21.

S. Cadieux: I appreciate the challenge that he faces in bringing this act to the House and getting the agreement of all of the parties. As I’ve stated, I know there will be trade-offs, and I know there will be decisions made by government that advocates won’t like. But my colleague was trying to make a point, I think, and I think he made it.

Not everyone, including not everyone on the committee that the minister talked about as being consulted in the development of the act, is happy with what they now see. There was a lot of consultation and there were lots of opinions given and a lot of direction given as to what the bill needed to contain. The community, including members of that committee, are not satisfied with this bill.

In fact, Disability Alliance B.C., which sits on that minister’s advisory, doesn’t believe that the act should even be moving forward in this House today as it is. They have significant concerns about the fact that the act didn’t have the active participation of the community in the actual drafting of the act, only in providing advice and that the consultations that government undertook are not reflected in the bill.

I’m going to say this, and that is that I am still pleased that this bill is moving forward in the House. I do, however, share many of the concerns of the people that are voicing their concerns publicly, the advocates.

[1:50 p.m.]

As a legislator who has been here now 12-plus years, like the minister, I understand there are reasons legislation is the way it is. There are opportunities, and there’s timing. I am happy that we will have a bill on the books. I, too, would have liked it to be much stronger. The minister knows that. The minister knows I had a number of amendments on the paper that I wished to see, to make the bill stronger. They didn’t even include the ones that I think are most necessary to give the bill teeth.

That’s where we’re going to go now for discussion. Compliance and enforcement. There isn’t really any. The bill puts in place a number of things. We’ll go through these in the coming sections. But what does seem to be completely lacking in the bill is a complaints mechanism for people with disabilities, who are the people facing these challenges.

Can the minister describe, please, what I am not seeing? Where is it? Where is the complaints mechanism for people with disabilities, who don’t believe that the access to be provided by this act is being provided? Where is the complaints mechanism? How will that work? And where will it be housed?

Hon. N. Simons: In response, I would say that I do believe we have a very strong bill, a robust bill that includes…. We passed it already, but it was section 12, which refers to a feedback mechanism. It says an organization must have a feedback mechanism, and that includes government as an organization. So government will not just have an opportunity to hear about how barriers exist in communities and where they need to be removed, but feedback will be provided on the actual standards that have been put forward as well. This is a way to ensure that the public has an opportunity to let government be aware of any issues that happen to arise.

[1:55 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: Well, that’s the point. Feedback is not a complaints mechanism. The opportunity to write to government and say: “Gee, I don’t like this. This didn’t happen right. Thanks very much. In your next report, can you please tell me why or what you’re doing about it?” That is not a complaints mechanism. That doesn’t provide any security for people with disabilities to report a violation of a standard, a barrier to access, that is preventing them from accessing something.

They can complain to government or to whichever agency may be there, but there is no independent process for investigation. There is no independent process for individuals to seek redress, quite the opposite of what we see in the Accessible Canada Act, for example, and even in the ADA from 1990.

I’m going to ask now for the minister to explain here, in part 21, the director. Why has the minister decided, in this legislation, to house all of the potential enforcement inside government? How can we be assured that this public servant inside a ministry of government that is also subject to standards can be independent in enforcing violations or complaints against government for redress?

Hon. N. Simons: The compliance and enforcement person would be an independent statutory decision–maker. I know that the member served on this side of the House and knows that they have independence from direct ministry intervention. But they’re an independent statutory decision–maker.

It’s similar to other jurisdictions, perhaps not the federal government. I believe that this allows for the independence that the member is speaking of.

S. Cadieux: Well, I definitely don’t agree. I think we would have been much better served as a population of people that have long, long suffered in many respects a lack of respect of our access needs.

The continued erection of barriers to our accessing public services, buildings, our environment, our ability to work, our ability to recreate, our ability to exercise our rights and responsibilities as citizens — these barriers continue to exist despite all the best efforts of the public as a whole, as a government, in terms of making great statements about the need for this.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I understand this all too well, as an individual myself who has fought these battles inside government and from outside.

[2:00 p.m.]

I know it’s not simple to fix, and I know there isn’t an overnight solution, but I certainly think this nearly 25 percent of the population that will face some of these barriers in their lifetime certainly would have felt better about this legislation if it came with an independent officer of the Legislature, for example, like we have for the children’s representative or even the seniors advocate — which, while although reports to a minister ultimately, has a degree of independence and a sense of independence of action and concern and certainly would provide an opportunity for there to be a more transparent complaints and investigation process.

I can respect that the individual that…. I note the language in the act, again, says the minister “may” appoint a director, not must. However, I appreciate and trust that that appointment will be made forthwith. But I appreciate that the statutory decision–maker has some autonomy. However, there is no mechanism here for the public to lodge complaints, to ask for investigation and redress.

I think that is a major point of concern for the advocacy community, largely. Certainly, I’ve heard from a number of people on this, not just from Disability Alliance B.C. Certainly, they were public about their concerns about this in their letter to the editor of the paper. But also an advocate that I have known a long time, Paul Caune, who has faced great systemic barriers to his accessing his rights as a human being and as a person with a significant disability. I know he is struggling with the fact that this act doesn’t provide the teeth that advocates hoped it would, after this long of advocating for things.

As Paul has long said: “Hope is not a plan.” But we’re asking to put a lot of hope out there with this act. A lot of trust and a lot of…. I think one of his comments was, essentially, this act is asking us, as people with disabilities, to trust and then, basically, have a big group hug if it doesn’t work out.

We need more. He points out in an article that the ADA in the States, which was put in place in 1990, provides more teeth for prisoners to lodge complaints against government about their treatment — and provides opportunity for redress — than this act does. I think we should be concerned by that. I think the minister needs to know that this concern exists, because people to this day have been making their voices as loud as they can and have not seen change within government or within the communities.

I guess I would ask again. Why did the ministry and the minister decide that this level of enforcement, a statutory decision–maker within the ministry appointed by the minister, was the best route, over an independent office or advocate?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: I thank the member for her question. I know Paul. I’ve met Paul. I know his advocacy, and I respect the advocacy of all those who’ve worked to ensure that their province took this issue seriously. I know I raised it myself when I was in opposition, and we were waiting for the federal legislation at the time. At least that was the answer. So understanding that.

I would just point out that the format that we’re using here in British Columbia is similar to the other provinces. They don’t have commissioners established. It might be different from the federal. But I would take issue with the suggestion that it doesn’t have teeth. We have the independent statutory decision–maker. We have significant financial penalties available for non-compliance. As I’ve said many times…. I know that sometimes people accuse me of being overly enthusiastic or perhaps hopeful. But I am.

[2:10 p.m.]

I think the process that has brought us here…. Despite the fact that there exists difference of opinion on some aspects of this legislation, we are working collectively towards the same goal. We are working towards ensuring that if we identify barriers, we remove them, and that we set a process forward. We bring in standards and regulations for different sectors as decided by the community and the minister, obviously, and we expect people to be in compliance. If they’re not, we have mechanisms to deal with that.

Clause 21 approved.

On clause 22.

S. Cadieux: I don’t for a minute think that the minister isn’t well-intentioned. But without a complaints mechanism for people with disabilities to inform the director or inspectors, how do they know who or what to inspect, and for what? Without a complaints mechanism, how will people with disabilities be put at the centre of ensuring that organizations follow the regulations?

We know that despite the fact that people with disabilities have always had in British Columbia — or at least, not always, but for a great deal of time — protections under human rights and so on, the challenge is that you have to proactively go out and file a complaint. You have to wait to have it go through the system. It’s a hugely cumbersome process that relies on people with disabilities leading and fighting for their rights.

The intent, I would argue, of this bill is to expressly remove the need for that through the development of standards. However, we also know that there will be a need to enforce — hence, this section of the bill. We’re putting in place, with this bill, significant monetary penalties. I don’t argue with the minister on that. However, somebody has to alert the inspector to the fact that something isn’t happening.

At this point, we don’t understand. There is no articulation of how those complaints about a lack of compliance or enforcement can be made for the purpose of inspection. So can the minister explain how that process will work?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: I would point out that the government was required to develop a feedback mechanism. There are many ways that the public will continue to inform government and lead government towards identifying where compliance and enforcement will be required.

As we develop the standards, and as we receive the feedback from the provincial advisory committee and technical advisory committees, it might be established that we find other ways of ensuring that the director can be contacted for specific issues. The director, obviously, has the ability to appoint inspectors to look into particular matters. But the feedback mechanisms and the compliance and enforcement options available to government remain quite broad, actually, with the establishment of the standards and as we see the role of the director get established.

[2:20 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: I’m not sure that that provides much comfort or clarity around how people with disabilities will be able to have their complaints addressed in a timely way. But I will move on. Let’s go to section 26.

Clauses 22 to 25 inclusive approved.

On clause 26.

S. Cadieux: On this clause, we’re looking at reconsiderations and appeals. Obviously this is after someone has been found in contravention by the inspector or director and has been issued a penalty. What if that organization is a ministry of government? Will they be forced to pay that monetary penalty? And what happens with the payment of that penalty?

Hon. N. Simons: If there was a finding against a ministry, the ministry would be subject to the same monetary penalties as any other prescribed organization.

S. Cadieux: Then if a ministry, under section 26, appealed for reconsideration, is there a more significant chance that reconsideration would be granted, given that the statutory officer who made the initial finding is now being asked to reconsider their own fine?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: The answer to that is that’s why we’ve established that the director would be an independent statutory decision–maker and not the minister, for example. That maintains that level of independence required.

Clause 26 approved.

On clause 27.

S. Cadieux: This should be a quick one for the minister. Could the minister just confirm who is or what is the prescribed tribunal that is referenced here?

Hon. N. Simons: Thank you for the question. The tri­bunal referred to in section 27 is referring to…. The intent is to direct appeals to an existing tribunal rather than to create a new one. The name of that applicable tribunal would be determined, obviously, in consultation with the Attorney General. But the tribunal would be the body to which the reconsiderations would be referred.

Clauses 27 and 28 approved.

On clause 29.

S. Cadieux: I know the minister will be expecting this one, as I asked it in the wrong section yesterday.

Understanding that this committee could theoretically be very busy — there’s a lot of work to do — they could decide to tackle a lot of issues at once, to really delve in and provide meat to the bones of this legislation in the shortest possible time frame, which would then mean they are providing an awful lot of their time and expertise to this process. Can the minister please explain what, at this time, the plan is for remuneration of those committee members?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: What this section does is allow the minister, in accordance with the general directives of Treasury Board, to reimburse or pay an allowance to members of the provincial accessibility committee or a technical committee for reasonable travelling and out-of-pocket expenses. It also allows the minister to pay members of the provincial accessibility committee and technical committee members who are persons with disabilities or members of the provincial accessibility committee.

As I mentioned, payments are subject to Treasury Board directives, including the directive on remuneration guidelines for appointees to a ministry and Crown agency board.

S. Cadieux: I do hope that in that case, it is looked at as such, and the significant contribution that these individuals will make with their knowledge and personal experience will not be undervalued in relation to that type of expertise provided by appointees to Crown corporation boards and such. It is long recognized that this community has been asked to provide their expertise in a charitable way for far too long. I hope that the minister and Treasury Board will take that seriously.

With that, I’d like to just say to the minister: thank you to you and your staff for being available and being as forthcoming with answers as you were. I remain cautiously optimistic that we will see some change as a result of this.

As I say, as a person with a disability and as an advocate, I am deeply disappointed by the legislation. But as a legislator and a member of this House, I am also very proud that we will have an act on the books that we can continue to hold this minister to account for filling out and for moving forward judiciously and with the utmost speed as possible. I appreciate his desire to ensure broad consultation but also understand that at some point, somebody makes a decision, just as the minister has in relation to this legislation.

His unwillingness to accept an amendment to it, for a couple of words, cautions me somewhat in his willingness to move this forward quickly, with the needs of the community and the desires of the community. However, I am going to put that aside, and I am going to say thank you and congratulations. I am pleased to be a member of this House as we move forward with this historic step.

He can count on the fact that I will be watching closely as we move forward. I appreciate very much his repeated offers to include me in forthcoming processes.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am done with my questions.

Hon. N. Simons: I just would like to take this opportunity, as well, to make a few final comments. I’d like to just first thank the member for Surrey South and the member for Peace River North, separated by a few miles but united, I suppose, in the hope — perhaps cautious hope, but I understand that — that we will fulfil what British Columbians expect of us in terms of making our province more accessible and more inclusive.

[2:35 p.m.]

It’s a commitment we made as government. Understanding the hesitance in the community that has probably…. One of the communities that has worked so hard and fought so hard to ensure that we become more accessible over the years.

This is not the end of the process by any means, and this is not going to be entirely government’s sole responsibility to make this province more accessible. We are counting on the goodwill and we’re counting on what I believe to be the belief of British Columbians — that our province is a better province when people can be included in all aspects of society.

This bill that’s before the House today, I believe, will bring us much closer to the destinations that we’re aiming for. I expect to be held accountable. That’s part of the process here.

I thank all the members of the committees and all those who participated in the consultation process to bring us to this point for their contributions. I respect the fact that there remains some differences of opinion with respect to the content of the legislation. I’ve been here long enough to know that’s not uncommon. However, I remain certain that we have the tool necessary to bring us to a more accessible and more inclusive province.

I neglected to introduce the staff who have been in my right ear for the last two days. They include Deputy Minister Dave Galbraith, Sam Turcott from the accessibility secretariat, Krissi Spinoza, Guillaume Dufresne, Tricia Daykin, Shaylin Williams, Brynne Langford, Amanda Arnet and Denise Clair Smith.

I thank everybody who has been part of this process. There is a lot of work ahead of us, and I count on goodwill and common intentions to get us to the place we’re aiming for.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: That’s a lot of voices in your head, Minister.

Clause 29 approved.

