Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage Bill 7, Electoral Boundaries Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call the continued estimates for the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

In the Birch Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 1:06 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: Attorney General, do you have some introductions to make, maybe?

Hon. D. Eby: Ready to go.

M. de Jong: Well, I guess the obvious question on section 1, without much fanfare, is: why 93?

Hon. D. Eby: I have to admit to the member that I was briefly distracted by my technical setup here and missed his question. I wonder if he could repeat it.

The Chair: The question was: why 93? But if Abbotsford West wants to repeat it, go ahead.

M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Chair. I merely asked the Attorney whether he could explain why the government settled on 93 as the number.

Hon. D. Eby: A couple of things. B.C.’s population has grown by approximately half a million people since the last commission process in 2014-15. Six was an additional number of seats previously permitted for an electoral commission to add. So between those factors, looking at the reasonable MLA-to-constituent ratio based on this population growth and mitigating some of the pressure on the commission, which they might feel, to reduce the number of electoral districts in less populated regions of the province led us to allow them to recommend up to six additional seats at their discretion.

M. de Jong: The Attorney, in the past stages of the discussion, has referred to the population growth, which is a fact. I may, in a moment, come back to the impact of the current census. But I’ll come back to that in a moment.

[1:10 p.m.]

It sounds, though, as if the Attorney and the government have settled somewhat, in their mind, that based on the population growth that we know about today, there is a number or an optimum ratio or a ratio beyond which the government is hesitant to go in terms of the number of people an MLA might be representing.

When the Attorney says, “We’ve got population growth of X, and for that reason we thought the commission should have the option of increasing the number of MLAs by Y,” that does suggest that there is some notion of a ratio. Is that so, and if so, what is that ratio?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right to note that the ratio of the average electoral district population, the ratio of seats to the overall population, dictates the average electoral district population. So with our population growth, if we look at the last Electoral Boundaries Commission with 87 seats, the average electoral district population at the time of the last commission was 53,119 constituents on average per MLA.

In order to maintain that ratio, we would need to add somewhere in the neighbourhood of 11 additional seats. So that’s not what we’re putting forward. Looking at historic commissions — the ’98-99 Wood commission, which allowed up to six additional seats; the 2005-2008 Cohen commission allowed six additional seats — it seemed to make sense to us.

But the member is right to note that this does have implications for the number of constituents per MLA. If the Electoral Boundaries Commission elects to add one additional seat, that will be 59,171 constituents per MLA on average. Drawing another example, if they decide to add enough seats to get us to 91 members in this place, there will be 57,221 constituents per MLA. If they add all six, it would be 55,990 constituents per MLA.

All of these numbers, the committee will note, are significantly in excess of the ratio from the last Electoral Boundaries Commission. If we look further back, in ’98-99, there were 47,146 constituents per MLA in British Columbia. When we look next door to Alberta, they have an average of 46,803 constituents per MLA. British Columbia is the third most populous province, but it has the second highest number of constituents per MLA after Ontario.

M. de Jong: That is helpful and relevant information. So it was a purposeful decision to allow the overall ratio to increase. Holding it at present levels would, as the Attorney has mentioned, have required providing the commission with the option of adding more than six seats. I think he mentioned 11.

The government, by purposeful decision, deemed that to be — maybe excessive isn’t the right word — more than it wished to authorize, recognizing that the average ratio between an elected MLA and the number of constituents would increase by the numbers that the Attorney has mentioned. Is that all a fair summary?

Hon. D. Eby: That sounds accurate.

[1:15 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Can I ask the Attorney…? We’re in the midst, I guess, of a national census. This has been touched upon in various stages, earlier stages of the debate. But I’m not sure this has been addressed definitively on the record.

Two questions, really. Will the commission be conducting its work, when the commission is commissioned, on the basis of the 2021 census data? In that regard, if it is — I guess even if it isn’t — has the government, in making some of the decisions that went into drafting Bill 7…? Did it make any assumptions about what that census will show for the population of the province?

Hon. D. Eby: So two parts to the member’s question.

The first, in terms of the commission itself, it’s entirely at their discretion which population numbers they choose to use in doing their work. The first scheduled 2021 census release of data is, we understand, going to be in February of 2022. That’s while the commission is still in progress. They could theoretically do some preliminary work, while waiting for that data to be released, and then finalize it based on that data. In the alternative, they could work with B.C. Stats to generate projections for population on a go-forward basis to complete their work, independent of the timing of the census.

As far as what the team and the ministry used in their work — their policy work related to the bill — I’m advised that they base their work on B.C. Statistics published data, population projections, which are released quarterly. The most recent, we believe, was in February of this year. That was the data that informed the decision around the six additional seats.

M. de Jong: It sounds, therefore, as if the commission, once constituted, will have the opportunity…. Well, I guess I should back up.

Is the commission provided at the onset with information from the ministry, from the vital statistics division, about those projections? First question.

[1:20 p.m.]

Then secondly, it sounds as if the commission will have an opportunity and the option, if they choose to exercise it, to compare those projections, if they are provided to them, with initial data from the national census that the Attorney is indicating will be available in February of 2022. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The act is not prescriptive at all in terms of how the commission obtains its data or from where, in terms of population statistics. It is entirely within their discretion to obtain data from B.C. Stats and compare it with the February census data release and make determinations based on that. So they certainly could do that.

Typically, I’m advised, the commission itself directly obtains the information that it needs from B.C. Stats or from Statistics Canada, rather than going through the ministry. Although they could, I understand the practice is that they tend to go directly to these sources to get that data.

I’m also advised that the previous Electoral Boundaries Commission was faced with a situation of a fairly stale set of census data from 2011, because their work was happening in 2014-15. I’m advised that they obtained projections around population directly from B.C. Stats in order to do their work.

M. de Jong: I think one final question in this area. Have the Attorney or the members of the ministry who have been working through this become aware of demographic trends today that they believe are noteworthy or significant and that they would hope and wish the commission takes account of in conducting their work over the next period of months and years?

Hon. D. Eby: Staff have advised me that when they were looking at the data, the census data around percent Indigenous members of a community or people who have English as a learning language relies on data from the 2011 census. So in terms of the immediate data available to the Electoral Boundaries Commission, that is obviously…. It was dated for the purposes of the commission in 2014-15, but now that’s about a decade old. Although I do not seek to influence at all the independence of the commission, I’m sure that the census data, as it’s released, will be of interest to the commission in their work.

[1:25 p.m.]

Worth noting, I think, the dated nature of the Statistics Canada data coming from 2011, and again, just underlining for the member the independence that the commission has in how they use the information that B.C. Stats is able to provide to them, as well as the information they can obtain directly from Statistics Canada. What they may find influential or not, I suspect we’ll go through in some of the discussion in relation to sections of the act, where they’re asked to look specifically at certain considerations. But other than that, it really is in their hands.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. de Jong: Maybe what I can do is give the Attorney a little bit of an outline of how I hope we can meander our way through clause 2 — broadly, in two sections. I do so as much for his assistance as the staff that are helping him.

The Attorney will know that some members of the House, certainly members on the opposition side of the House, have articulated in a fairly passionate way concern around the decisions the government has made with respect to the language around governing principles. Some of my colleagues would like, and will have an opportunity through the course of the committee stage debate on section 2, to particularize those concerns and seek the Attorney’s response, reaction, answers to some of those questions. We’ll come to that momentarily.

I’d like to take a moment. I’m going to be assisted by my colleague from Skeena in a few moments. I want to lay out for the Attorney, right at the forefront, the nature of the examination. I don’t want him to be concerned that I’m trying to sandbag him or surprise him. I’m going to lay out for him the nature of my query, and then we’ll break it down and go through some of the component parts.

The bill, in its entirety — it’s a short bill — provides instructions, guiding principles, a mandate to the Electoral Boundaries Commission that will be created in accordance with existing laws. The proposition that the opposition has been advancing is that by virtue of how the principal section of the legislation is being changed, it’s going to have an impact. The opposition says a negative impact. And by the way, I share that perception.

I’m not at the moment…. I don’t want to become bogged down in the details of that argument. But I do want to ask the Attorney to consider this proposition: that, in dealing with questions of rural representation — parts of the province that heretofore have enjoyed an element of protection under Boundary Commission legislation — there will be an impact. There has been an argument in the House about the magnitude of the impact and the nature of that impact and the manner in which one deals with that impact. But there will be an impact.

I’ll go further. I will suggest that with the removal of the protections that have existed thus far, the likelihood is that ridings in certain parts of the province are going to grow much larger. Some may disappear.

[1:30 p.m.]

I will concede at the outset that none of us knows for certain how the commission will deal with these matters. But given the decision to remove the protections that were in place, it is far likelier than not that the impact will be to grow the size of constituencies, and to that extent, alter the nature of the representation or the manner in which certain communities are represented. The Attorney, if he wishes to take issue with that, will certainly have an opportunity to do so.

I say that because for the first part of the exchange, I’d like to focus on, in particular, the degree to which that is significant for Aboriginal communities. It won’t surprise the Attorney to know that we are still trying to ascertain — I think as an opposition, I think as a society — the degree to which the passage of Bill 41 in the fall of 2019 is impacting upon the development, introduction and passage of legislation in this place.

I want to say this right up front. I say it, and I hope I don’t get anyone into any trouble, saying this. I was grateful that the Attorney made his staff available for a briefing when the bill was introduced. They provided helpful information and, I think, answered forthrightly. One of the questions that I put to them in that briefing was around the consultation that would have taken place with First Nations around Bill 7, prior to its introduction in the House. The reply I received was that there hadn’t been any — that that was the role of the commission.

Now, I appreciated the forthright answer. It did surprise me. It did surprise me that on a piece of legislation that deals with political institutions and the manner in which Indigenous communities are represented…. It certainly affects other communities as well.

In rural parts of the province, where there are particular sensitivities around this, and given what we had heard from the minister’s colleague at the time that Bill 41 was being discussed, I was surprised that the government would appear to be taking the view that the responsibility for conducting consultation could be delegated to a commission that was about to be established, albeit established pursuant to statutory provisions.

It was my impression — and, I thought, the government’s impression — that when change of this magnitude was being proposed and the triggering mechanism for that change was affecting, as it will, First Nations, Indigenous communities, the obligation rested with the Crown, and that that obligation existed prior to the introduction and passage of the legislation that would ultimately lead to the change.