The Chair: Does anybody have questions or comments on clauses 30 to 33?

Clauses 30 to 33 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. N. Simons: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:38 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 6 — ACCESSIBLE
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Bill 6, Accessible British Columbia Act, reported complete without amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the committee sit again, Minister?

Hon. N. Simons: At the next sitting.

Mr. Speaker: So ordered.

Hon. N. Simons: I move that we have a recess.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. The House will be in recess for ten minutes.

The House recessed from 2:39 p.m. to 2:42 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. N. Simons: I now call third reading of Bill 6.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ACCESSIBLE
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Bill 6, Accessible British Columbia Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. N. Simons: I call second reading of Bill 7.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

T. Stone: I’m pleased to rise and continue my remarks on Bill 7, which deals with the Electoral Boundaries Commission. Electoral Boundaries Commission is a process which is required by law in British Columbia. I think all of us in this chamber know that. The commission is charged with a very important responsibility and that is to review the boundaries and the number of seats every two elections to make recommendations for potential changes.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

On the front end of that process, the government of the day has to provide the Boundaries Commission with a mandate. I’ve certainly been through this process once before, two election cycles ago. I was sitting in the government at that time. So I was very much part of the discussions as a member of government with respect to the mandate that we believed made the most sense to balance representation by population as a core principle in our democracy with the important principle of effective representation.

The proposed changes that are contained in Bill 7 would provide, quite notably, for the potential increase in the size of the Legislature, or the number of legislators in this place, by up to six additional ridings, six additional MLAs. That would increase the total number of MLAs from 87 to 93.

[2:45 p.m.]

I will say as an aside that I haven’t come across too many constituents or too many British Columbians who, as a matter of top priority, have said to me they think the answer to all of our problems is more politicians, more provincial politicians. Nevertheless, the Boundaries Commission, in its deliberation, can come back with a recommendation to increase the size of this place by up to an additional six seats.

Also quite notably, I think even more notably than the potential for more members in this chamber…. We’re all kind of wondering where the additional members would go. It’s a bit tight in here now, but I’m sure we’d figure that out.

The other major change that’s contained within Bill 7 would provide for the elimination of protection on 17 seats that currently exist that are contained within three regions in the Interior and the north. In the Cariboo-Thompson region, there are five ridings that are protected. In the Columbia-Kootenay region, there are four ridings protected. In the north region, there are eight ridings protected. Again, that’s 17 seats that are currently protected.

By protected, what this really means in practical terms is that there cannot be…. The current legislation makes it very clear that there cannot be a reduction in the number of ridings or districts in each of those three areas. The area that I live in, the Cariboo-Thompson region, with five seats…. While boundary changes within that region are permitted between those five seats, the current legislation does not provide for a reduction in the number of seats from the current five — similarly with the north region and the Columbia-Kootenay region.

Quite disappointingly, we are dealing with the potential removal of this provision, which is contained within this bill that’s before the House, Bill 7. It is a clear decision that is being made by the current NDP government to move toward more of an electoral quotient approach to the determination of the number of seats and where the seats are and what the boundaries of seats are in British Columbia.

The electoral quotient concept really, in its most simplistic terms, involves taking the total population of British Columbia, which is around five million, and dividing it by the number of seats that the Electoral Boundaries Commission decides to recommend. Again, they can move from the 87 that we have currently, up to a potential of 93. You divide those total number of seats into the population, and you get an average population number, which would be, if they did go ahead with the additional six seats, an average population per riding of about 55,000 to 57,000 people.

There is an accepted practice when going through the process of determining exactly those allocations of seats and the population levels within them. It’s an accepted practice of allowing for plus or minus 25 percent of population in a riding. That’s 25 percent plus or minus the average for the province. That plus or minus 25 percent deviation is a long-established and acceptable practice, not just here in British Columbia but right across the country.

Again, Bill 7 removes the requirement for the commission to recognize “the legacy of our history and the need to balance the community interests of the people of B.C.” when fixing boundaries. That would be removed from the act through this Bill 7.

Bill 7 also, again, removes language that the commission can exceed the plus or minus 25 percent deviation “where it considers that very special circumstances exist.”

[2:50 p.m.]

That language is to be replaced with language that says: “…if it considers it necessary to provide for effective representation.” A very different approach to addressing the reality of rural British Columbia and the need for ongoing effective representation.

Now, let me just back up. I want to say this. Certainly, I very much — I know my constituents up in Kamloops do as well — support, understand and respect the need to continue to honour, as a core pillar of our democracy, representation by population, certainly in the context of the plus or minus 25 percent deviation that’s allowed on that as well.

There has been very significant population growth over the last number of decades in the Lower Mainland, in particular. We’ve also seen significant population growth in the Okanagan, even in my hometown of Kamloops. Our population growth hasn’t been as pronounced as, say, that other city down the road. I think it’s Kelowna. Kelowna has grown quite a bit faster than Kamloops has, but Kamloops has continued to grow.

The reality is that Kamloops has two seats here in the Legislature, albeit mine is geographically much smaller than my partner’s, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. He has a large rural area attached to his riding. The fact remains we have two seats that represent the city of Kamloops and the surrounding Thompson valleys. Based on the population growth that we’ve seen in the two Kamloops ridings and in the city in particular, I wouldn’t expect that there would be a dramatic change coming from the Boundaries Commission based solely on the principle of representation by population — again, allowing for that plus or minus 25 percent deviation.

But in the Lower Mainland, there has been very significant population growth. I’m actually from the Lower Mainland. I was born in New Westminster. I spent the first ten years of my life in Port Coquitlam. My father — I’ve spoken about him often here in the Legislature — was a very proud Vancouver firefighter. I still have a whole bunch of relatives in the Lower Mainland, particularly in Surrey.

If I just look at those three communities in the Lower Mainland, New Westminster…. When we left the Lower Mainland and moved up to Kamloops in 1981, New Westminster had a population of about 35,000. Well, it’s doubled since that time, in terms of what the population is today. It’s about 70,000 today.

Port Coquitlam, or PoCo, is where I went to elementary school. PoCo, back in 1981, had a population of about 27,000. It’s more than doubled since that time. We look at Surrey. Surrey in 1981 had a population of about 147,000. Today the population is over 600,000. Surrey is on a rapid trajectory to eclipse Vancouver in population. It’s going to happen. One of the fastest-growing and most dynamic cities not just in the province but across the country.

I say all of this because I want to make very, very clear that these rapidly growing urban centres, predominantly in the Lower Mainland, absolutely must have a strong voice here in the Legislature. They absolutely must not have their voices diluted because they have population levels that are so dramatically more than the population levels in other ridings in other parts of the province. The key is balance. The key is balancing that representation by population principle with the principle of effective representation, ensuring that there is actually equitable representation.

If we just look at the seat count, it’s 87 seats today. I might be wrong on this by one or two. I’m not entirely sure if Powell River–Sunshine Coast is considered Vancouver Island or the Lower Mainland.

Interjection.

T. Stone: I’ve hurt the feelings of the minister from Powell River.

Let’s say Vancouver Island has 14 seats today, the Lower Mainland 49, the Interior and the north 24. On a percentage basis, that works out to 56 percent of all the seats in the province are in the Lower Mainland, as it should be. Well over half the population of the province is in the Lower Mainland.

[2:55 p.m.]

If the Electoral Boundaries Commission was to come forward and recommend adding the maximum number allowed, those additional six seats, and take the Legislature up to 93, and if all six of those seats were recommended to be put into the Lower Mainland, that would increase the seat count in the Lower Mainland to 55. The Lower Mainland would have almost 60 percent of the representation in this place. The point I’m trying to make is that if that’s what the commission deems is fair to ensure that the voices in these rapidly growing urban areas are not diluted, then I can get on board with that.

What I have a problem with is the proposal in this bill that doesn’t try to tiptoe around diluting the voice of the Interior and the north and the Kootenays but actually directly attacks it, directly removes the protections that are in place today to ensure that effective representation of the people — the voices in the Interior, the north and the Kootenays — remains. That, to me, is not fair.

Now, as I said a moment ago, equal does not mean equitable. The principles of representation by population need to be balanced with that concept of effective representation. The Attorney General, in bringing forward this bill and making some public comments, has often said that the protection that is currently in the act has made British Columbia an outlier in this regard. He’s gone on to say most other provinces don’t have these kinds of regions.

Well, that’s actually not true. That’s not true. Nova Scotia’s commission, in their most recent go-around with this process, had a very specific component to their mandate, which was to ensure effective representation for Acadian, Black and Mi’kmaq populations in that province. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba all have ridings in their provinces, largely in the northern half of their provinces, that are quite significant in size but have much less population in them than you’re going to find in…. A northern Alberta riding will have far fewer people living in it than you’re going to have in an Edmonton or Calgary riding.

The federal government. If we look at the federal parliament, greater Toronto should have quite a few more seats in the federal parliament than it currently does. Alberta and our province here in British Columbia should have more seats in the federal parliament than we currently have. You can ask yourself the question: should Atlantic Canada have as many seats as they have in the parliament? They’re overrepresented when you look purely at the numbers.

The point I’m making is that these are the accommodations that have been woven into the fabric of these other provinces and into our national institution, recognizing that people in rural areas, people that live in disparate, small communities, also have a right to effective representation.

So much of the province’s wealth comes from the Inter­ior, the north and the Kootenays — forestry, mining, energy, gas, lots of other industries. We need vibrant communities in these resource-rich areas of our province, but these communities also need to have strong voices and effective representation here in Victoria.

I worked in mining. In fact, I put myself through university working for a company that, at the time, was called Placer Dome. I did mineral exploration and diamond drilling. I drove all over the northern half of the province for three summers in a row, one of the best jobs I’ve ever had.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I did a lot of work in the Vanderhoof area, Fraser Lake, Smithers, Stewart. Anyone who has travelled on Highway 37, the Stewart-Cassiar Highway, from the Kitwanga junction on Highway 16 to the Yukon border…. Of course, it’s a spectacular drive into Stewart on Highway 37A. You drive that 725 kilometres from the Kitwanga junction to the Yukon border, and you go through a whole bunch of very small, disparate communities.

[3:00 p.m.]

The proposal that’s on the table here would significantly dilute the representation for those British Columbians. It’s disheartening to think, if you actually live in those communities, where so much of the collective wealth of this province is actually generated…. People who live there see most of that wealth exported out of their communities, out of those regions. Now, on top of this, we’re going to say: “Let’s dilute their representation.”

In 2019, I took a trip, with the current Leader of the Opposition, up the entire Highway 5 north of Kamloops. We stopped in communities all the way up: in Barriere and Clearwater, Valemount and McBride — huge travel distances. The number one issue we encountered everywhere we went, the number one concern people raised, was the lack of access to services, the lack of feeling heard in Victoria, notwithstanding how hard their MLA — again, who is the Leader of the Opposition — up in that Valemount-McBride area works and shows up. These people deserve to have effective representation. This bill dilutes that.

As a former Transportation Minister for four years, one of the aspects of the job that I enjoyed the most was getting out around the province and visiting these communities. Sure, you’re announcing projects and opening up projects, and that stuff is all fun. But the real appreciation comes from going into these communities that you might not have much history with and meeting the people, getting to know them, getting to understand their issues.

Again, you realize that in all of these rural, small communities scattered over huge travel distances, they really do struggle with access to services, health care, housing, mental health, Internet. Heck, you can be in a community like Clearwater. Sure, they have Internet challenges, but before you get to the Internet, they still have huge issues with their cellular service. So do so many communities around the Interior and the north.

Highway maintenance is a big, big challenge in these rural areas. I did a circle tour with my family back in August of 2014. We drove from Kamloops to Victoria to Port Hardy, on the ferry to Bella Bella, to Ocean Falls, into Shearwater and over to Bella Coola. We then drove to Williams Lake and back to Kamloops. It was 1,934 kilometres, 32 hours of travel time — one of the most spectacular drives and vacations that we’ve ever done as a family.

Again, you stop all along the way, you talk to people, and you realize how hard life is for so many people in these communities. That’s not to say that life isn’t hard for people in urban centres either, but it’s to say that these folks are already doing the best that they possibly can, often having to drive hours upon hours to access health care, hours and hours to access their MLA. This bill sets out to further dilute that.

The bottom line, for me, is this. The impact of any potential changes on my riding in Kamloops and the other Kamloops riding, the two ridings I spoke of a little while ago, is likely to be minimal. We might have some boundary changes around the edges. If the commission goes ahead — because there’s no protection built into the bill — they very well could say, for the Fraser-Nicola riding, which is immediately southwest of my riding, that maybe the recommendation would be to merge it into my riding.

That would not be good for the people of Fraser-Nicola, which is already one of the largest ridings, with one of the most First Nations communities of any riding in the province — very small communities. The current act affords those protections for these ridings in the Interior, the north and the Kootenays in the form of a very clear directive that the Boundaries Commission must adhere to. It must be followed.

[3:05 p.m.]

It’s a foundational principle that is basically saying to the people in these areas of the province that they deserve effective representation. You can’t accomplish effective representation by further diluting their voices, making these ridings larger and making people drive 800 kilometres to access services instead of 650 kilometres, including accessing their MLA.

Bill 7 proposes to remove these protections. It means that people in many constituencies like Cariboo North, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Peace River North, Peace River South, North Coast, Nechako Lakes, Skeena, Fraser-Nicola, Kootenay West, Nelson-Creston, Columbia River–​Revelstoke and Kootenay East potentially are going to end up in much larger ridings, some as large European countries.

I don’t support removing this protection. I don’t support the aspect of Bill 7, which facilitates the removal of this protection. I do support adding more seats in the Lower Mainland — if that’s what the Boundaries Commission decides to do, based on the significant population growth that’s taking place there — but I believe rep by pop needs to be balanced with effective representation. Equal does not mean equitable. The decision by this government to remove the protections in place for rural B.C. means supporting this Bill 7 is something that I’m going to have a tough time doing.

J. Tegart: It is a pleasure to stand in the House today and represent the constituents of Fraser-Nicola addressing Bill 7, the Electoral Boundaries Act. This’ll be the second review of the electoral boundaries during my term as MLA. During the last review, my riding boundaries changed. I hear from many constituents in my riding that they feel like they’re often the tail end of a riding. They’re tired of being switched back and forth.

Constituents feel a very real connection with their MLA and with their riding. That is obvious by the comments that they make when changes happen. At one time, Ashcroft, Cache Creek and Clinton were tacked onto Cariboo South. At the next review, we were back in Fraser-Nicola. Hope has been in the riding, out of the riding and then back in the riding at different times. Princeton, as a community, has also been in Fraser-Nicola and is now out of Fraser-Nicola.

When we talk about democracy and the importance of voter engagement, I think we need to remember how important stability and consistency is in building the relationships we need to build with constituents — in engaging them in the electoral process and in democracy. Now, I understand it’s important to ensure that there is a process to review electoral boundaries and ensure that they reflect population growth. I think it is important to also ensure that boundaries reflect equity in representation. Are constituents able to contact, connect with and interact with their elected representative in a relatively equal way around the province?

Bill 7 draws boundaries based on one criterion: population numbers. Sounds pretty simple and pretty straightforward, but democracy, representation, is often not simple. In my speech today, I want to put some meat on the bone. I want to share some information with the House about what it’s like to be an MLA in Fraser-Nicola. I begin my story when I was elected in 2013. I drove a small compact car. I was over in Merritt at an event. I didn’t want to use taxpayers’ dollars to stay overnight. I was only an hour and a half away.

[3:10 p.m.]

I got in my car, and I started home at 10:30 at night. As I got near the top of the mountain, I thought: “Wow, there sure are a lot of bugs out here.” As I drove, I thought: “No, those aren’t bugs. That’s snow.” I was dressed in business dress, high heels on — not prepared for a snowstorm. When I found myself plowing snow with the front bumper of my car, I thought: “You know what? I think I need to phone someone to come and get me.”

I pulled over to the side of the road. No cell coverage. Still snowing like crazy. It took me 4½ hours to drive home. I decided, during those panicked hours in my probably first six months of representing Fraser-Nicola, that the little compact car needed to be traded in for a four-wheel drive. For the amount of time I spend in my car going out to communities, that was one of the best decisions I’ve made.

For those of you who don’t experience some of the more rural things, think about what weather does in some of the Interior and northern ridings and how that affects representation and how we expect people to come to us. During winter, that is often impossible. Then the next thing we think: “Well, they can phone us.” Many of my people don’t have phones and no cell coverage and no Internet.

When we talk about representation and equity across the province, I think we need to think of much more than just numbers. As we drive around the riding, I have one road that I travel very often between Ashcroft and Merritt. I can tell you, driving home one night…. There is a bear that will never forget the evening that he came into contact with my CA and I. We have never driven that road without seeing wildlife. That’s another thing you need to think about as we think about people being on the road and driving to communities in order to meet with us so that we can be an effective representative for them.

I want to tell you a little bit about the geography of Fraser-Nicola. Stretching from north of 70 Mile House all the way to the U.S. border in the south, as far east as the Shuswap regional district, all the way to the Squamish-Lillooet regional district in the west, the Fraser-Nicola riding is a large geographic area with a diverse population — more than 31,000 square kilometres. Our region is larger than Belgium. It is actually 3,000 to 4,000 times larger than some of the ridings you will find in Vancouver, ridings like Vancouver–West End.

I have Clinton, Lillooet, Cache Creek, Ashcroft, Lytton, Hope, Merritt, Logan Lake. I have the Fraser Valley regional district, the Squamish-Lillooet regional district, the Thompson-Nicola regional district.

I have the Ashcroft Indian Band, the Oregon Jack Creek Band, Lytton First Nation Band, Kanaka Bar Band, Siska Indian Band, Skuppah Indian Band, Nicomen Indian Band, Cook’s Ferry Indian Band, Lower Nicola Indian Band, Upper Nicola Indian Band, Coldwater Indian Band, Nooaitch Indian Band, Shackan Indian Band, Skeetchestn Indian Band, Bonaparte Indian Band, Canoe Creek, High Bar Indian band, Whispering Pines Indian Band, Pavilion First Nations, Xaxli’p First Nation, to name a few. I have over 30 First Nations communities in my riding.

I have four MPs who represent my riding.

[3:15 p.m.]

I would like to talk a little bit about representing a huge, land-based riding, compared to, perhaps, the Chair’s compact, high-population riding. My comments come from talking with colleagues and listening to some of the challenges of the urban versus the rural riding representation.

The issues I hear about in my riding are…. I try to meet with my local government representatives at least once a year. So that’s eight incorporated communities, three regional districts, four school districts and over 30 First Nations chiefs and councils. Many are more than 2½ hours’ drive from where I live. It is so important that MLAs build relationships with local leaders to understand their issues. In a compact riding, you may have one or two local governments to meet with.

I also attend events, parades, swearing-in ceremonies, celebrations throughout the ridings, and again, that involves travelling to all those communities where they’re being hosted.

Health care is a challenge in my riding. Many of my communities can’t find doctors. Many of my communities don’t have emergency rooms. Many of my communities don’t have transit. Retention of doctors, nurses, support services, emergency rooms…. Ambulance services, not only for local citizens but for the travelling public, because every road into the interior of British Columbia comes through my riding…. Basic services are provided in my two largest communities, but everyone must travel to a larger centre to receive any specialist services.

The further challenge is the lack of public transportation. Keeping services open and available over weekends is a huge challenge for many of my small communities. If the ER is closed, you must travel at least an hour or two to the nearest hospital. We have minimal mental health and addictions services. We talk about health care and the challenges around health care on a weekly, if not daily, basis.

Affordability is another issue in my riding. We are an economically depressed area. Affordability is a huge issue, which is one that I would share, likely, with the Chair. We talk about housing and homelessness, family-supporting jobs and support services and seniors housing, because our seniors have often been part of a family that is third and fourth generation in our small communities. That’s where they want to live, because they love where they live. But they also have an expectation that they will have strong representation in this House.

Agriculture is big in my riding. I’m not sure that that’s a huge issue in the Chair’s riding, but we talk about transportation for agriculture, talk about abattoirs, talk about farmers markets, agricultural land reserve, insurance — which is very difficult to get for crops — farm-to-table, drought and flooding, immigration and immigrant workers, and wineries who are just developing and are looking for support services.

In my riding, we host one of the largest open-pit mines in North America — provides excellent jobs. But we meet often to talk about permitting. We talk about environmental stewardship, competitiveness, the lon­gevity of the mine, shipping and transportation of goods. When you have a mine as big as Highland Valley Copper, we talk about how you plan for closure, because it’s going to have huge effect as we look to the future. But we also have mining out in Bralorne, underground mining. So we talk about mining.

[3:20 p.m.]

The next one we talk about is forestry — sustainability of forestry and those jobs and how important forestry is to the history of our riding and to the job creation in our riding.

We’ve had mill closures. We’ve seen the mountain pine beetle. We talk about wildfires. We talk about annual allowable cuts. As I talk about the issues and the opportunities that we have in our riding, I hope you have, as members, an opportunity to think about how common the issues are or perhaps how different they are and how that representation is so important in this House, no matter which riding you represent.

I have learned more about highways and roads than I ever wanted to know. Every highway coming out of the Lower Mainland to go into the Interior goes through my riding. The Coquihalla, the closures during the winter, the incredible work done by the crews who keep that highway safe and open. The Fraser Canyon I’ve talked about in this House many times and the opportunities around the beauty of the drives through my riding. But we also talk about potholes where you feel like you could bury your car. We talk about slides and weather events and closures. Highways and roads are not only important to my riding; they’re important to the province.

Good representation and understanding of what happens when we have a weather event, the ability to pick up a phone when someone phones you and to know who to call…. Those crews are absolutely incredible, but that’s part of representation. If I lived in Williams Lake and the Coquihalla was mine — part of my riding — it would be incredible to have such a huge area.

My colleague from Cariboo North talked about wildfire and emergency management. We have all learned so much over the last five years in regards to wildfires. We’ve seen flooding that we’ve never seen in the last ten years. The water tables are so high. The flooding events that used to be unusual have become a yearly event. As we talk about climate change, we need to make sure that we start being proactive rather than reactive.

But those are the kinds of things we talk about in my office. I actually have two offices because my riding is so huge. I don’t want people to have to be in a car for four hours to get to me.

First Nations relationships are incredibly important in my riding. With over 30 bands, I spend a lot of time meeting and building relationships with chiefs and councils. That is a key activity for an MLA. I can’t imagine if we got bigger. We love to go to events at First Nations communities, celebrating and participating in ceremonies and special events, advocating and supporting the work being done at the local, provincial and federal level.

[3:25 p.m.]

Education, economic development, job creation. I’ve shared in the House a project that I’m so proud of in the Fraser Canyon. Our office is a key component of that project, because when you represent so many small communities, the capacity to actually carry a project is often very difficult for them. They don’t have the staff. They don’t have the ability to pull everyone together. So through my office and through a partnership with First Nations, the village of Lytton and the chamber of commerce, we’ve been able to put together a project that I believe is going to make a significant difference through the Fraser Canyon.

I can’t imagine, if we were bigger than we are, being able to take on projects like that that will make such a difference to our small businesses and our communities who have been devastated since the Coquihalla was built.

I’ve tried to give you a taste of a day in the life of an MLA in a large rural riding. It is a challenge. It is exciting. You get to see some of the most beautiful country in British Columbia. I would say so. We welcome the world in my riding.

The important thing is that constituents in my riding need to feel valued. They need to feel valued by those of us who represent British Columbia. When your riding is one of the ridings that gets changed every time there’s a boundary review…. People in my riding feel like they’re undervalued.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

They are part of Fraser-Nicola. They identify with Fraser-Nicola. Fraser-Nicola boundaries are there for a reason. They’re trade routes. They’re tradition. I certainly don’t disagree that in fast-growing ridings, we need to reassess and we need to look at representation. But that doesn’t mean that we take away.

I have to say that I was very disappointed when Bill 7 was tabled in this House. I’ve been particularly disappointed in the lack of comment from members on the other side. I think this is a critical debate about democracy. It goes to the heart of the work we do. I think this bill is one of the most important bills that we will see as we talk about representation in British Columbia. To have the other side not even get up and speak….

There are a great many members who this is going to affect, and this doesn’t just affect you. It affects those that you represent. We have an obligation to be their voice. We have an obligation to ensure that we reach out, that we listen and that we bring their voice to this House.

Although I’ve heard reassurances that the commission has the right to make the boundaries and do that sort of thing, I can tell you that people in my riding are pretty concerned. When the one big thing Bill 7 does is take that protection out, that the Interior, north and the Kootenays will have the same number of seats, it sends a message. It sends a message to the people who live in my riding. It sends a message to the people who live above Hope. We don’t live beyond Hope. We live above Hope.

[3:30 p.m.]

I can tell you that our people will be passionate when they make presentations to this commission, and many of their comments and much of their concern and anxiety will come from removing that protection.

That protection isn’t partisan. That protection is about representation. That protection is so that people in large, rural ridings have the opportunity to drive a reasonable distance to see their MLA. When you think about a compact, 12-by-12 block riding versus a riding like mine the size of Belgium…. We deal with slides. We deal with weather. We deal with mountain passes. Then we expect people to get in a car and come to an office and see us.

Well, I can tell you that as an MLA, it is me who is on the road, because people in rural B.C. are tired of being told to come to the centre. They want services and representation in their communities. If we, as a House, don’t recognize that — and I believe that we send them a message by taking that clause out — people in rural B.C. once again feel undervalued.

So in my comments today, when you draw a boundary based solely on population, you leave the heart out of our ridings. It’s the people, right? It’s the people you represent. You need to ensure that people in Metro feel that they have the strong ability to be represented, and people at Anahim Lake need to feel that they have access to their MLA also.

That clause there guaranteed that those ridings and the constituency within those ridings did not get any bigger. I think that’s a critical point. But I’d ask everyone in the House to really think about what it’s like. When we talk about diversity and inclusion, and we talk about how important democracy is, this is our opportunity to show people that everyone counts.

Life in Fraser-Nicola is always interesting. It is an incredible experience to represent a riding that is so huge but so different. So many communities with unique challenges and opportunities. But I can tell you: everyone that I meet in my riding values the representation from this House.

I ask, as you look at Bill 7, to think about that and to really think about what this bill does as we look at boundary review. Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s been a pleasure to address this House.

Hon. N. Cullen: It’s a pleasure to be with you here today. I’m actually in Victoria, strangely. I’m not often here, given these COVID times.

I am speaking to you from the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples territory.

I represent the beautiful and extremely large riding of Stikine in our provincial Legislature.

[3:35 p.m.]

To my friend from across the way, from Fraser-Nicola…. She lamented that not enough government speakers, MLAs, were speaking. I’d say: “Careful what you wish for.” She also lamented the enormous size of her riding, which is large, I suppose. But it is one-seventh the size of Stikine, which is the largest riding in the Legislature.

I see my friend from North Coast joining us, whose riding is not only very large as well — I think quite a bit larger than Fraser-Nicola — but is also incredibly complicated to get around, given that North Coast has many stunning communities up and down the north and into the central coast that require all manner of transportation to get back and forth and are always weather-dependent and include, of course, the beautiful islands of Haida Gwaii.

I think to put things in context today, for my remarks, I consider it an incredible honour and sometimes a challenge to represent rural and remote communities in our Legislature. In fact, those of us that seek office from rural British Columbia have this extra task in front of us to help bring those voices to this Legislature and beyond to other communities in the province and throughout Canada. What we are challenged with here in this conversation is about those concepts of balance and fairness and opportunity for the citizens that we seek to represent as elected people, to make sure that they all have their voices heard as effectively as possible.