I’m going to explore that a little bit with the Attorney, what I’ve said a lot, and this may be an appropriate spot for him to offer some initial response to what I’ve said.

Hon. D. Eby: It sounds like we’ll be on this for a little bit, so maybe, at this point, it might just suffice to clarify something for the member.

[1:35 p.m.]

I welcome the opportunity to be able to brief the member in advance of a bill coming into the House, through staff, for two reasons. One is it makes for a better discussion when we get here. Also, it enables staff to dig a little bit deeper into the areas of interest to the opposition and, therefore, better inform the public about our intent.

I can tell the member that, as is our approach with bills that we believe relate even broadly to the interests of Indigenous People, we do reach out to the First Nations Leadership Council. We did do that in the case of this bill. They did not indicate an interest in having further information nor consultation about the bill. We did provide notice and an opportunity for a further information briefing and so on to the First Nations Leadership Council.

The member rightly notes that it properly is the practice of commissions to consider Indigenous Peoples’ interests in setting boundaries and in their work. I have little doubt that that will be front of mind for this commission as well.

M. de Jong: All right. Well, thank you. I think that’s a good place to start. It sounds like the Attorney has indicated to the committee that in this case, in the case of Bill 7, prior to its introduction in the House, the government alerted or contacted the leadership council.

I’m not sure if they provided a draft copy of the bill or if it was a general invitation to engage on the question of electoral boundary reconfiguration. I’m not sure what the government proposed or invited the leadership council to participate in, and I am interested in that. I hope the Attorney can provide a little bit more information and whether that was in the form of a letter, as I say, or whether the draft legislation was provided.

He’s indicated that the leadership council either declined to participate or somehow signaled that they had no interest in participating. So I’d be interested in a little more detail around both sides of that transaction.

Hon. D. Eby: Initially the leadership council received the information by email. There was a follow-up email with staff. Then our ADM spoke to policy staff directly, walked staff through the proposed changes in the bill. So to the best of our knowledge, the First Nations Leadership Council had the full set of information about what was proposed to be done in the bill and declined further engagement on this.

[1:40 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Can I ask the Attorney whether he believes legislation of this sort — and that’s probably too general a question — whether this legislation, whether Bill 7, triggers any of the protections, guarantees contained within either articles 5 or 19 of the UN declaration.

Hon. D. Eby: The short answer is that we believe that the proposed legislation is consistent with the entirety of the declaration as adopted, including sections 5 and 19.

With respect to section 5, just note that the declaration does not reference electoral boundaries specifically, but it does say that Indigenous people have the right to strengthen their own political and cultural and social institutions. But when they do that, that doesn’t mean that they give up the right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the state. Should Indigenous people so choose, the opportunity to ensure that their right to participate fully in, in this case, the political life of the state in relation to the governance of our province is certainly at the time the commission does its work.

With respect to article 19, we believe that we do have the responsibility to engage with Indigenous people on this bill, even though one of the lenses you could put on this is whether Indigenous people are uniquely or differentially impacted by legislation. You could make the argument that everybody in a rural area or everybody in an urban area is impacted by this type of legislation and that there’s not a unique or differential impact on Indigenous people.

[1:45 p.m.]

Even so, we went to the First Nations Leadership Council to advise them about the content of the bill and to see their interest in being involved at this stage. We do feel the legislation is introduced consistent with our obligations and that it is, itself, consistent with the obligations.

M. de Jong: The second part of the Attorney’s answer was of particular interest to me. He didn’t use this term, to be fair to him, but it sounded like an argument to me that suggested the standard for consultation under the declaration and Bill 41, which adopts the declaration in B.C., may change depending upon whether or not we are dealing with a law of general application that applies across the fold.

Now to be fair, he didn’t use that term. But he did, I think, suggest that in situations where the impact on an Aboriginal community was not appreciably different than on other communities, that somehow influenced the nature of the obligation that accrued to the Crown.

I say that because when we were debating the bill, I thought that at some point, we might begin to hear that argument. I put the question directly, with respect to article 19, to the Attorney’s then colleague, the minister. I won’t read the quotes. Hopefully the Attorney trusts me enough to know that I’m….

He was adamant that…. The requirement, under article 19, reads as follows: “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous Peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

At the time the declaration was adopted by Bill 41, the responsible minister made it clear that the obligation set out in article 19, he said, applied to laws of general application, not just circumstances where there was a particular impact on a First Nation.

I guess the first proposition I’m going to make to the Attorney is that the argument he is advancing for why it would not have been necessary to, for example, obtain free, prior and informed consent…. Maybe his position is that the Crown did acquire free, prior and informed consent with respect to Bill 7. But the obligation to engage in that consultation existed.

Secondly, he is, I think, suggesting…. It seems to be that he’s suggesting to the committee that that obligation was discharged by notifying the leadership council. It won’t surprise him to know that a follow-up question now and subsequently will be…. There are individual First Nations and communities who are going to be impacted, as are other communities. It doesn’t sound like any attempt was made to speak or consult with them specifically. Whether it was the Kwadacha or the…. Well, we can go through the list.

[1:50 p.m.]

Is it the Attorney’s and the government’s view that, in circumstances where the level of representation in a provincial institution — like this parliament — and the nature of the representation is going to be impacted, there was no obligation or there is no obligation on the part of the Crown to consult directly with the communities most directly impacted?

Hon. D. Eby: There was a lot there in the member’s question. First, let me say that it would not be government’s position that engaging with the First Nations Leadership Council discharged a legal obligation to consult and accommodate in relation to First Nations rights. However, we definitely believe — I believe, anyway — that consulting and engaging with the First Nations Leadership Council on a proposed law of general application, like this one is, is good practice and helps us identify issues that should be addressed in more detail and concerns that may lead us to take a different approach.

With respect to this particular legislation, these are high-level principles, pursuant to which the Electoral Boundaries Commission will do the work. We do not know what work the commission will do in terms of drawing boundaries — what impacts, if any, will be seen by any community. An outcome could be maintaining all of the existing constituencies in rural and northern areas.

The time for the engagement with the Indigenous communities that might be affected is at the time that the commission is doing its work in considering where to draw the boundaries. This is an established element of the commission’s work. It’s really a commonsense approach to the boundary setting and totally appropriate and consistent with the UNDRIP obligation that says that should an Indigenous community wish to participate in that political activity in terms of drawing boundaries for seats in relation to the state, they will be able to do that. That is when that right would be realized.

M. de Jong: Well, there are a couple of things that flow from the Attorney’s response that I think are worthy of exploring.

Firstly, he introduced a term into the conversation that I found interesting. He talked about, in circumstances such as this, the idea of consulting with potentially impacted First Nations as good practice.

[1:55 p.m.]

I’m going to suggest to the Attorney that in these early days post-passage of Bill 41, we are interested in determining more than just good practice — trying to ascertain what the legal requirement is. If the Attorney’s view and the government’s view is that in respect to the realignment of political boundaries that capture and provide for representation of First Nations communities, the only obligation that exists post–Bill 41 passage and the declaration is to engage in good practice — okay, I’m not sure I’d agree. A lot of people will be interested to hear that.

I hope the Attorney…. My suggestion to the Attorney is that the declaration in Bill 41 imposes a legal obligation. That is what we heard from the government. That is why the government touted Bill 41 in the first place. But if now what we’re dealing with in the Attorney and government’s mind is merely engaging in good practice — okay, that’s instructive.

Secondly — and again, my purpose here is not to be needlessly argumentative — I do take issue with something the Attorney just said, which is: “Well, we don’t know if there will be any changes. The commission could decide to maintain all of the existing boundaries.”

The Attorney knows that’s not the case. He and the government made a decision to remove the existing provisions of the legislation that could have required that to happen or could have led to that happening. But the disappearance of those provisions guarantees that that will not happen.

I’m happy to have a thoughtful conversation with the Attorney about the impact of these overlapping legislative instruments. But let’s, I hope, do so on the basis of reality. And the reality is that by virtue of the provisions that the government has introduced and the Attorney has included in the bill, there will be changes. There will be changes that directly impact communities in rural parts of British Columbia, including many, many Aboriginal communities.

I suppose, to be straightforward about the issue that I want to explore…. In introducing legislation that triggers a process that could lead to an isolated Aboriginal community moving from one constituency to another or finding itself in a constituency that is a whole lot larger than the already large constituency it is in, I would have thought that there was an obligation on the government, prior to the introduction of that legislation, pursuant to the provisions of Bill 41 and the UN declaration, to speak directly with that community first.

The track we seem to be on from the government is: in that circumstance, the obligations under Bill 41 are met by notifying the leadership council and leaving the rest to the commission, and delegating to the commission responsibilities for further consultation. That seems to me to be the approach that the government is taking. I have concerns that that is inconsistent with Bill 41.

But I guess the two questions that flow…. Is that the approach? Is that an accurate summary of the process we’re on? Am I correct, in surmising from that, that the government doesn’t see any obligation to speak with an individual First Nation whose community might be directly impacted by the legislation that we are debating today in the House?

[2:00 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member made a big deal about my use of the word “practice.” I think, maybe to clarify, although I thought it was implicit, that it’s good practice, when partnering with Indigenous People, to go above and beyond what you believe your bare minimum obligations are under any law. That’s what I think.

The member can’t hear me. I’ll repeat myself.

The member made a big deal about my use of the word “practice.” I thought it was implicit in my statement. But just to be clear, in my opinion, when partnering with Indigenous People and in terms of the commitments our government has made, good practice is to go above and beyond what you believe your bare legal obligations might be.

This bill legally does not implicate section 35, constitutional treaty rights. So you could argue, which I had said in my original answer, that there was not an obligation to reach out here. But reaching out to an umbrella organization that represents the three senior leadership organizations in the province is a good opportunity to identify issues or concerns that maybe you didn’t see, which is what we did.

I was intrigued to hear the member say that the proposal of this bill, removing these, essentially, strictures on the ability of the commission to independently determine effective representation and appropriate seats…. He said it guarantees a different result. Guarantees. So an independent commission charged with constitutionally protecting people’s right to vote and ensuring effective representation guarantees a different result than what his government put in place.

Well, that’s interesting and may be instructive for the member about why we’re allowing the commission to operate independently of, of course, the opposition, the Third Party and the government. We believe that this is work that should be done independently.

Finally, I don’t know if there’s a misunderstanding here, but this bill does not draw the boundaries. This bill establishes the body charged with going out and engaging with British Columbians, including Indigenous communities, including rural Indigenous communities that might be affected by their work, including urban Indigenous People — I know that Surrey, if they’re not currently, may be the largest urban Indigenous population in the province — about what those boundaries should be and what effective representation means for those communities and how best to accomplish that.

We’re establishing the consultative body to do this work. Whether or not a given Indigenous community wishes to engage with that work is up to those communities. That is their right protected under UNDRIP.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’m trying to respond to the member’s proper concern, in my opinion, about the rights of Indigenous People and our obligations under UNDRIP and our obligations constitutionally. But I’m struggling a little bit about the idea that we know now — we already know — which communities will be affected and how they’ll be affected and that we should consult with them about that when, in fact, all we’re doing is establishing the body that is going to be doing that work.

M. de Jong: I will resist the urge to engage further. I was hopeful that the Attorney, although he clearly doesn’t agree with me, would understand the nature of my inquiries and submissions. But that’s fine. It has been partially helpful, I think, to have the exchange.

My colleague from Skeena is standing by and has some questions that I’m hopeful the committee and the Attorney will entertain.

E. Ross: To follow up on the previous questioning…. We’re talking about two different things here.

I think it’s getting blurred between the words “engagement” versus “consultation,” which are separate. You’re talking about the commission going out and doing some work, based on the bare minimum that this government actually had done in terms of what they call consultation, which nowhere comes near the definition either in case law or even in UNDRIP, the bill that the government just passed. In saying that, as well….

Maybe I’ll just cut right to the chase here with the Attorney General. I’m missing something here. I think the Attorney General clearly laid out how they would not be delegating the responsibility of consultation on Bill 7 to the commission. I hope I got that right. So there will be no consultation from the commission. All they’ll do is the engagement.

In saying that, the honour of the Crown to consult and the duty of the Crown still lie with the provincial government. On the flip side of that, in terms of the Crown’s due diligence, is the Crown aware of any legal authority given from the 203 communities across B.C., on behalf of their communities, that hold the rights and title? Is the Crown aware of any authorization that came from these rights and title holders to the leadership council that expressly authorizes them to act, in terms of responding to consultative measures?

Hon. D. Eby: I think the member is right that we, perhaps, have not been as clear as we should have been in our discussion about the difference between section 35, rights and title, treaty rights, and engagement with respect to the leadership council, in respect of this bill.

With respect to rights and title, protected by section 35, treaty rights…. This bill does not affect those rights. There is not a legal obligation on the part of government to consult and accommodate, as there would be if those rights were implicated by what the bill proposed.

[2:10 p.m.]

However, I believe, and I think it’s a good idea, that government go above and beyond our bare legal obligations in engaging with Indigenous Peoples, so whether or not, and to what extent, the First Nations Leadership Council has a mandate from the nations across B.C. is a fair question for the member to ask. However, they do have some mandate, and they do have some experience and some insight to bring to government to help us identify blind spots that we may have or concerns that we may not have anticipated.

That is why we still go forward to the First Nations Leadership Council and engage with them on bills like this. I hope that that clarifies for the member the distinction between those two areas in terms of what I understand his question related to.

E. Ross: No, it doesn’t answer the question. I truly understood what the Attorney General was talking about in terms of section 35 and the pursuant case law. I understand that fully. What I don’t understand are the new obligations brought in under Bill 41, the UNDRIP bill, which actually, in my mind, was aimed at highering the obligations of the government in terms of addressing Aboriginal interests.

In this case here, my question was, if the government is going to use the leadership council for consultative purposes, is the Crown aware of a document between the 203 First Nations of B.C. and the leadership council that authorizes the leadership council to speak on behalf of 203 First Nations in respect of these types of measures?

Hon. D. Eby: As I said to the member’s colleague, government would not use the First Nations Leadership Council for the purposes of consultation and accommodation related to section 35 protected rights.

E. Ross: You know, it kind of contradicts what you just said. You said that you went to the leadership council and you got their blessing. You were talking around the purpose of the commission versus consultation.

I agree with the Attorney. You keep citing section 35 and Aboriginal case law. I agree with you 100 percent. But you’re neglecting your own UNDRIP bill in terms of the benchmarks that you set.

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member. Thanks.

E. Ross: Through the Chair.

As well, it comes down to a number of the foundational principles that are actually laid down in case law, which I don’t see in UNDRIP. I actually heard it mentioned here a couple of times as well, in terms of how Aboriginal interests will be protected and, to that same extent, how they will be consulted.

There’s a phrase used that said, “Well, it’s open to argument,” where it might not affect First Nations in respect of their neighbours in rural areas. Well, that’s not true, whether you’re talking about UNDRIP or you’re talking about case law, because Aboriginal interests are unique. If the Attorney General wants to cite Aboriginal rights and title case law, please look up the term sui generis. This actually speaks to the honour of the Crown. It actually speaks to the relationship between the Crown and First Nations. It’s well documented.

But I get the feeling now that there are two things happening here. The Crown — the B.C. government, in this case — wants to treat First Nations as just regular stakeholders. As well, they want to do one-stop shopping in every single legislative initiative that comes out of the House by going to the leadership council, with no idea on whether or not the leadership council has the authority to speak on behalf of 203 First Nations. We’re talking about whether it be under UNDRIP or whether it be under Aboriginal rights and title case law.

[2:15 p.m.]

If the Attorney General truly believes that they’ve gone above and beyond to address Aboriginal interests, then how do they reconcile the fact that the Attorney General hasn’t really — or the Crown, for that matter, has not really — paid particular attention to the rights and special needs of Indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities in the implementation of this declaration? I’m talking about UNDRIP. How can you be sure if you haven’t consulted with the 203 communities, if you haven’t heard their interests and you haven’t relayed that? You haven’t had meaningful consultation.

Hon. D. Eby: Well, the answer is quite straightforward and is that the body that does the engagement work across the province, not just with Indigenous communities but with communities across the province and individuals who are interested in the political life of the state — that’s what this bill establishes. So I don’t say that the engagement that the member describes has been done. I say that this bill establishes the body that will go out and do that work.

E. Ross: Yes, I understand that, but with no consultation, apart from the leadership council. So how are the remote communities supposed to know that this is actually even happening, unless you do the pre-consultative work that everybody encourages the private sector to do? Go out and do your pre-consultative work, and then make your applications.

In this case, the government hasn’t even done that. They just actually went to the leadership council who, in my opinion, do not represent the interests of First Nations in these types of measures. They definitely don’t represent rights and title. I know that for a fact.

Like I say, I would have agreed with the Attorney General, every word that you said under the rights and title case law. But the government’s UNDRIP bill has changed all that — the vagary, the confusion around the declaration. Most of this stuff has already been done in Canada.

But there are also a number of declarations that talk to highering the level of consultation that this government actually hasn’t done yet. There’s a difference. I’ll say it again. There’s a difference between engagement and consultation. In this case, the government is saying: “Okay, our consultative duty is only with the leadership council, no matter what the issue.” We’ve heard this a number of times in terms of legislation that has got through the House. In terms of the real work to be done, that will be done through engagement.

Maybe that gets back to the question. If the Attorney General truly believes that they will do more than the bare minimum and do more of their due diligence to uphold and honour the Crown, can the Attorney General tell me: is there a document, an agreement that normally goes with legal obligations, that says the leadership council, in this respect, has the right to say yes or no to consultative measures taken by the Crown on behalf of 203 First Nations of B.C.?

Hon. D. Eby: The member asked how rural Indigenous communities would know about the work of the commission, them going out to consult with British Columbians, including Indigenous communities, about where boundaries should be drawn and what effective representation means for those communities.

There are a number of avenues. One of the most effective, I’ll note, is the work of the local MLA letting communities know that this work is happening. In addition to that, commissions historically have advertised in newsletters, newspapers, Internet and radio ads to let people know that this work is happening so that they can participate.

[2:20 p.m.]

Now, I would understand the member’s objection a little more clearly, I guess, if the Electoral Boundaries Commission said: “We don’t need to talk to any Indigenous communities. We’ll just talk to the leadership council and then we’ll draw the boundaries based on that.” Because that would obviously be incredibly problematic.

They need to go out and do their work, talk to British Columbians and also, as they have historically, engage with Indigenous communities, both on and off-reserve, talk to them about effective representation and the needs of their communities and where the boundaries should be and engage with those communities directly.

What we’re doing here in the House today is we are setting up the body that’s going to go out and do that work. I hope that clarifies things for the member. I don’t think that although the boundaries commission is independent, I don’t suggest that they would fulfil their obligations as a commission by simply talking to the leadership council about where the boundaries should be. I think they need to do that work directly, and historically, they have done that.

E. Ross: To the Attorney General, that’s actually not the question. Given the honour of the Crown and the duty of the Crown, and how the Attorney General keeps referring to how they will go above and beyond the due diligence based on the case law as well as UNDRIP, my question is: is the Crown aware of the delegated duty from 203 First Nations in B.C. to the leadership council to represent them at the high-level consultations that the Attorney General is talking about?

I’m not talking about the engagement on the ground. I’m talking about the work that the Attorney General says that they already did in consultation, which the government thinks went above and beyond, to address the consultative duties of the Crown. So my question is: does the Crown have proof that the authority was granted by 203 First Nations to the leadership council, and will that document be tabled?

Hon. D. Eby: So to be totally clear, there is no legal consultative duty or obligation on the Crown in relation to this bill, because it is our legal position that there are no section 35 treaty, constitutionally-protected rights that are implicated by this bill.

The member keeps saying that there was this high-level consultation and accommodation discussion that the nations across B.C. were shut out of. That is not the case. There was no discussion like that, because there are no section 35 protected rights implicated by this bill.

There was an engagement with the First Nations Leadership Council to say: “Hey, this bill is coming in front of the House. Do we have any blind spots here? Are there any particular concerns you want to draw to our attention? This is happening. Do you want more information about it?”

That’s an important thing, in my opinion, to do, independent of whether or not we believe that there are section 35 protected rights implicated. I hope that clarifies things for the member.

E. Ross: Like I said at the beginning, I agree with the Attorney General when he’s talking about section 35 and the pursuant case law, but UNDRIP has highered that standard. In fact, the Attorney General refuses to mention their own commitments in the UNDRIP document itself.