Now, geography and location play a significant role in that, of course. So, too, does the quality of the representatives that we send. I say this because we have probably all had the experience of being running for office, taking on an incumbent and hearing that they don’t show up much, that they’re not present much, that they don’t come out to our communities much, and visiting other ridings where we say: “Please, get us a good representative, because the person we have right now — from sometimes the Liberal party, sometimes others — doesn’t seem to take their job as part of being here and present in our communities.”

So geography matters. My friend from Fraser-Nicola talked about the difficulty of having as much as a 2½-hour drive between her communities. Well, I’d welcome her to join me on my 22-hour drive that I am taking to Lower Post and Atlin a little later in this month. I don’t lament it. I don’t ask anyone to feel sorry for me or expect to send me cards of gratitude. That’s the job. That’s the job we sign up for: to represent people. I consider that an incredible privilege.

Now, I know my Liberal colleagues across the way don’t mean to sound like complainers, don’t mean to sound like they’ve got it especially hard. But as I’ve been listening to the speeches today, it’s leaving a strong impression that they are expecting condolence cards in the mail for a job that they stuck their hand up for and said: “I want to represent this riding and have the privilege of representing this riding in the provincial legislature.”

What we’re dealing with here in Bill 7 is this opportunity every decade in which we assign an independent commission to look at the boundaries and the ridings and the maps and the communities and the categories to make sure that our elections take place and elect people from various regions of the province in the most fair way. It’s trying to balance out — this commission, as other commissions have done in the past — things like representation by population, which is a foundation of our democracy and has been since, well, almost since we began.

There was a long period of time, of course, in Canada and British Columbia where it wasn’t representation by population, unless you happened to be a white male. It was representation by other things. We’ve since evolved somewhat through much struggle. Some of that struggle came from people who represented the place that I now have the privilege to represent. I’m thinking of Frank Calder and Larry Guno and Frank Howard and others.

Now, Bill 7 lays out other important balancing parts of the equation: effective representation. Effective representation can mean a lot of things. The connection of geography, of culture and place, of communities of history and context, so that people feel a part of something and connected and don’t feel disconnected and placed into ridings that just don’t make sense.

Now, we should say at the outset…. I have seen more than a few electoral boundaries commissions in my time, both at the provincial and federal level. It’s a challenging task we assign these three individuals.

[3:40 p.m.]

There is no perfect map available. There is no perfect sequence and orientation of the electoral maps of British Columbia that every single British Columbian will be satisfied with. That’s fine. We’re not looking for the perfect. We’re looking for the good and for the very best that we can.

For those trying to understand who this commission is, it’s important to know that one of the commissioners will be the Chief Electoral Officer, which is appropriate. A second will be either a judge, currently sitting, or former judge. The third will be somebody who is recommended by the Speaker, in consultation with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition. A three-panel judge.

I would say, as a rural representative…. I know my friends from Vernon-Monashee and North Coast would very much like to see the possibility of having somebody with strong lived experiences, from rural and small-town British Columbia, to be able to inform the commission of the lived realities of people who do live in some of our smaller, more remote communities, because of course, they’re different. Of course, the challenges in representing people, especially in 2021 and going ahead, are always multifold.

I have never been one…. I have represented rural populations in my previous life as a Member of Parliament, with a much larger riding: 331,000 square kilometres. That was Skeena–Bulkley Valley. It still is very ably represented by my friend Taylor Bachrach, the Member of Parliament.

The riding of Stikine is just short of 200,000 square kilometres, for those geographers playing along at home. It is challenging because of the simple math and the driving and the difficulty of float planes and trains and dogsled and skidoo and all sort of things that we use to get around some of our more remote communities and the challenges of weather and winter and all of those things. That is what we asked to do. We asked to represent people in this way. Again, it’s an incredible privilege.

Now, the riding I represent in Stikine is not just the largest riding in British Columbia. It is also the riding with the lowest population, just around 20,000 people. We have ridings in British Columbia, of course, in the more densely populated urban parts, that have three times that population.

This is what the commission will be tasked with under Bill 7: how do you make sure, in the representation by population, that one British Columbian’s vote is not worth four, five, six, seven times the value of another British Columbian’s? That’s a real challenge and a question that I know we get from people who live in the cities and the suburban areas of this province. “Why is my vote worth that much less?” But when you explain the challenges of what it is and the particular needs of those living in rural British Columbia, I think there’s an understanding that can be made — that it isn’t the same realities.

Are there challenges in representing very densely populated urban ridings? Of course there are. The many, many cultural groups…. I know MLAs and MPs who have 40, 50, 60 languages spoken within their constituencies. That represents a different order of opportunity, privilege and challenge.

Now, for us up in the northwest, we very much pride ourselves in having our voices heard. We very much pride ourselves in electing people to the best of their abilities that make sure that our interests are discussed in places like the Legislature and the House of Commons and in the general discourse of British Columbia. We have a long history of electing people really good at making themselves heard — sometimes elected to government, sometimes elected to opposition. But the underlying point that I’ve seen most consistently — not always; I can think of a few exceptions — is that we have presented fierce advocates. People know where Skeena is. They know where North Coast is.

You used to know…. I’ll leave off any of the temptations towards partisanship, because ideally, what we are talking about today is our role as legislators, to make sure that we never, in any circumstance, do what our American cousins, for example, do when it comes to dividing up the electoral maps: inserting a heavy tone of partisanship.

For those unfamiliar, if you haven’t watched a good political science movie, when Americans go to redraw their maps, it’s entirely politically charged and sometimes racially charged, where maps are drawn to exclude certain communities, push them out if they don’t vote a certain way, if they don’t look a certain way, and then try to cobble together either Republican or Democratic districts. The boundary commissions are run by a Republican or Democrat, depending on who the governor is, and so on and so forth. Canada doesn’t do that.

[3:45 p.m.]

Most Canadians don’t realize that important distinction. It’s an incredibly important one, because regardless of who wins the election, the game itself can’t be rigged. That’s why we have an independent commission that does this. That’s why, as you go across Canada, there are guidelines given to those commissions.

So 25 percent above the median population, 25 percent below gives the commission some boundary as to how many people they’re trying to fit into a riding. Considerations, as I said, about geography, demographics, cultural, history connection are important — not dividing First Nations communities, for example, not dividing cultural communities. The commission is given all of these guidelines from which to paint the new picture of British Columbia.

It’s done without politics, which is something that we should just be so grateful for, because it allows us the opportunity to have the discussion we need to have, which is: who could best represent us? Who do we hope to speak on our behalf in the parliaments, in the legislatures of this country to represent our views, regardless of their political orientation?

Now, from my perspective, as somebody…. I can speak, as I said, with some authority about this, representing now the largest riding in the provincial map of B.C. and, formerly, one of the largest ridings in all of Canada at the federal level. The effort has to be made by the representatives. I hear my friends from the Liberals say: “We don’t want our constituents always to have to drive 2½ hours to see us — 3½, 4½, 20 hours.” No kidding. That’s why we go out. That’s why we do the work. This is not a job. This is a vocation. It’s a calling.

If there are members who lament the idea that they have to drive an hour or an hour and a half down the road or they have three, four, five communities that they have to try to represent and it feels too hard, well, I hate to break it to you, but perhaps this isn’t the right line of work. This line of work requires the effort of going to where people live, to see and be with them in their communities — not expecting them to drive the 2½ hours to see us in our office but going out to their communities and living on the road and being on the road and representing them that way.

We also, of course, know that these 18 months have shown us that our ability to connect has changed over time. So 40, 50 years ago what we’re doing here today was obviously impossible. Representing people looked different. I knew people who served in this House and served in the House of Commons who would travel down to Victoria or travel to Ottawa, out of Stikine, out of Skeena, once a year. They would leave, and they’d come back eight months later, after the Legislature was finished. They’d do a little tour around, and then again, four months later, they would train back to Ottawa or train back to Victoria.

Things have changed. Our ability to connect has changed. I hope the commission reflects that — on the need to make sure that we have things like connectivity, the ability to have good cell service and Wi-Fi and all those things that our B.C. NDP government has invested so fiercely in over the last little while.

Now, the B.C. Liberals have a bit of a challenge in their dialogue, because they want to pretend that they’re representing and fiercely defending rural interests in opposing this legislation. But they’re going to try to do that thing that politicians do that drives people crazy. They’ll say one thing to rural British Columbians, for example, and say something different when they’re in the city or in Richmond or in Surrey. They’re going to say, “We don’t want any more seats given to that big city down there,” when they’re talking in places like — I don’t know — Kamloops or Prince George. But then, when they’re going to make the speeches in Richmond and Surrey come next election, they’ll say: “Of course, you deserve better and more representation.”

Our population has grown by about half a million people since the last time we did this. That requires us to consider effective representation and, of course, the principle of representation by population, because most of that half a million, all of us would acknowledge, has concentrated itself mostly in the urban environments. So what do we do about that? Well, we offered the commission the ability to go up to as many as six additional seats.

Now certainly, some of my colleagues from across the way are going to cry about that. Well, cool your jets. Under the Liberal watch, just two commissions ago, they offered the exact same thing to the commission: to consider adding more seats to the Legislature — the exact same number, in fact. Let’s put that to the side.

If what we’re trying to do is make sure there’s an element of fairness in our electoral boundaries, in what it is when a voter goes in to vote, and that their vote doesn’t count for one-fifth, one-sixth, one-seventh of what a vote might count for in other districts, then of course, allowing for more seats to go into those areas that have experienced that rapid population growth is something that the boundaries commission should and will consider.

[3:50 p.m.]

But we’re not telling them to do that. Again, back to the critical element, the foundational principle of independence so that these wise minds that we elect…. We gather, we select two of them from the commissioner of electoral B.C. So there’s a retired or current sitting judge and then an independent commissioner, which can hopefully represent the views that are represented here.

This is also for Liberal colleagues that wish to “talk out the clock,” try to delay this, try to block this. We are on the clock, friends. By statute and by law, we need to put this thing together so that Elections B.C. can get back a report and so that this commission, in fact, first can go out and be in our communities and listen to our communities, hopefully in the flesh and blood. Hopefully restrictions will be lifted by the time this commission is struck and ready to go and do its consultation and that they can visit our communities, particularly in rural British Columbia.

I’m sure they will, because that’s what commissions have always done: hear from people, present some options for the maps, get six months of feedback and then present something to the Legislature from the Electoral Boundaries Commission as their final report. Then Elections B.C. can run, so we’re in time for the next election in 2024.

I hope nobody, in their opposition, tries to represent this as being fast-tracked or anything like that, because our obligation as legislators is to make sure that our independent elections commission has the opportunity and time, first of all, to engage meaningfully with British Columbians from all walks of life — urban and rural, rich and poor — so that they can hear what people are hoping for from their democratic representation and that they can try to put together the best maps available, draw the lines as best as they can.

Again, there’s no perfect science. It’s little bit art, a little bit science, so that when we can come back we can know that the next election will be run fairly and that these principles of effective representation, of representation by population, are able to be done.

Now, I rarely — I hope you can tell in the tone of my remarks — ask anyone for any kind of, I don’t know, special status because I have represented and now represent such a large place or that anyone should feel bad for me in any kind of way, because I consider the opportunity to represent a place like Stikine an incredible privilege — one of the greatest privileges of my life.

In fact, that drive, that getting to the feast halls, that getting to the communities, the remotes — the Telegraph Creeks, the Atlins, the Stewarts and the Dease Lakes — that’s part of what gives me the fabric of how I try to represent people, those long drives, understanding what their realities are.

Now, the fearmongering I’ve heard from some of my colleagues in the media when talking about this bill is actually distasteful. Here they are, some of my B.C. Liberal colleagues, out saying: “They’re going to merge seats into these mega-massive seats that are going to be huge and enormous.”

First of all, none of them could be bigger than the riding I represented as a federal MP. Secondly, the idea of six additional seats, as I mentioned before, was the hope for concentration and looking at where population has grown significantly.

By the way, all of the demographics show us that the population is going to continue to grow dramatically over the next ten years. Whenever you’re doing one of these commissions, they will, of course, look at the current state, the current census, who lives where, how many communities of affiliation, culture and orientation and all of that. They will also look at projections. They will talk to demographers and say: “What’s happening in Vernon-Monashee? What’s happening in Vancouver? What’s going to be happening in the Shuswap over the next five to ten years?” Because this is about anticipating what comes next.

Now, I would say this. The raw numbers are true. We’ve seen, over generations, the urbanization of the Canadian population. British Columbia has not been immune to that. We’ve seen greater populations growing. We’ve seen significant immigrant communities finding and locating themselves in homes in some of our larger cities — suburban places, as well. We have noticed, and the statistics are starting to show this. I hope the commission — I’m sure it will; these are smart people — is starting to looking at some of the new demographic trends.

Some of them existed prior to COVID and have been accelerated in the last 18 months. That’s the trend of young families, in particular, moving to remote, rural British Columbia. We’ve noticed this in the Hazeltons and Smithers and other communities that I represent. I know, for some of my friends in the Interior, we’ve seen new-found pressures on housing and new interests in living in places that are stunning and beautiful.

[3:55 p.m.]

Because we’ve made investments in things like high-speed internet and better cell service, people are able, if they can through their work, to stay connected to jobs that didn’t even exist ten years ago and certainly were a little bit dodgy in terms of connection five years ago.

We’re seeing an increasing number of young families move into my region. It is an incredibly hopeful thing. It comes with its challenges, of course, moving and creating more housing stock and trying to make sure that things stay affordable. Our government has invested millions upon millions of dollars in trying to create more affordable housing. This is important and something we’ll continue to do.

So the story of the urbanization of Canada, the story of the urbanization of British Columbia is one that we always have to follow in terms of the actual raw numbers. I’m proud because I think the quality of life that we offer in rural British Columbia is incredible.

I grew up in a very large city. I left it kind of as soon as I could, as soon as I was legally able to, and found that the community connections that I loved in the city, the small neighbourhoods and communities of affiliation, existed in all sorts of new and important ways in rural British Columbia.

Ever since coming and having my family be raised in Smithers, B.C., in Wet’suwet’en territory where I came from, I have been a fierce advocate to my urban friends that there are other ways to live. The 800-square-foot apartment that you paid far too much for can look a lot different — a little bit more breathable — in some of our smaller communities. And we have excellent health care that we are investing in more and more.

I think there’s an important point in this dialogue — and some of my Liberal colleagues have raised this, and I know some of my NDP friends as well — that the resources and the wealth of this province are predominantly in rural British Columbia. The extractive resources, the renewable resources — a lot of the innovation that we do. It is also a place where reconciliation has the greatest and some of the strongest opportunities for manifestation.

We’re seeing that. I was just in dialogue with the Tahltan leadership last week, which come from the further north part of the riding I represent. The Taku River Tlingit, the Kaska Dena — we’re headed there in a short little while up to Lower Post.

I’m sure all of my colleagues and those listening would be interested because, of course, in Lower Post, as my friend from Nechako knows, there’s a residential school, a place of incredible horror and abuse for generations of Kaska Dena, Taku River Tlingit people, Tahltan people and others, that the federal government, for many, many years, said should serve as their municipal office, their post office, the place that people have to go in and out of to work and to get basic services for many years. The Kaska Dena, in particular, said: “This is just a constant re-traumatizationof our people to have to walk into that building.”

Just recently, it was with incredible emotion and pride that I got to attend a virtual ceremony with the Premier and the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and the MP, Taylor Bachrach, and the leadership from Kaska Dena, from Taku River Tlingit and from the Tahltan to announce that we had received enough funding from the feds to finally knock that building down and to build them a proper building that is not a source of retraumatization and re-scarring.

But the principle of representing rural B.C. proudly, strongly and without excuse or without pretence, I think, is important for all of us that come from rural B.C. We’re not complainers. We’re hard workers that come from the north and from the Interior. We’re proud of where we live. We want our voices heard. These are all understandable things.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

We want governments to understand and appreciate the particular realities of what it is to live in rural British Columbia. That is not an unrealistic expectation and hope. We’re not blind to the fact the vast majority of British Columbians, of Canadians, are huddled along the southern border in often very large cities and that the basic math of how our democracy works is that cities get very strong representation from those urban centres, as is also right. It’s not a zero-sum game that wants to be played.

I caution my friends across the way of trying to pit rural British Columbia against urban B.C. We need the both. It’s what makes us beautiful and strong as a province. The vitality of our cities, the cultural experience, the business acumen and the ability to be the gateways to the world that we want are vital to have strong and strengthening, constantly renewing urban environments.

[4:00 p.m.]

And we need the delivery of services. The respect and understanding of rural British Columbia, regardless of our political orientation. This should be something that unifies us.

When we’re looking at things like representation, electoral representation…. I was one who was a fan of a more proportional voting system, which I think makes each vote more effective. While that dream is not active right now, it will come again.

It makes sense that every vote counts, that every vote has some effect on the outcome. What a strange and radical notion that is. The fact that most of the world has moved that way still seems like an affront to my conservative colleagues across the way. It’s strange. It’s a weak form of gerrymandering, if you ever saw one, in a first-past-the-post system, but it’s what we’ve got.

In this opportunity, we have this ability to make sure that our legislation is respectful, not partisan and independent. We put some guidelines and some banks on the river. We put forward eminent people who understand things like demographics, understand things like the law and effective representation. We say: “Go forth. Consult with British Columbians in a meaningful way. Consult with Indigenous leadership in a meaningful way. Cultural communities. Business communities. Understand what it is that people are hoping for.”

In my experience, when we talk to people about voting systems or electoral boundaries, we’re not really talking just about those specific things. We’re talking about the essence and the heart of our democracy.

All it is, is an expression of hope. When a Canadian goes into a ballot box and makes their mark on the page, they’re hoping for good representation. They’re hoping to send people forth who can speak loudly, speak with integrity and not represent just their party or their personal interest but represent their communities, represent their voices.

Are there challenges in representing rural British Columbia? Of course there are. Of course the drives are long, and the traffic can be…. Well, the traffic is not bad. The roads can be sometimes bad. Bad weather. Flying in and out can be a challenge.

Again, you know, buck up. This is the job. Nobody putting their hand up to run in rural British Columbia thought it was going to be a 15-minute bike ride across their riding. Otherwise, they don’t know how to read a map. While that can be a challenge sometimes, it’s also an enormous opportunity to really understand how the world works for many British Columbians that are not in the urban centres.

We do it proudly. We do it with humility. We make sure that we’re always raising the voice of rural B.C. regardless of our political representation.

Now to the people that I represent. Yeah. Of course sometimes they say: “What’s happening? Why did this city get this, and why did this city get that?” Forever that will be the conversation. That’s okay. That’s okay. I have to always be able to come back to them and say: “When we invested here in Stikine and here and here and here, it was to make sure that Stikine was stronger, that we were investing in ways to make our communities more connected, more together, more fair.”

My argument has always been that it’s not just about our communities in Stikine. It’s about the entire province. When we put in interconnectivity, when we make sure that the resource extraction economics are done well and done fairly, as we’re doing in the forest renewal plan, that’s to help out communities not just where we live in the forest sectors but right across British Columbia. We know so many rents and revenues go down to the city and help build those cities up as well. We’re proud of that. We’re not going to begrudge it. We’re not going to ask anyone for some great sympathy.

The last thing I’ll say…. This is important. It is written into this act, and it’s critically important for me. Approximately 40 percent of the riding I represent is First Nations: Wet’suwet’en, Gitxsan, all the way through to Tahltan, Taku River Tlingit, Kaska Dena. It is one of the relationships that I hold most sacred. I feel so incredibly privileged for the lessons and the learning and the patience which the leadership from those communities has given me over the years.

I want to say to colleagues and to the commission, when it forms itself, to understand these communities as best as you can — their histories, their connectivity to each other. We have seen, at times, boundaries commissions undervalue that.

Our government was the first in North America to bring in the declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. It must be manifest across all of our legislation that’s brought into the House, and it’s being manifest through more and more of our government policy as we go along. It should apply here too, and it will.

This is important. There are many Indigenous, especially young people, that look at the state of our politics sometimes and say: “Why should I bother voting?” Making sure that we hear their voices and hear their hopes and desires for the future in this process, in particular, and throughout all that we do is essential.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the time, and to colleagues for your attention. Good luck to us all as we try to represent those we were elected to do.

[4:05 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: I am pleased to take my place in the continued debate on Bill 7, a piece of legislation that may well, in fact — no, will — have profound implications for the future of how British Columbians are represented in this chamber.

We all understand the need to review and amend boundaries after every other general election. The interval, in this case, was foreshortened due to the opportunistic and predatory snap election. Normally speaking, a three-person, independent, non-partisan Electoral Boundaries Commission is established.

They’re tasked to look at the current electoral boundaries and propose changes to the areas, boundaries and names of the electoral districts in British Columbia. Clearly, this is needed to keep up with the changing demographics and regional circumstances, population growth and communities of interest but, importantly, within a framework and a terms of reference that are set by this House.

While appointing the commission may be routine — as I say, every other election and, in this case, slightly prematurely — the changes proposed in this legislation before us are not routine, as the clear intention of government is to remove the protections that have been put in place to ensure that rural British Columbia remains well represented in our Legislature, even as the voices of those constituents are already being overshadowed by growth in the urban parts of the province.

Specifically, this bill seeks to remove the existing statutory protection in three regions: Cariboo-Thompson, Columbia-Kootenay and the north. Well, that sounds so innocuous, doesn’t it? Three regions, just three regions. But the reality is that these three regions comprise the majority of the land base in this province. The effect of this legislation will be a real reduction in the representation in this Legislature for the people who live and work in what is the majority of the land base of British Columbia.

It’s well understood and appreciated that because of population growth in urban areas, principally on the south coast…. This growth has been sustained and rapid and increasingly will dwarf the rest of British Columbia. This is a fact. This is the reality now. That will likely be the case forevermore, notwithstanding the comments of the member for Stikine.

That’s why it’s so important that we preserve and protect the voices of those who live and work and raise their families outside of urban British Columbia. This government appears to be dismissive of the issues that are created by collapsing ridings and silencing voices through barriers to access. This House must be cognizant of this issue and must provide guidance to the Electoral Boundaries Commission to make sure that the electoral boundaries of this province are drawn in such a way as to provide every British Columbian with effective representation.

The question is: should the bulk of the land base of this province and the people who live on it have an ever-diminishing say in what happens in the place that they live? Effective representation is not simply about the equity of population. A 2015 electoral commission report suggests that factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation should be taken into account when deciding how to draw electoral boundaries.

We agree. But we believe that in order for the commission to feel unconstrained by conventional deviation limits, they need guidance and support in making recommendations that recognize the unique nature of this province and the vast territory and sparse populations that will be impacted if government gets its way.

[4:10 p.m.]

I did, in the past, have the need to represent to a federal boundaries commission. As the mayor of Pemberton, I presented back in 2010 or so. At that time, federally Pemberton was part of the riding in Chilliwack. Frankly, it was a dysfunctional situation. Pemberton’s orientation and community of interest is within the Sea to Sky, rather than the Fraser Valley. Arguably, at the time, you couldn’t even get there from here, certainly not without traversing dozens of other ridings. It made little sense, but that was the decision of the boundary commission of the day.

However, it does highlight and speaks very much to the issues of community of interest and recognition that geography has a profound impact on effective representation. Our current electoral boundaries in much of rural British Columbia recognize the unique circumstances of these places and the reality that while they may not have as large a population as other ridings, it would not be possible to provide adequate and timely representation if the boundaries were expanded to reach the proposed electoral quotient.

In my riding of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, due to our population growth, it’s not likely that we’ll see major changes. But I certainly appreciate the challenges that many of my rural colleagues face. West Vancouver–Sea to Sky is 10,000 square kilometres; my colleague, West Vancouver–Capilano, 72 square kilometres. She could probably walk across the riding several times before I could drive across mine.

I live in Pemberton, which by road is somewhat in the middle of the riding. The road network is actually a big U around the mountains of Garibaldi Park. But Pemberton is still hours away from the office in Horseshoe Bay and many more hours away from Harrison Lake and Twenty Mile Bay, which is the southeastern boundary of West Van–Sea to Sky. It’s really hard to think of a more diverse set of circumstances, and it’s a comparatively small, in a provincial context, riding.

The residents of West Vancouver — of Gleneagles, Eagle Harbour, of Caulfeild and Cypress — have little in common in their daily lives with the people who live in N’Quatqua or Samahquam or Tipella or Skatin. Many constituents in the eastern portion of the riding have no — or often unreliable, and certainly expensive — Internet services, and access roads are long and gravelled and sometimes, frankly, underwater.

It’s hard for urban residents to appreciate the impact of hour-long school bus rides either way, on logging roads in river valleys, skirting the edge of a lake, which drops precipitously 800 feet into a murky canyon. But those are exactly the circumstances of some of the First Nation communities in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, let alone the circumstances across the vast north.

These people are tied to the land in a way that most of us cannot at all appreciate. They often face economically precarious situations. Access to health care may involve flying in doctors, and education opportunities are limited. Even as they live, in my case, relatively close to Metro Vancouver — as the crow flies, it’s just a jump across the mountain — in reality, it’s a world away.

A large percentage of First Nations communities across British Columbia, and certainly in the central part of the province and the north, are located in regions that are far larger and far more isolated than the Stl’atl’imx. Many communities and residents across the Interior are far more remote yet are set to have statutory protections dismantled and removed.

Some 30 percent of First Nations in British Columbia live in the north and the Cariboo-Thompson region. This House needs to ensure that they also have proper access to the representation they are entitled to. I believe it’s important to maintain a system that makes sure that communities with such varying needs can be effectively represented in our Legislature.

[4:15 p.m.]

I know the challenge of representing a riding like West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. But the idea that Peace River North — which is 16 times the size of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, which is, in turn, 150 times the size of West Vancouver–Capilano, yet it has a fraction of the population of either of those ridings — would be collapsed and combined with a riding like Stikine…. It would then comprise a riding of almost half the physical province and would still have less population than West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. It’s crazy to think that this could be the outcome of Bill 7, which will remove rural riding protections.

Of course, that’s not to say that we don’t need to add seats. Regions with growing populations must be properly represented. We know the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley have seen significant growth, as have other, essentially urban, areas of the province. Electoral boundaries will need adjustment to accommodate this growth. That will mean new ridings and more seats in these rapidly growing places.

The ability for MLAs to connect to constituents is vital to an effective democracy. The sheer size of some of the existing ridings are already a barrier to British Columbians having access to the representation they need and are entitled to. The fact that they are sparsely populated should not be used as an excuse to further diminish their voices.

The majority of the land base in B.C., with its relatively small population, has the potential to be marginalized. We need to protect and enhance, not diminish and weaken, the connection between those electors and their elected officials and their place in the Legislature.

This House must continue to provide specific limitations and direct the boundary commission to not reduce the already small number of rural seats and undermine the representation of people whose voices are already being dwarfed by the rapidly growing urban population of British Columbia.

Frankly, it’s hard not to be too cynical about the motivation of this government. I’m very disappointed in the government members who represent some of these very ridings whose constituents’ voices will be diminished, as those members know exactly of what I speak.