Now, vague as it may be, during the debates when this bill was first introduced, this was going to be the promise of everything to First Nations. Are we going to consult in every single piece of legislation? Yes. Are we going to consult in administrative issues? Yes. We’re going to make sure that in everything, we’re doing a partnership with First Nations. Then we find out, through different departments in the government, that no, that’s not the case. We’re going to go through the leadership council.

[2:25 p.m.]

Maybe I’ll ask the one last time. In terms of UNDRIP and the higher expectations of due diligence from the Crown that the government themselves actually told us about…. They told us: “We’re going to get away from all of these agreements. We’re going to get away from these negotiations and all of this oppositional stuff. We’re going to include First Nations in everything, legislation. We’re going to do reports, annual reports. We’re going to do all this stuff. It’s going to be great.”

So all I’m asking is…. When the Crown consults with the First Nations Leadership Council — and it’s up to the Crown to do its due diligence — is there an understanding or an agreement or some kind of written paper that says: “Yes, the leadership council, in these matters, had the right to speak on behalf of 203 First Nations in B.C.”?

Hon. D. Eby: To clarify, government does not believe that consultation with the First Nations Leadership Council substitutes for consultation with affected Indigenous communities in relation to any section 35 protected rights.

When establishing a body like this, our expectation is — and it is the historical practice of these bodies, who are independent of government — to go out and engage with people across the province, including Indigenous communities, and to consider their interests in drawing boundaries. So we’re establishing the body that will go out and do that engagement.

If the commission went out and only talked to the leadership council and only said, “Hey, leadership council, where should these boundaries be? Okay. We don’t need to talk to Indigenous communities across the province now. We’ve talked to the leadership council,” we would have to fix that. But of course, that would never happen, because that’s not how these commissions work.

We’re setting up the commission that is going to go out and do exactly the work the member says needs to happen. It needs to happen. We need to set up the commission. And not only that, we need to give the commission the independence to make the right decision, independent of what the political parties in this place think the boundaries should be. We’re setting up an independent commission with this legislation, with no restrictions on where they can draw the lines, sending them out, charging them to do exactly the work the member says we need to do. I hope that clarifies things.

E. Ross: I take exception to that, with no restrictions. Aboriginal rights and title, whether you describe it in your UNDRIP document or case law, is unique. But you keep coming back to this idea that everybody will be treated equally, and we’ll get the interest on the table. But at the same time, when I heard the member from Abbotsford question you, you were saying: “Oh, we already sent a letter to the leadership council, and we got no response.”

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member. Thank you.

E. Ross: So what is it? You go on and talk about…. Sorry, through the Chair. Members of this House want to talk about the distinction between rights and title versus the politics, while I’m trying to get to the core of the issue in terms of rights and title and Aboriginal interests and how it’s being handled.

I do understand, clearly, the rights and title and case law. I know the infringements. I know all that. What I don’t know is government. Are you going to live up to commitments that you made in your own UNDRIP document? That’s all I’m asking. If so, where is the authorization from 203 bands to the leadership council that actually gives the authorization to say: “Okay, they had no interest. We’re just going to move along then.”

That is not how rights and title works. That’s not how consultation works. It might have worked 20 years ago. But times have changed. I’m not talking politics here. I’m talking something fundamental to Canada. I’m talking about the constitution. I’m talking about 40 years of court cases that led us to today, previous to UNDRIP being introduced.

I’m asking a straightforward question. Is there a document between 203 First Nation bands that authorizes the leadership council to act on their behalf in terms of Aboriginal interests?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Just because the member says his question is straightforward does not make it so. The member repeatedly says: “Rights and title, the sui generis rights, all the litigation….” He says: “How come government can trample over those with this?”

It is government’s position that there are no section 35 rights implicated in this bill. That is our position. The member has said now two or three times he agrees with me 100 percent on that. It might be his position that that’s not the case — even though he has said that several times — but I think he agrees with me 100 percent. I believe him when he says that. So if we both agree that there are no section 35 rights and title rights implicated in this bill, then we’re exclusively talking about what the UNDRIP piece, layered on top of that, obligates government to do.

There is actually a provision in the UNDRIP legislation that talks about this. It says that Indigenous Peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their own political and cultural systems and that that doesn’t come at the expense of their right to participate in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the state, British Columbia.

This bill is exactly the mechanism by which Indigenous People will have the opportunity, if they choose, including nations, including individuals, including urban Indigenous People, people who live in rural communities…. If they choose, they can participate in this process. We are setting up the engagement process by which those communities and individuals can participate fully, as is their protected right under article 5 of UNDRIP.

The member could rightly say: “Hey, you didn’t need UNDRIP to do that.” No, we didn’t. But it’s consistent with UNDRIP. It’s consistent with our obligations under UNDRIP, and that is the process that we’re setting up.

M. de Jong: I’ll just probe this momentarily. By the way, I understand that there are frustrations on all sides here. I actually find the conversation useful in terms of getting a sense of the government’s approach and response to these matters.

The Attorney just referred to article 5 in UNDRIP. Fine. He, I think, purposely chose not to address article 19, which makes it clear: “States” — the province — “shall consult and cooperate in good faith with Indigenous Peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

I hope that we have established that Bill 7 may affect Aboriginal communities, First Nations communities. I hope that is not an issue. When we discussed the impact, the significance of article 19 at the time of its incorporation into the laws of B.C. via Bill 41, the government — through its representative, the minister — made it clear that article 19 applies to laws of general application. It’s intended to apply to British Columbia’s provincial legislation.

Then the minister said this: “I think it’s safe to say that there’s going to be deeper and more involved consultation between the province and First Nations — or those nations affected, certainly, or if nations are affected as a whole. That is what’s contemplated within the bill. The province is expected to ‘consult and cooperate in good faith,’ as called for in the UN declaration….” — referring to article 19.

What my colleague, I think, has been pursuing with the Attorney is the enhanced obligation that the government assumed and said it was assuming at the time of Bill 41 and whether or not that has been discharged. As I understand the Attorney’s response, it is that obligation…. I’m not sure if he disputes the obligation, but that obligation will be fulfilled by the commission.

[2:35 p.m.]

I think that’s what he’s saying: “We have assigned that responsibility, or we have delegated that responsibility, to the commission.”

To the Attorney’s mind…. It seems to me what he is arguing before the committee is that that is sufficient. That the creation of that body — with, by the way, no requirement…. The Attorney chastised me a few moments ago for speculating about outcomes and processes. He was pretty willing a few moments ago to speculate on his own about what would take place on the basis of past activities.

I’m not sure the Crown can delegate. If the obligation has been assumed by the Crown with respect to this legislation, can the Crown delegate that responsibility to an agency over which it will have no ongoing…? It will be independent, as the Attorney said.

Is that the Attorney’s position? That the obligations that were assumed under Bill 41 — article 19, the enhanced obligation to consult — the Crown can satisfy them by passing a piece of legislation that says to another agency, “You go out and talk to British Columbians”? And I guess it’s just an unspoken assumption — because I can’t find it anywhere in this bill, and I certainly don’t see it anywhere in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act — that the obligations assumed via Bill 41 must be satisfied.

I’m trying to keep the editorializing to the minimum. That seems to me to be the Attorney’s argument — that whatever obligations were assumed by government under Bill 41 will presumably be satisfied by the commission, we hope. Is that it?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member asked a really interesting question about delegation of responsibility in terms of the Declaration Act. As interesting as the question is, it is not, in my opinion, implicated here. Government is of the position that we have introduced a bill that is consistent with our obligations under the Declaration Act.

Our expectation is — like all government-delegated authorities, whether to a tribunal or otherwise — that the commission would take notice of the law in British Columbia in doing their work, including the Declaration Act, that they would conduct their work accordingly and that they would be aware of — in my opinion — their need to engage with Indigenous communities that might be affected by the boundaries that they draw. The process is that they go out. They engage with communities across the province. They draw up a map, and then they seek further comment on those maps.

Let’s say that the commission just failed to recognize that there was an Indigenous community that was affected by a boundary. I have no doubt that a local MLA would identify that and bring it forward, but really, we’re choosing people who are independent, who understand the importance of the work and who understand their need to operate within the law of British Columbia — which includes the Declaration Act and concern about the rights and interests of Indigenous people. This is the body that will be going out and doing the work to draw the boundaries, independent of government.

Just one further piece: it’s important to know that what this bill proposes to do is to make the rules of engagement for the commission broader and more flexible than they were previously, so that these types of rights can be accommodated.

M. de Jong: Just two things. Whether the Attorney accepts this or not, I have found the exchange informative. I disagree with the Attorney. I disagree with the proposition that the government, the Crown, has discharged and is discharging the responsibilities it assumed via Bill 41, but I have found the exchange on the matter to be informative nonetheless.

Hon. Chair, my colleague from Peace River South has some questions for the Attorney.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the Attorney for taking my questions and to my colleague from Abbotsford West for allowing me a few moments here. I think the Attorney probably has heard some of my comments already on this issue in the House, so it’s going to be no surprise to him on some of the questions. If he’ll indulge me, some of them may even appear to be personal in nature, but it’s more just to set the stage on an understanding of the diversity that we have within this province.

Let me start by just saying, look, we all understand how diverse the province is, I believe, in the chamber — and the uniqueness of the different parts of the province. I’m born and raised in Vancouver, and I moved to the Peace region. Maybe the first question that I’ll ask of the Attorney, just to kind of set the stage here, for some of the differences that I want to talk about: can the minister, for the record, explain to the House: how many square kilometres is his riding of Vancouver–Point Grey?

[2:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, if you might help me understand the connection to clause 2 on the bill. I’m just wanting to make sure we have relevance here.

M. Bernier: My questions will all make sense, Mr. Chair, as I’m just formulating a couple of questions, obviously, that go to the heart of clause 2 to make my point around unique circumstances — if that’ll help — as I get through further questions.

The Chair: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we’re not getting into personal background of how many blocks someone walks to the coffee shop or something like that, given that we’re talking about legislation.

Hon. D. Eby: The short answer is: I don’t know how big it is. To the member’s point that I think he’s trying to make, I suspect that driving across it, if there were no traffic, would take me probably about 15 minutes at a regular urban driving speed. I say “urban driving speed” because it is an urban constituency.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the Attorney for that. Obviously, we want to talk about some of these maybe unique challenges or circumstances. The reason why I ask is because the Attorney is the one speaking to this bill. It’s just to help paint the picture. I’m not trying to insult the Attorney, by any means, in doing this.