It’s a shame that these government members are so cowed by the caucus whip and the power of the Premier’s office that they are willing to defend — and in fact, support — the dilution of the voice of the rural constituents, which is exactly what the previous speaker, the member for Stikine, just did. I expect that if any further government members choose to stand up and speak, they will do the same: defend the dilution of the rural voice. Indeed, it is a shame.

Rural perspectives are important to all British Columbians. The voices of families from across the bulk of this vast province must be maintained amid the growing dominance of urban British Columbia. This legislation will have a chilling effect, and I ask this House to recognize this fact and act.

Hon. M. Rankin: It’s an honour to stand in this place and represent the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I do so today with pride, talking about Bill 7, which would purport to amend the Electoral Boundaries Commission legislation by some significant changes — changes which, I will argue, are required by the law.

My road map today for this presentation to the House would be to, first of all, talk about how we got here: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides, in section 3, a guarantee of a right to vote, and how that’s been interpreted by the courts. I’ll talk a little bit about that, and then I’ll examine the changes that Bill 7 would bring to the existing Electoral Boundaries Commission Act.

I’ll then examine some of the criticisms that we’ve heard from opposition members to this initiative. Then, finally, I will talk about the implications of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, which this House unanimously supported in the past.

We had, just in terms of history, a watershed moment in 1982. This country decided to adopt a written constitution. We’ve had one in the past under the BNA Act, but we ended up deciding that we would entrench Charter rights and freedoms for Canadians. That changed everything. Ask any lawyer. One thing it did was entrench the right to vote.

[4:20 p.m.]

It didn’t say what that meant, but in a democracy, they said the courts will pour meaning into that. They said that our constitution should be seen as a living tree, and we should see how the world evolves and pour meaning into those rather vague words going forward. That’s, of course, what the courts have done.

As members have noted, after every two elections, there has to be one of these commissions so that politicians don’t decide what the boundaries of their ridings are, their constituencies are, but rather an independent commission — an independent commission made up of a judge or a retired judge, the Chief Electoral Officer and someone selected by the Speaker. That has been around for a long, long time. It’s a guarantee in our system that an independent commission would have the discretion, have the independence, to do what politicians should not be allowed to do.

Anyone who studied the United States and looked up on Wikipedia the word “gerrymander” — or, indeed, to be closer to British Columbia, remembers Gracie’s finger — will know why we need to have an electoral boundary commission to do that critically important work. It’s the basis of a democracy, and I’ll come to that in a moment.

The notion that there is one person, one vote, in general, makes sense. Most people say: “Why should my vote be worth less because I live in Surrey than if I live in the Stikine? Is that fair?” The court have said yes, it can be fair, that there can be a deviation from representation by population if it’s not too gross a deviation.

Under this legislation and, as I will say, grounded in the case law, the deviation the courts have been permitted in this country — it’s been more aggressive in other countries — is 25 percent, plus or minus. That deviation from equality of representation has been seen as something we can tolerate and still pay homage and put meat on the bones of the notion that we’re all equal in this province. Our vote should count the same but within the necessary deviation that the courts have permitted.

Let me go through a bit of a history lesson. The Charter in 1982. In 1988, in our province, Mr. Justice Thomas Fisher was a commissioner for one of these boundary commissions, the kind of which we’re here to talk about. After a very thoughtful analysis, Justice Fisher said this: “The plus or minus 25 percent range is the limit to which the other representational claims may legitimately modify the principle of one person, one vote.” Let me say that again: 25 percent, plus or minus, is the range to which other representational claims may legitimately modify the one person, one vote principle.

A couple years later, in 1989, the Supreme Court of British Columbia had a chance to look at this. They, in a case called Dixon v. British Columbia, took a hard look at British Columbia’s electoral map. I just want to tell you the extremes that were contemplated there to show you how far we have come.

The court talked about the electoral district of Atlin. Now, you’ll know that isn’t around anymore, but you’ll know where it is — in the northwest part of our province. The court said that at the extremes in British Columbia, the electoral district of Atlin was 86.8 percent below the equal population norm, while the district of Surrey-Newton was 63.2 percent above the norm, for a total variation of 149.7 percent. That is not atypical.

The court goes on to say that in Canada, federal ridings are based on a permitted deviation of 25 percent. I was surprised to learn that in other countries, like Australia, 10 percent is the maximum that they’re allowed to deviate from the principle of equality. So the court went on and said that the electoral map in British Columbia was invalid. It was contrary to section 3 of the Charter — the right to vote, the equality — and was not saved by section 1. The boundaries were unconstitutional.

It’s a very big principle, because a court struck down the map. We don’t want to have that happen here. We want an electoral boundary commission that’s guided by principles and not by anything that is political in nature. I think that’s what the courts are trying to say. Equality of voting power, the court said, is the single most important factor, but we recognize we can’t have absolute equality in the real world, so we’re allowing you to deviate on certain principles.

[4:25 p.m.]

What are those principles? There has to be a valid factor, not just because one particular party does better in this poll versus that poll so we’ll add it — did I mention Gracie’s finger? — in order to help a particular government of the day. The court said: “Only those deviations should be admitted which can be justified on the ground that they contribute to better government of the populace as a whole, giving due weight to regional issues within the populace and geographical factors within the territory governed.” Geographic considerations affecting the servicing of a riding and regional interests meriting representation may fall into the category and be justifiable.

Just to fast forward. That is precisely, as I’ll come to, what is in Bill 7. Twenty-five percent? Right there enshrined in the statute. Constitutionally, it seems necessary in any event. The factors that would justifiably deviate from that — all listed for an independent commission to decide if they apply or don’t apply in a particular constituency boundary. The court said, in this case, our boundaries did not achieve that result, and they struck down the map.

The Supreme Court of Canada had a chance to get at this in 1991 in the first case that dealt with the issue at hand — namely, representation by population — in a case involving Saskatchewan, Attorney General of Canada v. Roger Carter. I had the opportunity, parenthetically, to represent the Yukon territory as an intervener in that case. It’s quite some time ago, I admit.

The Supreme Court of Canada had to grapple with the very things that our B.C. court dealt with. It concluded that the question for resolution can be summed up, said Chief Justice McLachlin, in one sentence: “To what extent, if at all, does the right to vote enshrined in the Charter permit deviation from the one-person, one-vote rule?” She said the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal got it wrong. They said that there had to be, essentially, absolute equality amongst the ridings. She said: “No, there can be some deviation where warranted.”

But the first condition of effective representation is, she said, relative parity of voting power. So we must never forget that person in Surrey and that person in Stikine have, in principle, relative parity of voting power, but there can be deviations, as I’ll say. A system which dilutes one citizen’s vote unduly as compared with another citizen’s vote runs the risk of providing inadequate representation to the citizen whose vote is diluted. It can be uneven and unfair representation.

Acknowledging that absolute parity is possible, she went on to say there can be requirements, to borrow a phrase, that “good government” can “compel those charged with setting electoral boundaries…to take into account factors other than voter parity, such as geography and community interests” — exactly what this legislation now would do.

If I may, I’d like to turn then to examine the bill that we’re here to talk about with that context in mind. The bill is a very short bill, but it amends a statute that’s been around for quite some time in various iterations called the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. What Bill 7 does is a couple of important things. We’ve heard the opposition members talk about that as if something was mischievous and sinister about the government’s work in this regard. It isn’t. Farthest from the truth.

We’re taking away protections that were provided around certain electoral districts in past legislation — protections for certain areas such as the Cariboo-Thompson region, the Columbia-Kootenay region and the north region, which many people have long thought were unconstitutional. Held against the Dixon case I referred to and the Carter case, it looks like there has been a protection provided for certain ridings that would not pass constitutional muster. Let’s not take the chance of that happening. Let’s enshrine in the law the very factors that the Supreme Court of Canada told us to.

What are they? Section 9 of the proposed bill would repeal those earlier things I mentioned, the protections for certain districts, and provide an “electoral quotient” that they call. That is, to quote the act, to “achieve the principle of representation by population,” and to do so, the commission “may deviate from the electoral quotient by no more than 25 percent, plus or minus.”

[4:30 p.m.]

So check — that is what the Supreme Court has told us. That is what other jurisdictions like the federal jurisdiction has done. But according to Chief Justice McLachlin, the commission may exceed the 25 percent deviation principle if it considers it necessary to provide for effective representation. There are those words again, stolen right from the Supreme Court.

It says that, okay, for the purposes of that, in considering whether it’s necessary to exceed the 25 percent deviation, here’s what you, commission, can take into account. It’s right there: any special geographic considerations, including a manageable geographic size for electoral districts, and any special demographic considerations, including communities of interest. Those words were all taken from legislation or other commissions elsewhere.

The point I’m making is that this is far from a sinister bill to somehow reward cities and punish rural areas. It’s trying to put our electoral map on the constitutional plus side, rather than the potentially suspect side where we have to go to court and defend why we have certain boundaries that are protected, enshrined in legislation, for two more elections. That doesn’t seem right. That, I think, is entirely why we’re here and why this legislation is before this House for consideration.

Those are pretty straightforward principles, but I know that they have been the subject of criticism. I’ve listened to some of the debates and read some of the things that members here have said. There seems to be a general concern about the size of rural ridings. I point out that the commission has the ability to add more seats if it wishes to address that, but it has to take into account the utter unfairness of having such a vast disparity — you heard me earlier — between a place like Atlin and place like Surrey-Newton. It just can’t be sustained. Why would we want protect particular areas? One would wonder whether that was done for a principled reason or for some other reason.

So that is what we are here to discuss. This is hardly an attack on rural British Columbia, as I’ve heard the opposition suggest it is. Hopefully, there will be people on the commission who will be alive to the realities of rural British Columbia.

But I want to repeat that these are a judge, the Chief Electoral Officer, who we see administering our elections…. We should be so proud of the independent office we’ve created here that we all look to for leadership. Although they’re accountable, I think most of the members of this place would accept that they do an extraordinarily good job of providing fairness in the electoral process. The Chief Electoral Officer will be on that commission. Presumably, that spirit of fairness will infuse the work of that body.

But some members have talked about the example…. The member for Abbotsford West said, “I believe it is a constitutionally and legally defensible form of protection” to have these areas enshrined, and “I have been told” that there were no consultations with First Nations that he has pointed out. That is not the case, as I’ll come to in a moment.

But to suggest that it’s constitutionally and legally defensive, he may be right. I mean, he’s a lawyer. He may have that right. But why would we take a chance? Given what I’ve read about the jurisprudence in Canada to date, why would we take a chance? All we’ve done is enshrine what the courts have told us to, almost verbatim from the jurisprudence.

The member for Cowichan Valley suggested that we could move to a mixed-member proportional representation system. Well, I’m not sure that is something, in light of our history, that is going to be effected. The system now is that governments win a majority and make changes the other party doesn’t like, and then the other party will “come in and undo” them — farthest from the truth. We have an independent commission that makes these calls, and it is another independent commission that will reverse those calls.

Another member, for Shuswap, talked about how in rural ridings, services that might otherwise be dealt with by municipal governments become provincial concerns — he mentioned snow removal, road maintenance, and so forth — and that you need, to be able get results, to contact your MLA. He rightly points out that geography and lack of phone and Internet coverage make that access difficult already.

[4:35 p.m.]

There’s no question — we’ve heard it powerfully from the member for Stikine a moment ago — that representing a rural riding in remote British Columbia has its challenges. No one is denying that. But the principles that the court require us to take into account can’t be forgotten: general equality of representation, subject to a minor deviation.

The member for Prince George–Mackenzie referred to the Dixon case that I referred to, and I think that he has got it right. He put forward five reasons to give greater weight to rural residents, and that is something, the principles that he’s indicated, that could well be taken into account by the commissioner, subject to having to justify those deviations. I think that makes obviously good sense.

So we could have up to six more seats. The population of our province since the last one of these Electoral Boundaries Commissions has grown by, I think, 10 percent, 500,000 people, and we need to get this right. We need to get to something that would be defensible in a court and defensible, more importantly I guess, in the court of public opinion.

I said I would talk about the consultations and the implications of UNDRIP. The legislation was produced after being mindful of the requirements of the declaration act, and there has been an assessment of the legislation conducted as it relates to aligning the declaration with this legislation. Our ministry has provided notice to the First Nations Leadership Council to ensure that they were aware of the proposed amendments.

I should also emphasize that when the bill talks about communities of interest — that any special demographic considerations may be considered, including communities of interest — I hear them speaking, in part, about Indigenous communities, sometimes far-flung Indigenous communities. It would be wrong — and I predict the commission would agree it would be wrong — to somehow draw a line right through the middle of an Indigenous community.

That would be outrageous to have one part of the community represented by one member of the Legislature and another part by another. Those are the very things that we get an independent, fair-minded commission to examine. So communities of interest particularly for rural and remote Indigenous communities — a very good way in which their interests would be protected.

I want to conclude by saying I’m proud to stand in support of this legislation. I think it’s not only the right thing to do from a public policy point of view; I think it’s legally necessary as well. I look forward to continued debate on this important topic.

T. Wat: I rise today in the House to debate Bill 7. I’m glad that we’re having this debate to reform our electoral boundaries, as our demographics in the Lower Mainland have changed considerably since we last looked at our electoral boundaries. B.C.’s population recently exceeded five million. We’ve grown all over the province but particularly in the Lower Mainland.

In our current political climate, when we are faced with the challenges of racism, reconciliation and our own multicultural identity, I think it is vital that we review our electoral boundaries — not from just a population perspective but a cultural one as well.

Let’s take Richmond, for example. It is one of the most culturally diverse communities in North America and is growing by the year. Our immigration is what shapes our province and our communities, and Richmond is a prime example of this. Although we may not see eye to eye politically all the time, I’m proud to serve alongside fellow Richmond MLAs who so strongly represent the many cultural groups who call our shared community home.