I just quickly looked on his website, just to look. It’s around 23 square kilometres for Vancouver–Point Grey and representing pretty close to the average of around 55,000. The reason why I mentioned this is I’m just curious. To the minister, could tell me, has he had the privilege…? When was the last time he was at a place like Fort Nelson? How did he get there? Has he been lucky enough or fortunate enough to have been up to the Peace region before?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, I have had the privilege to be up to the Peace a few times, in opposition and in government. I was in Fort Ware…. Was it last summer? Oh, COVID time. It was the last summer that we were allowed to travel. I spent some time with the chief and council and the circuit court in Kwadacha there. It’s a beautiful part of the world, the Peace, and I do understand the remoteness of some Indigenous communities in the province.

I wonder if the member has been to the University of British Columbia lately. I’d welcome him to come down and say hi, post-COVID.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the offer and, I guess, the banter back and forth on that. Yes, I have been there — many times, in fact — as I grew up just around the corner from there.

I want to acknowledge, then…. I appreciate that the minister said that he has been up there. But I think one of the things we want to acknowledge, for instance…. I’m going to speak specifically to the Peace region because under clause 2, with removal of the protections…. Let’s not kid ourselves again. There were protections put in place for certain parts of the province, I would argue, for very valid reasons — to avoid this actual debate that we’re having right now of determination for a commission to guess what a “special geographic consideration” is.

Let me paint the picture for the Attorney, if he will indulge me in that. The Attorney’s riding is 23 square kilometres. The Peace region is represented by two MLAs right now. Based on population — depending on how the commission does their work; I’ll ask the Attorney about that, maybe, in a minute — it would probably justify being only one MLA, based on the number of people who live in the area. Population density in the Attorney’s riding is around 2,500 per square kilometre; in the Peace region, it’s 0.2 per square kilometre. You can see a little bit of the uniqueness that we have up here.

[2:50 p.m.]

If we were to look at the Attorney’s riding of 23 square kilometres and the Peace region at 200,000…. With my quick math, that would be 9,000, so 9,000 of the Attorney’s ridings would fit into the Peace region. That could be, under the removal of the protection that the Attorney seems to support, obviously, one MLA for the equivalent geographical size of 9,000 of the Attorney’s ridings.

Maybe I’ll ask…. This is not by any means expected to trap the minister. This is, again, just for me and to help paint a picture for the House. This is not for any other reason, just to do that. Has the minister ever driven from his riding to Prince George?

Hon. D. Eby: I have.

It’s interesting that the member thinks that by the previous government establishing these specific areas with guaranteed seats, they were somehow avoiding a debate. They weren’t. They were just having a different debate, which is about whether or not politicians or an independent commission should be drawing boundaries.

The late Dermod Travis spoke on this in January of 2014. He said: “So in essence what they’re saying to the commission is: ‘Don’t touch those 17 seats.’ Anything you have to do, you’re going to have to do to the other 68 seats, and it will, in fact, create two classes of ridings. It’s going to have 17 first-class ridings if this goes through, with, on average, about 26,000 voters each, and then it’s going to have 68 second-class ridings, with over 40,000 voters each.”

The Electoral Boundaries Commission themselves, in 2015, commented on how difficult the admonition was to not impact the number of seats in those areas while, at the same time, not adding any other seats. They were “drawn inexorably to recommend electoral districts with growing population inequality.” That’s not just a bad public policy thing, population inequality between constituencies. That’s an unconstitutional thing.

When people like Hamish Telford, University of the Fraser Valley, with respect to those previous amendments by the previous administration, say things like, “It appears the government may be giving the commission too much direction and not giving them the independence to establish the ridings themselves….” There was a debate. There was a very significant debate about those changes made by the previous government.

The situation has only gotten worse in terms of people’s votes counting for more in some areas of the province and less in other areas, to the point of being in a constitutional warning zone, I’ll say generously. This cannot continue. Something has to give. What we propose to do is give the commission the ability to add up to six additional seats and to have the independence to go out and ensure effective representation.

I’ll say this. I respect very much the work of rural MLAs. I don’t think, with respect, that people who live in more densely populated areas should have to have their vote count for so much dramatically less in order to recognize that work. This bill attempts to address both issues by allowing the addition of six further seats, to take the pressure off the need to reduce the number of rural seats for the commission — if they want to add those six seats, they can — and giving the commission the direction that we need to have effective representation for communities.

Rural MLAs have a difficult job. Keep that in mind when you’re drawing these boundaries. You’re allowed to depart, for the sake of effective representation, from the 25 percent standard.

I have confidence in the independence of the commission that they will draw the boundaries that are best for the province, that are constitutionally compliant, that ensure effective representation, that recognize the hard work of rural MLAs and that recognize the fact that people who live in more densely populated parts of the province have a constitutional right to have their vote count.

M. Bernier: I guess the Attorney and I will differ on a few things. It’s unfortunate that he tries to paint a picture that right now people’s votes don’t count.

[2:55 p.m.]

It sounds like he’s trying to say people in urban British Columbia are not being represented in the Legislature and their votes don’t count. I would argue there’s a difference. This is what we’re trying to talk about here. There’s a difference.

I don’t want to create a rural-urban divide, as the minister, apparently, through this bill, looks like he’s going to try to achieve. I think we have to acknowledge the rural and urban difference.

I asked the minister at the onset…. He did answer this question: has he ever driven from his riding to Prince George? The reason why I asked that is…. Even though the minister will try to keep going back to his position, which is, obviously, representation by population only…. That, at the end of the day, means 95 percent of the province, which is in the rural parts of British Columbia, represented, I believe, by around 18 or so MLAs…. That, based on population, could drop, maybe, down to ten or 12 MLAs, further reducing the ability for people to access their MLA.

Now, the reason why I asked the question is no secret. The Attorney is a smart person. He knows where I’m going with this. From his riding to Prince George is the same driving distance as the Peace region.

Does the minister think that it’s actually fair and equitable representation that he is setting up with this bill? I’m not trying to be combative with this. I’m trying to, actually, be quite realistic in the sense of a person that represents that riding area. Does he feel it is practical to drive 12 hours in the same riding to visit your MLA?

This is not just about, I would argue, the MLA. Parties come and go. MLAs come and go. This is about the person, the people in those ridings and their access to their voice in Victoria. Does he believe that 12 hours away is, actually, fair for a person to have to travel to see their MLA? That’s what it would be like. Would the Attorney like to drive to Prince George to visit his MLA? Does he think that’s reasonable?

Hon. D. Eby: Here’s the good news. The good news is it doesn’t matter what my opinion is. It only matters what the Electoral Boundaries Commission’s opinion is in relation to effective representation.

The member, I think, has a wonderful presentation to make to the Electoral Boundaries Commission about the challenges of representing his community, about the size of it, about the work that he needs to do in order to do that.

Here’s where I think my opinion does matter. Why this is happening is that we have a constitutional problem. We have a growing number of seats in the province where the electoral districts are further and further apart, well beyond plus or minus 10 percent. We had, as of the 2015 commission — and things have only gotten worse — three constituencies where their vote power was worth essentially half of the lesser populated constituencies that were protected. Your vote is worth half.

The member might think that that’s okay, but it doesn’t matter what the member thinks. It doesn’t matter really what I think either on this one. It matters what the courts think about that. Each Canadian has a guarantee of a not exactly equal but a relatively equal weight of their vote in terms of determining the makeup of this place.

We have an MLA system. We’re MLAs. We have a party system as well. If your vote is worth half as much…. If a person in one constituency needs to get two voters to have the same impact to choose a party representative for their seat as another MLA that only has to get one voter, that is not a sustainable situation. The situation has only gotten worse since 2015. We need to solve this problem.

[3:00 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

These are important considerations the member raises that the bill specifically instructs the commission to think about when drawing boundaries. Can there be effective representation? The member used a bunch of different words that I didn’t use — equal representation; should it be fair representation? No — effective. The commission has directed, “Will these boundaries provide effective representation?” which is adopted from the case law that is also constitutional litigation related to representation by population.

The member incorrectly says that representation by population is the only factor — he attributed that to me, but I think he meant the government — in this bill, because the bill is very clear: “You can depart from representation by population considerations. You can go beyond the 25 percent standard in order to ensure effective representation.”

I do understand that the member has an argument to make, but the argument is not with this bill. The argument is to be presented to the commission: “This is what’s needed to effectively represent my constituency. This is why the boundaries should be in this area.” I think he should bring that forward.

M. Bernier: I’ll indulge the Attorney by just saying that of course I will be making that conversation and argument on behalf of the constituents in the Peace region, who already feel, being the furthest away from Victoria, covering the largest part of the province….

Let me just explain again why this is important. I know the minister is going to go back to his points. We’re not going to, probably, change each other’s minds — guaranteed — during this course of the debate, but I think it’s important to still express some of these opinions, not only on behalf of my riding but of the entire Peace region and of my colleague in Peace River North, when we’re talking about 200,000 square kilometres that could possibly be one riding, based on population.

I will acknowledge to the minister his comments that under clause 2 — under the act, subsection 9(3)(a), I believe — is where it talks about “special geographic considerations.” But think about that. If it doesn’t happen the way….

The Attorney seems to have such faith, I guess, that they’ve left everything up to the commission, but that’s almost one-quarter of the land mass in the province of British Columbia that could be represented by one MLA — four large mines, representing most of the province’s metallurgical coal; six mills; three hydro dams. By the way, the majority of the power for the province comes from my riding. And 100 percent of the oil and gas revenue activity that comes to the province comes from my area. The majority, the largest amount of ALR land, is in the Peace region.

I know the Attorney knows this, but I’m flagging that again because I think most would argue that those are special circumstances. To ask people in an area that doesn’t have cell service or Internet service in a good portion of the ridings — mine and my colleague’s to the north of me — who already struggle in a lot of ways to have access to an MLA because of that, and to be told that now it’s going to be even worse….

I guess maybe I’ll just ask this as a closing comment. I know there are others who want to speak to the minister. I’m just curious because I have not heard him…. I apologize if he’s acknowledged this already, or any of his colleagues. They’ve given a mandate to the commission to come back with a report on number of MLAs. Based on population, the Attorney is basically acknowledging that rural British Columbia could be cut drastically — the amount of MLAs — if the commission were to look at population only. Yes, there is that special clause in there.

[3:05 p.m.]