In electoral boundary reforms, our objective is to ensure British Columbians receive proper government representation and to also remove the barriers that keep our constituents from accessing and connecting with their government representatives. In Lower Mainland ridings like ours, the most notable barrier, of course, is our growing population.

[4:40 p.m.]

With the population of some of our Surrey ridings exceeding the provincial average of more than 25 percent, it is understandable why this community feels they have less and less access to their government representatives and why these communities and their hard-working people deserve smaller electoral boundaries and more local representation.

I heard earlier…. The member for Stikine seemed to be saying — I hope he did not mean it, and it’s just a political statement — that my colleagues representing rural ridings, in their speeches, seem to pit the rural against the urban ridings. I think it’s totally wrong, and I’m disappointed to hear his statement.

I’ve been listening to all my colleagues. Every one of my colleagues from rural ridings who spoke recognized urban growth. They all agree that if the population exceeds, there should be more seats in the Lower Mainland. So I don’t understand why the member for Stikine is trying to fearmonger by trying to imply that our rural MLAs are trying to pit the urban against the rural. There are a couple of points that this member made that I will comment on in the course of my speech.

When I’ve listened to my rural colleagues on this side of the House over the last few days, I’m reminded that the barriers that keep British Columbians from accessing their government representatives and politically participating in their communities are very different from the ones we face in Vancouver or Victoria. These barriers are not necessarily the population but real physical barriers.

They are the hundreds of kilometres someone needs to travel to reach their local constituency office. They are the vast areas of dead zones of little to no cell phone reception or only the slowest and most basic of Internet access in residences and communities. They have a lack of access to ride-hailing services or the vast public transportation networks that urban ridings can rely on.

We in urban ridings take public transportation for granted — not for the constituent in the rural areas. Just picture how tough it is for seniors and the disabled to travel to see their elected representatives. Even the roads and infrastructure itself are often inaccessible due to slow, poor road conditions, forest fires, floods and all sorts of other natural resources.

When we are looking at reforming our electoral boundaries, I think it is absolutely vital that we recognize the difference in barriers that our rural communities face compared to our urban ones. The Electoral Boundaries Commission itself has said that effective representation is not simply anchored to equality of population.

A 2015 report says that factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation should be taken into account when deciding how to draw electoral boundaries. It acknowledges the fact that the needs of Prince Rupert are very different from those of Surrey and that those of Atlin are different from those of Prince George.

Our current electoral boundaries in rural B.C. recognize the unique circumstances of these places and the reality that while they may not presently have as large a population as other ridings, there’s no way local residents could be properly represented if the boundaries were expanded to reach the proposed electoral quotient.

From a cultural perspective, we must consider that a large percentage of First Nations communities in B.C. are located in the regions that are set to have statutory protections removed. Around 30 percent of First Nations in B.C. live in the north and the Cariboo-Thompson regions, some in incredibly remote locations. We need to ensure that they also have equal access to the representation they’re entitled to under the law.

I have always grown up in densely populated areas. I was born in Hong Kong, worked in Taiwan and Singapore and studied in Hawaii. I have lived and worked in Vancouver for over 30 years.

[4:45 p.m.]

Although my experience in this variety of islands and densely populated communities has given me a profound respect for the variety of cultures and demographics that make up these communities and the value of local representation that meets their specific needs, I did not come to understand the sheer vastness of our province until I got to experience it firsthand.

When I initially moved here, my family and I began exploring the vast expanses of the province. When I served as the minister responsible for trade for four years, I had the privilege and opportunity to visit many of our rural communities. That’s where my horizon widened.

I still specifically remember my visit to Prince Rupert, a community as dependent on its port as its road for both commerce and transportation. When our team headed to Terrace, I was shocked to learn that there was just one road that connected the two communities. There was little to no cell service along the way, and I felt completely disconnected from my staff supporting me back in Richmond.

To realize that there are many constituents who not only depend on these areas of vital travel routes but homes and communities who have their homes in regions like this…. It was really eye-opening — some of the challenges some of these communities face just to access basic supports, let alone to connect with their elected officials.

To hear my colleague from Peace River South the other day, talking about his riding having four different mayors with competing interests — boy, oh, boy. Even one mayor is enough to keep us urban MLAs fully engaged, and Peace River South is smaller in size than Peace River North. It’s already as big as the Lower Mainland. How can any MLA be able to serve the whole Peace River region, covering 200,000 square kilometres, effectively? As my colleague from Peace River North compared, the whole Peace River region is as big as the United Kingdom.

Is this what democracy is about? I thought, as elected officials, we always advocate for fairness and equity to all British Columbians. Would this be fair to residents living in the Peace River region? I hope my colleagues on the other side of the House give more serious thoughts and take time to travel to all parts of the rural area to understand the challenges and vastness, and get informed and educated, like what I’ve gone through in the last seven years.

I certainly wish more NDP MLAs, especially those from the rural ridings, will have the courage to speak up instead of toeing the party line. I certainly wish all MLAs in this House pay full attention to the response from those who spoke from their heart and from their real experience.

I still remember, when I was serving as the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism for four years, the legacy initiative was a key project under the administration. I remember visiting Barkerville to install a legacy initiative plaque to commemorate the Chinese Canadians and cultural minorities who were foundational to building this pioneering community.

It takes me less than 15 minutes to cross my entire riding, but Barkerville is more than an hour from the nearest major town of Quesnel, and that is if the weather is good. Even in the early spring, the snow was deep. There was no way we would have been able to reach the community without a four-wheel-drive vehicle.

Once we arrived, Barkerville instantly became one of my favourite tourist attractions in the province. I know many members of the House share the same sentiment as me. Although Barkerville is a testament to a bustling community of the past, as well as the unbelievable contributions Chinese Canadians, Indo-Canadians and other cultural groups have made to our province’s rural and urban communities….

[4:50 p.m.]

There are many communities across our province who still face physical barriers and challenges when trying to reach their local MLAs. Last year and this year have brought unprecedented challenges to tourist attractions like Barkerville and rural communities across our province. I know my friend and my colleague the MLA for Cariboo North has done an absolutely incredible job advocating for greater support for Barkerville and the many other tourist attractions, businesses and communities in her riding, as have all of our rural MLAs. I have the utmost respect for all of them.

When I listened to her response on Bill 7, I learned how challenging her role as an elected representative is and how challenging life is for constituents in her riding. She educated all of us in this House that her riding is larger than the entire Vancouver Island and larger than many European countries.

Her region has experienced one disaster after another in the last few years — not just the 2017 wildfires but the wildfires of 2018, the floods of 2019 and the spring freshets of 2021. All of this resulted in collapsing road infrastructure networks throughout Cariboo North. My colleague from Cariboo North had to travel far and wide to witness what was happening to her constituents uprooted from their homes.

So on this note, I have to disagree with the member for Stikine, implying that our colleagues just want their constituents to come to their constituency office instead of travelling to their region to talk to them, which is totally not true. And there’s still the need to have an MLA bringing to this Legislature the very real issues that are happening in the riding of Cariboo North.

I have so much respect and admiration for my colleague. Just imagine if her riding is expanded to include more areas. I honestly don’t know how any MLA could do the job effectively, not to mention the unfairness to the residents of rural areas. Thinking about the physical challenges we faced reaching a place like Barkerville from the MLA’s own hometown, I can fully understand the concerns our rural MLAs have expressed over the prospect of their ridings being reduced in number and expanded in size even further.

Well, this is the second review of electoral boundaries since I became an MLA in 2013. The city of Richmond that I represent was added as an extra riding in 2017 as the population of Richmond has increased drastically, which is totally the right thing to do.

But the review in 2015 maintained the statutory protection to three regions: Cariboo-Thompson, Columbia-Kootenay and the north. These regions have been protected because while they have a lower population than the densely populated Lower Mainland, they are vast geographical regions full of diverse people who deserve to be fully represented in Victoria.

This is something we are in favour of — something that this side of the House has always advocated for. Unfortunately, Bill 7, as presented in this House, lacks this protection. This is the worry of my colleagues representing the rural ridings. It should even be the worry of all of our colleagues no matter what riding you’re representing.

I’m sure the NDP MLAs representing the rural ridings should have the same worry. But unfortunately, so far, only three of them spoke on the bill. What went wrong with our NDP colleagues? Do they have a conscience? Do they understand the role of elected officials? Do they understand the true meaning of democracy?

[4:55 p.m.]

I’m a firm believer that the land we share is the reason for the great Canadian spirit. This vast land we call home brings a great many challenges with it. Even in the age of cell phones and broadband Internet, neighbours depend on neighbours to support each other through the hardest of times.

If we reduce our rural ridings, expand the electoral boundary, we’ll continue to grow our fiscal barriers and use our province’s greatest challenge and greatest asset, the land, against our own electorate. In such massive geography, we have a duty to ensure Canadians feel connected to their elected officials. I hope that in the mission to remove barriers and improve electoral representation, we can keep our rural ridings intact and ensure every British Columbian feels connected to their government, to their province and to their country.

M. Lee: I rise to take my place in this debate.

There has been much passionate and vigorous debate about this bill in this House. I wish to just say at this juncture that, in response to the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, we all recognize that at the heart of this debate is the removal under this bill of the existing provisions under section 9 of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act that protect representation in three regions of this province with a minimum of 17 electoral districts — being the Cariboo-Thompson region, five districts; the Columbia-Kootenay region, four districts; and the north region, eight districts — which covers approximately three-quarters of the province’s total land base.

As acknowledged by the Attorney General, it was the Electoral Boundaries Commission in their final report, dated September 24, 2015, which set out, at the end of the report on pages 140 and 141, several matters for consideration by our Legislative Assembly. The commission went on to invite this Legislative Assembly to review whether there is an appropriate balance provided by the act in its current form, which includes the protection of those 17 electoral districts in those three regions.

The complete quote of the commission is as follows: “With the advantage of the fruits of our labour, the Legislative Assembly is now in a…position to assess the degree to which this legislative solution achieves the appropriate balance required between the principle of representation by population and the need to take into account other representational imperatives.”

In view of this, it is this debate that the Legislative Assembly is charged with, to review whether the legislation — that is, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act — in its current form achieves the appropriate balance and what are the representational imperatives. This is for this Legislative Assembly to do — not the commission. That is what the commission clearly says.

So where is that review? Has this government put this Legislative Assembly in a position to do this? I say no. In fact, this government has removed the word “balance” from the act in this bill, but I will come back to speak to that later in my remarks.

My concern with this Bill 7 is that this government is undermanning this balance. What consultation has been done to assess whether this is appropriate? What consultation has this government done to consider changes to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, which protects the electoral districts that were just utilized in the unnecessary election held before the second wave of the pandemic, thanks to the Premier’s decision? What’s the reason for the change? British Columbians deserve to know.

This is certainly the concern for those British Columbians living in these three regions, who have their electoral districts surely expand with a reduced number of MLAs representing them, without the protection under section 9 of the current act.

I just heard the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation suggesting that the reason for this change is to put this act on the positive side of being constitutional. Is this government seriously making the statement that’s challenging the validity of the 2017 election? Because that was on the basis under which the protection of these 17 electoral districts was run in that election.

[5:00 p.m.]

Those 17 electoral districts, which included Kootenay West, Nelson-Creston, Stikine and North Coast, which, of course, is four MLAs elected to give this current government a minority government. Is the minister seriously putting into question the results of that election? On what basis is this government deeming that this challenge or this change to eliminate these protections is necessary, when the whole point is to ensure that people in these regions are provided balanced and equitable representation.

This is part of a continued pattern from this government of undermining our democratic process for our province. We saw, at length, how far the Premier was prepared to go with stacking the deck and manipulating the referendum on electoral reform to get the result he wanted. This government campaigned in favour of changing our voting system, all while the Attorney General, who is supposed to be the chief legal officer for our province, was using all the tools of his office to weigh heavily on the referendum process, including hiding the details of the voting system changes until after the referendum vote.

Well, in that one thrust by the government to undermine our democratic process, British Columbians had to shut this government down in its efforts. British Columbians voted in a resounding way, by 61.3 percent, to keep the current first-past-the-post voting system, and 14 of the 17 electoral districts who potentially may lose their protection under this bill voted to keep that current first-past-the-post voting system.

Why? Well, we know in the course of that nine-month referendum exercise, British Columbians were very concerned in these electoral districts about the size of the ridings — the very issue that is at stake in this bill, the very issue that British Columbians already, over a nine-month period, reviewed. They expressed their concerns. Members of our opposition caucus heard it time and time again. This government should have heard it, but they’re not listening.

They’re bringing this forward just like they did with the rigged referendum. They’re undermining our democratic process with this Bill 7 to change the current balance and equitable distribution of electoral districts by removing the protections for the 17 electoral districts. That is wrong.

Under the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, we know that a new commission must be appointed no later than one year after the general voting day for every second general election. Well, we know the Premier got what he wanted. He pushed forward with a snap election in the midst of a pandemic. He broke the fixed election date laws of our province. At a time when British Columbians needed leadership, this Premier caused this government to take their eyes off the ball. We saw what happened with the escalation of the second wave of the pandemic after the election and what we have seen with months of delayed supports and relief to so many who needed help.

This Premier had no mandate from British Columbians to bring forward this change in that snap election. This was not an issue during the election. The removal of the protections of those 17 electoral districts was not an election issue. British Columbians did not give the Premier that mandate.

Well, like the member from Stikine, I do believe it’s possible that members of this House can participate in this debate and act in the best interests of our province. If you share that belief, all members in British Columbia should stop and listen — truly listen. Review the Hansard transcripts from the second reading debate on this bill. You should listen to what the MLAs who represent these electoral districts are saying — those who have spoken before me and those who are still to speak after me. You will hear the need to continue with this legislative solution, the protections of these 17 electoral districts, to provide fair and reasonable representation to British Columbians living in these regions.

Clearly, I would say, as a comment later, that the member of Stikine is not listening. These members are elected to represent all British Columbians in their constituencies, and we know that once they are elected we serve all, regardless of whether our constituents voted for us or not. As members of this Legislative Assembly, we are not tied in the way that the member from Stikine talked about.

[5:05 p.m.]

With this in mind, consider the impact on British Columbians in these regions. In view of the vast geographical distances and the very different geographies and terrains that are represented in 17 electoral districts in the Cariboo-Thompson region, the Columbia-Kootenay region and the north region.

I will note that we have still not heard from the members for Kootenay West and Nelson-Creston, in the Columbia-Kootenay region, and the member for North Coast, in the north region, to speak to this bill. It is important that every member of this House stand up and speak to this bill. This is a fundamental change to our democratic process in this province.

We need to hear your perspectives on this bill. We need to hear your perspectives, including for the members for Kootenay West, Nelson-Creston and North Coast, on the elimination of the protections for the regions that they represent.

As the member for Stikine indicated, for example, he represents the largest electoral district of this province, a population of 22,000 residents, which is 60 percent lower than the provincial average. As he mentioned, there are 22-hour drives to get across the electoral district, as the member shared with this House.

Well, let me take this opportunity to acknowledge the member for Stikine to at least have the courage to stand up in this debate, albeit near the end of the time for this debate. However, I don’t appreciate his condescending tone and dismissive remarks to other members who represent ridings in rural B.C. The member’s tone is regrettable and arrogant, and I would ask the member to reflect on his disrespectful language.

The member clearly cannot get past his own ego. It’s not about his voice as an MLA. It’s about the voices of the British Columbians that reside in his electoral district and the electoral districts of the 16 other ridings that will have to move forward, potentially, without the protections that are under the current act.

I know the member for Stikine is new to this House, but there is no excuse for his attitude. If the member asked any member of our opposition caucus, he would know — they would be very clear in response — that being an MLA to represent the electoral districts in British Columbia that we represent is a vocation. The member is clearly not listening to the voices in this assembly.

The member mistakes the passion and commitment that many of my colleagues have conveyed about the importance of representing their electoral districts, the people in these electoral districts. He mistakes that. That is the role that we each play, and if you understood, if the member understood, the sacrifice and the commitment that I’ve seen from my colleagues, he would withdraw that statement.

I would say also that the member for Stikine cannot speak on behalf of the commission. As he says, it is independent. The assertions he makes, including for residents in his electoral district, don’t hold water. I hope that when the member was speaking for the member for North Coast and the member for Vernon-Monashee, the member will advocate and ensure that that third commissioner is a person who integrally understands these rural electoral districts. I hope he will advocate within his government caucus, based on that statement, to ensure that that third commissioner has that understanding.

We need to hear each other on this, particularly the members who represent the electoral districts in these regions, because there are considerations for why, as in the Dixon decision, as noted both by the Minister for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that ensuring geographical and regional concerns are reflected in electoral boundaries to ensure better government and that this is valid and meets the pressing and substantial test to be justified under section 1 of the Charter, which will enable governments to legislate these types of boundary protections.

Again, I do question the view of the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation when he refers to this decision and understands that this legislation has been in place for the last two elections. These geographic and regional considerations give greater weight to regional regions, to rural regions, and it has been outlined in different ways, in terms of their importance.

[5:10 p.m.]

As noted by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, the various factors that are included, that have been articulated by the Attorney General of this province in a previous capacity, to the courts, include the special interests or rural residents, the difficulties in communicating with electors scattered through larger areas, a wider range of problems which rural members are required to deal with, the lack of access to medical care in rural areas and the limited availability of resources and advisers to rural members of the public.

When, in the Dixon case, Madam Justice McLachlin had stated, in describing the need for this test…. Madam Justice McLachlin referred to the fact that deviation from equality required for representation can be justified on the grounds that it contributes to the better governance of the population as a whole, giving due weight to regional issues within the populace and the geographic factors within the territory governed. That means that the geographical considerations affecting the servicing of the riding and regional interests merit representation. This is what we’re talking about.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In the face of these factors, in reviewing this bill, we need to consider the abilities of MLAs to continue to advocate for their constituents in larger electoral districts. As demonstrated daily by these MLAs, it’s a challenge to get across the vast geographical distances of their existing electoral districts. I know that in working with local MLAs like the member for Cariboo North and the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin on transportation issues, for example, I have a very strong understanding of the challenges and the work that they do to advocate for their constituents and the need to recognize the factors that I just mentioned earlier that are totally at play in their ridings.

I have learned a great deal from these members about the work that they do to advocate about the roads that have been impassable, people losing their homes with flooding issues, wildfires, people not being able to travel within their ridings and the constant efforts they need to make to traverse their ridings to bring their concerns to the Ministry of Transportation. Their efforts are truly remarkable. Again, that is not to say that they’re working any harder, necessarily, than other MLAs. But the fact of the matter is that the work is hard.

We all work hard for our constituents in the ways that we need to. But in these rural ridings, the distance that needs to be worked through to ensure that the issues are brought to this House are so much of a challenge that we want to ensure that with the protection of the current electoral districts, we continue to ensure that the voices of those residents are heard in Victoria. We need to ensure that we have equitable representation.

On top of this, of course, we see continued changes in the face of climate change: the wildfires, the flooding, the emergency challenges to the residents in these rural ridings.

It’s a responsibility that we have to represent these areas of our province, and that’s the role that these MLAs are playing. The member for Kootenay East has talked about his concerns about adding hundreds of kilometres to the electoral district that he represents, being the distance that he needs to cover to travel by truck, being seven hours from one side to the other, with the possibility of a reduction of representation of the Columbia-Kootenay region from four MLAs to two or three MLAs.

In the absence of this government being transparent on its reasons…. The Attorney General, in a speech to this House, did not lay out the reason for taking away the protection, and there’s no transparency on this. Then in the speeches of many members of this government caucus, the comments on this bill show a remarkable lack of appreciation of the need for balance and the considerations for the existing protections.

As a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on electoral boundaries, the 1991 Saskatchewan Reference case sets out, in the words of Justice McLachlin, as she was elevated to the Supreme Court of Canada: “The purpose for the right to vote enshrined in section 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting per se but the right to ‘effective representation.’” This involves two key considerations: the relative parity of voting power and countervailing factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation. These all need to be taken into account to ensure our legislative assemblies represent the diversity of our social mosaic. That is what she said.

[5:15 p.m.]

This list is not an exhaustive list. These are just examples of the considerations which may justify veering from voter parity to provide more effective representation. Again, this is what I’m referring to in terms of what’s in front of this House. It is the change in this legislation. We all recognize the importance of the independence of the commission, the mandate that we are providing with the changes under this bill. But it’s the changes in this bill that we have to discuss and debate here.

As recognized by the Electoral Boundaries Commission, the Supreme Court recognized that constituents look to their MLA for two purpose purposes: to promote their interests through the legislative process and to provide assistance in their dealings with the provincial bureaucracy, the ombudsperson role.

For an MLA to provide both functions effectively, the MLA must have enough time and resources to meet or communicate with constituents, understand their concerns, represent their interests in the legislative process and advocate on their behalf within the provincial bureaucracy.

The question is: how do we ensure that the MLAs who represent these 17 electoral districts have enough time and resources? This includes the factors that the commission has looked at in their public consultation processes in the past: the number of constituents, the geography of the electoral district, the number of kilometres of paved roads, a constituent’s accessibility to the MLA and the MLA’s accessibility to constituents during various seasons, commuting time to and from Victoria, the number of provincial issues confronting constituents, and the availability of provincial government services in that constituency.

We know the challenge of that in rural ridings in particular — the number of municipalities, regional districts, school districts, health districts and First Nations included within an electoral district, and the various community interests found within the electoral district, including ethnic, religious, cultural groups and the number of languages spoken by the constituents.

I would say — I’ll come back to this later in my comments — that when the Minister for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation referred to community interests, that’s not a new term. That’s clearly an indicator that has been looked at by the Electoral Boundaries Commission in the past and is in our current legislation. What’s changed since UNDRIP is what I would ask when we get there.

Most of these are consistent with our statutory mandate. That is what the commission has said. They ultimately concluded that their paramount guide in this area must be to meet the criteria set out in the existing Electoral Boundaries Commission Act and the geographical and the demographic considerations, the legacy of our history and the need to balance the community interests of the people of B.C. That’s what we’re missing in this act — the need to balance the community interests.

Like the member for Vancouver-Quilchena and the Leader of the Third Party, I did have the opportunity during the nine-month electoral reform referendum process to join many of our MLA colleagues to talk about the importance of our electoral system.

In these town hall debates and other gatherings, the message was clear, particularly in the regions of the Kootenays, the north and the Cariboo, that British Columbians were very concerned about who represented them. Knowing who was going to continue to be their MLA was high on their list of concerns under the current system and ensuring that the current system continued to work. This government has had a pattern of manipulating our democratic process, as I mentioned earlier, with the referendum that was stacked against first-past-the-post.

At a time when we should be uniting as a province and collaborating with our regions, it’s not the time to be lessening the effective representation and equitable representation of these regions and these electoral districts. This government is making a change which is unfair to these regions and divisive to the province. We need to set the table for success in our province, not undermine it.

The Electoral Boundaries Commission should be tasked to work within the existing framework of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, with the protection of the 17 electoral districts in the three regions, and look at increasing seats in areas where there has been greater population growth, like in Surrey, Vancouver, Tri-Cities and the Fraser Valley — but not doing this at the cost of undermining the balance and effective representation in these three regions.

The member for Stikine is wrong again. Every member of our opposition caucus has stood up in this House to recognize the need for the commission to consider additional electoral districts, with an increase of the number of electoral districts from a maximum of 87 to 93, as provided in this Bill 7.

[5:20 p.m.]

We all recognize the need to have the commission consider changes to the makeup of the electoral districts in our province based on that population growth, but not, again, at the cost of the protections for those 17 electoral districts.

In my riding of Vancouver-Langara, like other parts of the Lower Mainland, there has been an increasing density, with the build of a second town centre around Oakridge and the mix of family rental housing being built around the centre and the Canada Line. This will result in an additional 15,000-plus people moving into the area over the next number of years and, likely, an increase in residents from 60,000 to over 75,000.

So I clearly recognize that even in the riding I represent, and ridings up in the Surrey area, the Tri-Cities and elsewhere, the population continues to grow. We welcome that, and we need to ensure that there is effective representation.

Under section 3 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indi­genous Peoples Act, it says: “In consultation and cooperation with the Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, the government must take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration.” As we all recognize in this House and across our province, we have so much more work to do on true reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, particularly at this time.

What steps has this government taken to ensure that it is complying with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and the section 3 that I quoted in bringing forward this Bill 7? As the member for Abbotsford West has indicated in his second reading speech on this bill, he has been informed by this government that no consultation has taken place with First Nations.

It was suggested just now by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation that “communities of inte­rest,” that term in this bill, is what this government will be utilizing to address their consultation — I suppose, after this bill is passed — with First Nations, so that First Nations or Indigenous Peoples do not get separated by any electoral boundary provisions. That’s what the minister suggested. With respect to the minister, I believe that misses the point.

His predecessor, the former Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, told the member for Abbotsford West and myself, in five days of committee debate on that bill, repeatedly, that it is not for this government to define how DRIPA will be applied, that it’s about dialogue. This, at any time…. Given the events and the discoveries last week of what happened, this is the time where this government has to understand that they cannot continue to raise expectations and not meet those expectations with Indigenous Peoples and First Nations in this province. This is not the time. This is the time to listen. This is the time to have that dialogue.

This is a fundamental change that is happening and taking place under this bill that will redraw the boundaries of at least 17 electoral districts in these three regions. This is a change in representation, and some Indigenous People who have lived in some of the most remote parts of our province will be drastically affected. Approximately 30 percent of the First Nations and Indigenous Peoples living in B.C. are living in the north and the Cariboo-Thompson regions.

That term “community of interest” is not new. This is not a new term. It’s under the current act. Community interest is there. It’s not for this government to define. This government is not meeting its obligations and requirements under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

As I referred to at the beginning of my remarks, Bill 7 also removes the principle that the commission recognize “the legacy of our history and the need to balance the community interests of the people of British Columbia” in fixing those boundaries. That is removed, in this bill, from that act.

Well, what does it mean to balance the community interests of the people of British Columbia? I believe it means that we need to recognize that the regions of this province are interlinked and that they’re interdependent on each other, that we need to work and support people in these three regions of Cariboo-Thompson, Columbia-Kootenay and the north, where our resource sector thrives and where reconciliation, as the member for Stikine recognizes, is so important. Stretching rural MLAs across more and more distinct communities, over greater distances, is going to have a negative impact on these communities.

This balance of community interest is what we are talking about here, and it is what is provided for in the current protection of these regions in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. The ridings in the Lower Mainland presently represent 48 electoral districts, 55 percent of the representatives in this House, the MLAs.

[5:25 p.m.]

If it goes up by another six electoral districts to 54, that would be about 58 percent. There clearly is a need for balance. We need to continue to act as one province, to bring together residents in rural B.C. and urban B.C. It’s a time when we need to come together and collaborate as we move forward in dealing with the rest of the COVID-19 pandemic and through recovery in so many ways, economically and socially, as we deal with so many issues of unrest that have existed long before the pandemic.

This is not the time to be pitting rural regions of British Columbia against the urban areas of our province. We need to continue to maintain the balance that has been set in the current act with the three protected regions. Failure to recognize that risk, undermining what is a fragile governance framework for our province — this is what this Premier and the Attorney General are doing with this bill. British Columbians need better from this government, which continues to act in such a self-serving way.

Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, the member will move adjournment of the debate.

M. Lee moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned 10 a.m. on Monday, June 7.

The House adjourned at 5:27 p.m.