If the commission comes back and says, “Look, we’re going to be having to remove a lot of MLAs in rural British Columbia, based on the decisions that the commission has made, and the majority of those are going to be put now into urban British Columbia,” to the Attorney’s point of trying to achieve a more, as he says, equitable — I believe that was the word he used — vote in the House, does the Attorney, the Premier and cabinet have the opportunity, then, to deviate?

Are they going to just, carte blanche, accept the full report? Or are they going to look at that and put in their own determinations and considerations around what they feel is equitable, fair representation — and yes, I’m using my words, to the Attorney — depending on how that report looks? Because the last thing I think anybody wants to see, including urban MLAs….

Most of my friends on the screen and in the Legislature in urban areas, I believe, want to see things in the province work equitably and fairly from border to border, from sea to border. Does the Attorney…? Have they left this open where they can throw in their own determination and decision-making after they’ve seen the report?

Hon. D. Eby: There have only been three Electoral Boundaries Commissions since this act was established in 1989. To the best of staff’s knowledge — this is not my knowledge; I’m reliant on them for the history — the Legislature has accepted the recommendations of the commission with the exception of the 2005 commission, in which there were two sets of…. Ultimately, they presented a map that reduced the number of rural constituencies, I believe, by four.

There was a lot of concern raised. They presented a second set of maps and then handed both sets to the Legislature, and the Legislature chose the set that was not recommended by the commission, although that map was still drawn by the commission.

Just in terms of the member’s question on process…. I should have probably done that first. The commission provides recommendations to government. So they go out, and they do their study, and they do their work for a year. Then they prepare a preliminary report and a preliminary set of maps, and they publish those for the public to examine. Then based on the feedback they receive from that first round, they can do — they’re not obligated to, but they can do — a second round to do refinements or changes as needed.

Once that second round is done, they provide a report to government, which is tabled in this place, and again, that report is recommendations only. So then it’s up to government to incorporate the recommendations into law. Obviously, that process does allow the possibility of the legislators in this place departing from those recommendations and putting in place different boundaries.

[3:10 p.m.]

I will caveat that with the fact that the reason why we’re setting up this independent commission and asking them to do this work independently is so that people have confidence that the maps are being drawn by a disinterested group rather than by an interested group. By that I don’t mean “that’s interesting” but that you have a stake in the outcome of the recommendations.

Yes, technically, there is an opportunity for the Legislature to amend, ignore or change the recommendations of the commission.

T. Shypitka: I’m going to cut to the chase here. We understand the diversity we have in the province. We heard from Peace River South just a few seconds ago. I won’t get into that. My question is going to be around school districts. The first question to the minister is: can the minister tell me how school districts are decided?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t do this often, but I do wonder about the relevance of the question to the electoral boundaries bill.

T. Shypitka: Well, this bill seeks to remove statutory protections to three regions — Cariboo-Thompson, Columbia-Kootenay and the North. I represent the Kootenay region. The relevance of the question…. I’ll jump ahead here. There are 12 school districts on Vancouver Island, representing a population of about 800,000. There are six school districts in the Kootenays representing about 180,000. So should we be worrying that perhaps we’ll be reducing our school districts to represent our population?

Hon. D. Eby: This bill does not affect school districts.

T. Shypitka: Absolutely not, but it does threaten the view of protected regions and the view that the Attorney General may have that representation should be by population. We argue the opposite. We say there are geographical barriers. We recognize regional boundaries and difficulties of geography when it comes to regional districts and school districts, but this government wants to remove any recognition of geography from the province in our electoral system. That’s the relevance. Maybe the Attorney General can comment on that.

Hon. D. Eby: It’s instructive to know that the member is arguing against representation by population. This is not my opinion, as the member suggested. This is the constitution of the country of Canada and the guarantee that is offered to Canadian citizens under their voting rights.

T. Shypitka: In the electoral boundaries setup, the plan is an average of 60,000 per electoral region. There are conditions by the Electoral Boundaries Commission to protect certain areas that don’t meet the threshold of 60,000, in special situations. There are 17 electoral areas that are protected for geographical boundary reasons. This is the same rationale that we draw up our regional districts on. This is the same rationale that we draw up our school districts on, as I’ve highlighted.

Why the removal of these protected regions, when the commission has already said that it meets special geographical conditions? The question is: why would we want to remove that, when it has already been constituted and it has already been through the process already?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, this is just it. It hasn’t been through the commission, because the commission’s hands were tied. They were instructed by the previous set of strictures put in place by the previous government that interfered with their independence in drawing the boundaries and balancing the important values of representation by population with effective representation. We don’t argue against one of these values because we don’t like them.

[3:15 p.m.]

These are values that need to be incorporated and considered by an independent commission. So I agree with the member. I think the commission should be given the ability to consider this — how to balance those values that we all have — and come to an effective determination. But he is not correct in saying that the commission has already done this, because they’ve not been able to do this. In fact, that was pointed out by the 2015 commission in some detail.

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the Attorney General for that. The uniqueness of our regions has to be enshrined somehow. We do it with regional districts; we do it with school districts. I sat in these same chambers, although not virtually, with the Attorney General not too long ago on the Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019, on time change. These are the unique challenges that we face in these small rural ridings that we need to identify and protect. Just a quick question to the Attorney General: how many time zones are there in the Kootenays?

Hon. D. Eby: You know, I take the member’s point that he’s got a big constituency. I get it; it brings challenges. So does representing a lot of people; so does representing 55,000 people. It brings different challenges. I don’t take anything away from the hard work that he does. In fact, the bill recognizes that the hard work that he does and that he has to do is part of their considerations, and that effective representation is part of this.

Now, the member is interested in the boundaries of a lot of different things — regional districts, school districts, and so on. Certainly, regional districts, for example, are influential on Electoral Boundaries Commissions. Likely, school districts and the boundaries drawn for school districts could be influential. There’s some discussion about community of interest in the case law and making sure that people have shared understandings, where possible. This is all part of what the member should be raising with the commission. But it doesn’t take away from what, I would say, are the two animating principles here that we might disagree on.

One is that the constitution, in terms of guarantees of representation by population, is something that we need to take really seriously. We are a long way from there under our current map. The second is that it is important that the boundaries be drawn by a group of people who are not personally invested in the outcome, that they are independent of the opposition, the Third Party and the government, and that they draw the boundaries according to a set of values that we put out for them.

It might be that we disagree on that. We don’t disagree about the size of the member’s constituency, that he works hard, that people in his community work hard and that they’re an important part of our province. We don’t disagree about those things. That might focus some of our discussion.

T. Shypitka: Nobody is debating who works harder. We all do. Nobody is debating that we need to redraw maps with growth, with what our province is going through — absolutely, 100 percent. We agree on that, for sure.

[3:20 p.m.]

The Attorney General didn’t answer my question on how many time zones there are in B.C., even though we went through a long debate, on a very short bill, on just this. He didn’t get it then; I don’t think he gets it now.

When we went through the Bill 40, Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019, it was a big rollout, a big survey across the province. As a matter of fact, the Premier said after: “British Columbians have said loud and clear….” I’ll say that again: “British Columbians have said loud and clear that they want to do away with the practice of changing our clocks twice year, and our government is taking action. This bill creates a clear path forward for the transition while ensuring we take into account every detail during the implementation.”

The only problem was that the people in my region weren’t part of it. He talks about British Columbians yet doesn’t recognize the unique challenges in our province and that we actually have three time zones. I thought maybe the Attorney General had said two, but technically speaking, we have three time zones.

My riding, if expanded, could technically stretch through those three time zones: Pacific Daylight savings time, which we’ve got right now; Mountain Standard Time, the Creston region, which never changes their clocks, ever, throughout the year; and then my region, my area, is Mountain Daylight savings time. So we’ve technically got three time zones but only two different times throughout the year.

So if the Premier can’t understand that and the Attorney General can’t understand that, then what chance do we have of government recognizing the fact that we have unique challenges in this province that should be identified? Protecting these 17 regions does exactly that.

I think with that, my time is up. But I think this needs to be considered. We’re lucky where we live. We have a great place, but we need to ensure there is proper representation, just like school districts do, just like school boards do. They take geographical considerations into all of that. We should be doing that and protecting that here in British Columbia.

The Chair: Attorney, do you plan to respond, or shall I go to the next speaker?

Cariboo North.

C. Oakes: It is truly an honour to rise and ask some questions on this section of the bill. What I’d like to focus on for a moment is some of the opening comments that the minister made as he introduced the bill into this House.

I think what is critically important for me to put on record in the debate…. There’s been lots of discussion around MLAs and representation, but I think it’s critically important that we talk about our constituents — constituents all over British Columbia. I do want to be on record that I do think it’s critically important that urban constituents have access to effective representation. I certainly do not have any concern with the segment of this bill that ensures that urban populations have access to effective representation. I think that’s critically important.

What I would like to turn the minister’s attention to and ask a few questions on, on his response in the opening comments, is this notion of: what is effective representation, and what does it look like? In his opening comments, he commented that MLAs face unique challenges in ensuring their constituents are well represented and connected to the work MLAs do on behalf of their constituents in this House.

For the purpose of the next few questions, perhaps, could the minister expand on these comments and just talk about what, in his mind, that constituency work and that connection to the MLA really, truly is?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member has asked me about effective representation. She’s right to note that it is not defined in the act. The concept of effective representation comes from the Canadian case law on electoral boundaries.

The courts have said that effective representation requires relative parity of voting power. The plain language way of saying that is that everyone’s vote should be reasonably equal in strength in terms of influencing who makes up this place. Effective representation, the courts have also said, requires recognition of factors like geography — I think I’ve heard the member speak about that in her speech — community history, community interests and demographic circumstances.

Some colour may also be offered by other provinces that use terms that are similar but different. For example, “communities of interest” is a term that is used in other provinces, similarly not defined. But effective representation is considered to be related to ensuring that communities of interest have a voice in the Legislature.

C. Oakes: I think it’s also important that…. I think the context to…. Not to put words in the minister’s mouth, but I think the phrase that I was actually directing his opening comments to was this idea that as MLAs, it’s critically important that we connect to our constituents in our constituency offices. That’s critically important to how we connect with one another. All members of this House value our constituents and want to make sure that our constituents have access to us, whether they have questions navigating government services, programs or being represented bringing issues forward in this House.

The next line in the minister’s opening comments, to the idea that in order to be effective representation…. That whole idea of connecting the work that MLAs do back to their constituents is based on this notion that the minister put forward in his very own opening comments — that technology has mitigated the geographic barriers to MLAs connecting with their constituents. He talked about the fact that he certainly recognized that not all of the province enjoys high-speed Internet access yet.

Perhaps I can ask, because the minister did introduce that in his opening comments about…. Obviously, they looked at high-speed Internet as an important piece of connecting with constituents in British Columbia. What is the geographic coverage — not the population coverage — of high-speed Internet in the province of British Columbia?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Well, like the member, I’m certainly interested in that issue, and I know that the Minister of Jobs and the Minister of Citizens’ Services are working really hard on expanding the availability of Internet and high-speed Internet across the province.

It is actually a question that we propose under this bill to direct the commission to consider. In subsection 9(2)(a)(iii), the commission should consider “the availability and means of communication and transportation between various parts of British Columbia.” And then sub 9(3)(a), not squarely on point but definitely related: “any special geographic considerations, including a manageable geographic size for electoral districts.”

Now, just with respect to the member’s lead-up to her question about high-speed Internet, I think that the member may be conflating effective representative with effective representation. An effective representative engages in the kinds of activities that the member described — being available, being there for the community, communicating with people about what government is up to, getting their feedback, bringing it back to Victoria. That’s an effective representative. Simply because you’ve elected someone doesn’t mean that person is going to be an effective representative for you.

For the purposes of this bill, we’re talking about the right to effective representation, the right to have the potential for an effective representative. To that end, the factors aren’t what the MLAs’ activities are. The factors are: what is your relative voting power compared to other people in the province? The other is: what is the community you live in? What are the special features of that community that might need departure from that first principle in order to ensure the possibility for effective representation, both because of the strength of your vote and because of the nature of your community? It’s an issue that the member spent a lot of time on in her remarks on this bill.

I hope that that’s some clarity, both on the high-speed Internet question — absolutely something that the commission is directed to look at — but also on the effective representative question versus effective representation question. I heard a lot of speeches about effective representatives. I didn’t hear quite as many about effective representation.

C. Oakes: Thank you to the minister for the answer. This bill has laid out, as the minister has commented about, what the direction is to the Electoral Boundaries Commission. Again, that information must be, at some point, available. So how will the Electoral Boundaries Commission get the information — to understand exactly the level of high-speed Internet, what the cell coverage service is in this province? When you’re going into communities, what does that look like?

As I understand it — and I’ve certainly been in this House for a while, as we’ve gone through estimates in the past years — the notion has significantly changed in the province of British Columbia from identifying the fact that final…. Connectivity moved at one point from ensuring that 80 percent of the province had access to connectivity — whether it was high-speed Internet, whether it was cell service — to now 80 percent of the population.

It goes to the heart of this bill of understanding exactly, if the information…. How is the Electoral Boundaries Commission, when they come into Cariboo North, going to…? What is that checklist going to look like on determining whether special interest exists because of connectivity challenges? If we don’t have, specifically, a map that outlines exactly the population to have effective representation, what does high-speed Internet look like in the area? What does connectivity look like? All of those pieces.

I’m raising this because these truly are the concerns that my constituents raise. I know that the minister has said: “I want to emphasize that the core tenets of the act would not be changed by this bill.” But I can say for our constituents in Cariboo North, who have been significantly impacted, and it already…. There’s been a lot of debate in this House about….

[3:35 p.m.]

Of course, MLAs go out, and we want to represent and go into our communities. That’s critically important. But I think what gets lost often in this debate are our constituents, our constituents who need our assistance. It’s not just about the power of a vote. I think if you were to ask the majority of constituents what it means to have an effective representative…. I recognize the minister has separated the two. I would challenge him on the notion. In order to do one, you need to have both, to ensure effective representation. I can tell you, when communities have been in situations of emergencies or just in general situations….

I am certain that the minister — he has been in this Legislature for a significant amount of time as well — through his constituency office, has had constituents that have come forward to him that desperately need his assistance to navigate files through, and support of constituents, to ensure whether it’s health care, whether it’s access to services that government has.

I think it’s critically important that constituents can actually go and talk to an MLA. So the notion of what we’re talking to in this bill that all of a sudden now a constituent of mine that may live out in Lhoosk’uz Dené, or out in Batnuni, Wells, Likely, Nazko, now may…. As it stands, it’s a three-hour drive each way to come in and talk to an MLA or for me to go out and talk to them. I always appreciate the opportunity to do that.

It really is to the heart of this bill, that if you’re going to, all of a sudden, now find that these areas no longer have the protection, under this new amendment of this bill, it’s going to have profound impact on people’s lives. So it’s right that we as rural MLAs stand and fight for our constituents.

Look, my riding has been represented by the NDP. It’s been represented by an independent. It’s been represented by the B.C. Liberals. So I’m not standing in this House in any type of attempt to, say, fight for a particular party for this seat. I’m fighting for my constituents. I’m fighting to make sure that that three-hour turnaround time…. So it’s six hours to get to talk to an MLA, because, quite frankly, the areas I’ve mentioned, the majority of them don’t have high-speed Internet. They don’t have cell service. Half the time it’s satellite phone.

It’s not like they can email the MLA and say: “Look, I’m having issues with this road” or “I’m having issues because we’re flooding.” “I’m having issues because I’m really struggling with this, getting a permit through” or “I’m really struggling because you’re bringing this bill forward, and it’s going to have a negative impact, or it’s going to have a positive impact, on my life.”

This bill, at the heart of it, is going to say: “Look, we’re going to amalgamate your riding.” Or the potential that we’re going to say that we’re going to make your riding — we’re going to eliminate it or amalgamate it, and now instead of travelling six hours to go and meet with your MLA, it could be 12 hours. Is that honestly effective? Is that what we in this House mean to represent our constituents? Is that really…?

We all have a passion. We all got into this job because we want to serve British Columbians. We want to serve each of our communities. Yes, we’re scared. We’re scared by this bill because of the significant impacts it’s going to make on our communities. And particularly, this section of the bill is what is so incredibly troubling.

Our fear is that, time and time again, we feel that Victoria doesn’t understand us. Victoria doesn’t understand that we may not have the services that other ridings have. Again, I point to the fact that the province enjoys high-speed Internet access. Boy, I can tell you how…. I mean, we’re grateful for the investments that are being made in the communities, but we have a long way to go before the geographic areas of our areas are truly connected.

[3:40 p.m.]

I think, in order to have effective representation, of things like the technology that needs to be considered. Our fear is: how is the Electoral Boundaries Commission, which is going to be independent, going to take these items into consideration?

Hon. D. Eby: To the member, I hear her fear about the bill. I think that there may be a bit of a misunderstanding about the heart of the bill. If the member thinks that high-speed Internet is the heart of the bill, it’s not. The heart of the bill is two parts. Well, three maybe.

One is the restoration of the independence of the commission. So the member would be concerned, I guess, if I was drawing the boundaries, because she knows her constituency, and I am an elected person on the other side of the House. The heart of this bill is to say I shouldn’t be drawing the boundaries. The member shouldn’t be drawing the boundaries. An independent commission should be drawing the boundaries. An independent commission should be drawing the boundaries, and they should not be restricted in that work by people who are interested in the outcome.

The second piece. I guess this is a three-hearted bill. One is restoration of the independence of the commission. The second piece is this idea of representation by population as a constitutional principle that we have to follow. This is the supreme law of Canada. People have the right to vote. The courts have interpreted that right as including relative parity of power of votes — that our votes should have roughly the same degree of influence.

The third is that we live in a country and in a province…. It shares a lot of features with other provinces across Canada in terms of a very significant number of people living in the southernmost parts of the province, and then much smaller communities in other parts of the province further away from the American border, with really intense geography — mountains, lakes, rivers — and the challenges that that brings to means of communication, transportation, and so on.

Keeping in mind that geography and the distribution of people in the province, you can depart from — this is the third heart of the bill — that representation by population guidelines set by the courts of plus or minus 25 percent from the average, taking into consideration these factors that relate to effective representation.

So I guess it’s kind of about high-speed Internet, that one. But that’s just an example of the kinds of considerations. The bill does not prescribe how the commission collects the information that it needs, where it collects it, except to require the commission to hold hearings so that members of the public can participate.

[3:45 p.m.]

So we don’t say, “Oh, you’ve got to go to Telus,” and “You’ve got to go to Shaw,” and “You’ve got to go to satellite Internet providers and find out what the availability of Internet is around the province” or “You need to go to B.C. Stats or to Statistics Canada to get the population numbers.” It’s not that prescriptive. It empowers the commission to go out and collect the information.

If the member feels that she has important information to share about the availability of a certain means of communication — in this case Internet, let alone high-speed Internet — or a certain means of transportation…. “It takes X amount of time to drive across the constituency. This community is only accessible by airplane.” This is all key information that the commission will need to do its job. I think all of us in this place have an obligation to make sure that they have that information about our constituencies, because as the member noted in her speech, she has a lot of knowledge about the community that she serves — hard-won knowledge by being the representative.

I hope that clarifies to the member the high-speed Internet reference. I, maybe regrettably, mentioned it in the opening remarks because it’s just one example of a means of communication that the commission needs to consider. It is not the core of this work.

Hon. Chair, I wonder if I might take five minutes.

The Chair: We’ll be in recess until 3:52.

The committee recessed from 3:46 p.m. to 3:52 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

C. Oakes: Thank you to the minister for opening the next line of questions, which I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about. That is about the hearing schedule. I think what the minister outlined, prior to the recess, was critically how important it is for the hearings to have the opportunity to hear from constituents and to collect that critical data, which the minister clearly articulated prior to the recess.

To the minister, what is the timeline for the hearings? Do we have a commitment from the minister and the government to ensure that hearings will be held in not just large urban communities but First Nations communities across this province that deserve to have their voices heard so that the Electoral Boundaries Commission understands their communities. We have a lot of First Nations communities in the province. Will there be hearings in their communities?

As well, can we hope that the direction will be that there will also be hearings in communities such as Horsefly, Likely, McLeese Lake, Wells, Nazko. I think it’s critically important to understand our ridings. As the minister so eloquently outlined prior to the recess, hearings will be a critical component to that.

The Chair: While the minister is consulting with his staff, just a note for our members on Zoom. If you wish to consume ice cream bars, you might want to turn off your camera.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The timeline works like this. The commission needs to be struck by October 24, one year from the last general election. They have one year to do their preliminary set of maps and to go out and engage and do that work, to do their research and study, and so on. One year to prepare those. After they present that first set of proposals, then they have a further six months to do another set of engagements before their final report of recommendations is due to the Legislature.

To give the member a sense of what the volume of hearings looks like, the 2014-15 commission did 29 hearings in the first round of engagements. Then after presenting their maps, after that one-year process, they did a further 15 community visits for their work.

What I can tell the member is…. Within the act, there is no interference by government in terms of dictating to the commission where they must go or must not go. That’s left up to the commission. There’s a long history of the commissions — 89, I guess — getting out into the regions extensively across the province. I can assure the member the government will provide adequate resourcing for the commission to be able to do the work that it feels is necessary in terms of community engagement.

G. Kyllo: It certainly is with a great deal of pride that I take my place in committee stage on Bill 7.

I think that the Shuswap riding, which I represent…. I believe that the riding of Shuswap is fairly consistent with the average for British Columbia. The Shuswap riding is about 8,400 square kilometres. It’s about a six-hour drive from one end to the other, whether you’re going east to west or north to south. We have approximately 56,000 constituents in the riding.

When I had an opportunity to share some comments in second reading, I thought that it would be important to highlight some of the differences between some of the ridings in the province. The minister has indicated and, certainly, is well aware of the diverse nature of the geography of our province. I thought, in my second reading comments, it was also important to highlight the variety of issues and the complexity of issues that differ between metro and rural ridings. In making those comments, it was certainly not my intention in any way to be dismissive with respect to metro ridings but more just to highlight some of the differentiality.

Now, if we go back in time to the British parliamentary system, the term “riding,” even in its infancy, didn’t just take into consideration the population of representation. It also took into consideration the ability of a representative to actually be of service to their constituents. It took into consideration how far they could ride in a given day. So it did take into consideration the representation.

Now, my colleague from Cariboo shared some pretty significant concerns, I think, with respect to the lack of access. I think, for folks who might be living in Metro Vancouver…. We did a comparison to the riding of Vancouver–False Creek. Very different when it comes to accessibility compared to some of the more northern or rural ridings.

[4:00 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

My friend and former colleague Sam Sullivan shared with me that the riding of Vancouver–False Creek, which had about 55,000 constituents when he was the representative…. He shared with me that he was able to actually get around the perimeter of his entire riding in his electric wheelchair in about 2½ hours.

Obviously, concerns around Internet access, cellular coverage, access to transit, your ability to actually have access to your local representative…. It’s very different than it might be for somebody that’s, say, living up in Atlin, British Columbia, who might be posed or faced with a six- or seven-hour drive to get to the nearest constituency office in the town of Fort St. John — limited, if any, cellular coverage and likely very limited, if any at all, Wi-Fi coverage.

I think it’s really important, as we look to have further consideration of this piece of legislation, that the access that members may have is front and centre. As we know, ridings that have low populations, maybe even only at 50 percent of the average threshold…. The only way that those ridings will be able to increase their populations is for those ridings to physically get larger. [Audio interrupted.]

The Chair: We just had a Zoom outage, it looks like. Maybe if I could ask that we put this committee into recess for…. I’ll say five minutes, but it might be longer as we figure out what went on there.

Apologies to the members and thanks to the Hansard folks for trying to get us back online as soon as we’re able.

The committee recessed from 4:01 p.m. to 4:08 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, we will resume. I believe we were hearing from the member for Shuswap.

G. Kyllo: Just before we were cut out, I was actually talking about some of the challenges that some of the rural parts of our province have when it comes to access.

I’m talking specifically about, or giving reference to, the community of Atlin, up in northern British Columbia and the significant driving time it would be to the local constituency office — I believe the closest office is either in Fort Nelson or in Fort St. John, with some driving time of probably five or six hours — and then also the limited cell service and Internet access. As we’ve had challenges here today with being kicked out of Zoom, apparently it’s not only rural B.C. that suffers and has challenges with the reliability of some of our Wi-Fi service across the province.

[4:10 p.m.]

The comment and the concern that I certainly have — and, I think, needs to be raised — is that the only way that we can increase the population of some of these rural ridings is by increasing their physical geographic size. Peace River North, I believe, is about nine hours driving time from one end of the riding to the other. The area of Peace River North, I think, includes the area equivalent to two or three small European countries.

To look at increasing the size of those ridings in order to achieve the plus or minus 25 percent requirement…. The only way of achieving that would be to further burden and put additional barriers towards individuals or residents in B.C. of their access to their constituency offices and the service that the MLAs provide.

So just from the pure geographic issue, that’s a significant concern. But also the complexity of issues. I did highlight during second reading debate, or tried to kind of identify for members that were listening, some of the differences that we see between rural and metro ridings. It’s not in any way, shape or form meant to diminish the needs or the work that metro MLAs may undertake, but I think it is important to draw the contrast.

Many metro MLAs…. Vancouver–False Creek is an example. There is only one mayor and one set of councils that actually represent the city of Vancouver, and they’ve got a direct line to the ministries’ offices and to government. So there is likely, as the previous member for Vancouver–False Creek had shared with me, limited interaction or necessity for the mayor and council of the city of Vancouver to reach out for assistance through the local MLA’s office.

That’s very different when we get to rural B.C. The small riding of Shuswap, as I mentioned earlier, only 8,400 square kilometres but five different municipalities, all with their different and unique needs. That’s 30 different councillors. Also, four First Nations bands that provide governance and representation here in the Shuswap.

Things like concerns around snow removal. Road resurfacing. Subdivision access in rural parts of the province. Those issues largely don’t exist…. Largely the metro MLAs do not have to deal with those same complexity of issues. Fires or floods. It was only about 4½ years ago that I had the unfortunate experience of dealing with a constituent that lost his life during a debris flow. The interplay that happens between the local MLA’s office and various levels of provincial government is very significant.

Just earlier today in estimates, I was raising a concern of a resident in Seymour. That’s a northern community at the north end of Shuswap Lake. They’ve been waiting for over a year to get a water permit. FrontCounter B.C. just recently submitted a letter to them, so it’s been 15 months since their original application of March 2020. The letter they received said that it will be another one to two years further before their file is assigned to an analyst to actually provide assistance.

So the level of concern, I think, in rural B.C. is very different. I would be very surprised if a metro MLA would have to assist a constituent in dealing with an extended delay of that magnitude.

I don’t raise the differences in any way, shape or form to diminish the work of metro MLAs, but just to highlight the complexity of issues, the breadth of different issues that are dealt with and the challenge that many constituents have with getting access to their local representative.

I think it’s imperative that as the commission undertake their work and as they give consideration to the potential redrawing of boundaries for the province of British Columbia, they give serious consideration to both the increased geographic area, the limited access they have. Again, it’s certainly…. I don’t think it’s new news to any of the MLAs that are on screen or participating in the debate today — the significant challenge there is with respect to transportation access.

You know, we are no longer serviced by Greyhound services in British Columbia. Many small communities, even in Shuswap, have no — zero, absolutely no — public transit whatsoever. So your ability to actually get around and be mobile within some of these rural ridings is extremely limited.

[4:15 p.m.]

As I’ve indicated previously, the challenge with lack of access to cell phone access and/or Internet…. These issues are of significant concern. I certainly would appreciate that as the commission go about their work, they give consideration to some of these additional factors.

I think just in closing…. The minister had referenced the access to data and information. I believe in one of his previous answers…. My apologies if this is repetitive, but I wasn’t able to participate and watch the entire committee stage debate on this particular bill. But when it comes to the work that’s been undertaken currently through Census Canada, my understanding is that the statistics will not be available until February of next year. I think as the commission goes to undertake their work, it’s extremely important that they have access to the most current and fulsome information.

The last census was done a significant number of years ago. The accuracy of information by which the commission will undertake to assess and make their determinations…. I believe we would be well served, as all British Columbians, if the commission makes full use of the current census data. Again, as I mentioned, it will be available in February of next year.

So with that, I know that there is a bit of a delay on account of the interruption with Internet service. I don’t want to put us further behind, so I’ll end my comments there.

The Chair: Shall clause 2 pass? Division.

On clause 2, a division has been requested. That, of course, will take place half an hour before the end of today, which is five o’clock.

Clause 3 approved.

The Chair: We will deal with the title after we have the discussion about clause 2, when we do the division. Thank you, Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:18 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. D. Eby: I call continued estimates for the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, ECONOMIC INNOVATION
AND RECOVERY

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 4:20 p.m.

The Chair: Members, while we await the arrival of the minister and getting all set up, I’ll ask for a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:20 p.m. to 4:28 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: We’re back now. Thank you. We were doing some procedural discussions to make sure everything works. To do this, I want to….

We are currently in committee, but we haven’t called the ministry yet, so I’d like to acknowledge the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. I believe he’s seeking leave to make an introduction or a statement.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you for the accommodation.

I seek leave to make an introduction at this time.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Now we will move out of committee. We will wait. The mace will have to be moved, and then we will get a chance to return to the minister for his statement.

The committee rose at 4:29 p.m.

The House resumed; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

[4:30 p.m.]

Tributes

SARAH ROBINSON

Hon. M. Rankin: I rise in the House today to honour Sarah Robinson, a member of the Fort Nelson First Nation and the Saulteau First Nation located in treaty 8 territory in northeast British Columbia. Sarah battled with cancer over the past two years and recently passed away, sadly, at the very young age of 35.

Sarah was an incredible advocate for Indigenous People in British Columbia and especially women. She served on the Minister’s Advisory Council on Indigenous Women, beginning as a youth representative and eventually as a regular member, after serving as the secretariat for that council.

With a kindness and a charisma that was truly unique, Sarah was able to bring awareness to Indigenous issues. She even directly shaped the way we train B.C. public servants. She also advised on the re-establishment of the B.C. Human Rights Commission. Sarah’s dedication to and passion for advancing human rights was evident to all, and her work will be appreciated for years to come.

I have written to Sarah’s husband, Carlos, and her mother, Bernice, to express my personal condolences. With Sarah’s loved ones watching, I ask the House to honour Sarah’s contributions to Indigenous rights across B.C., Canada and indeed the globe.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, ECONOMIC RECOVERY
AND INNOVATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 4:33 p.m.

The Chair: Thank you, everyone, for your patience and for the acknowledgment of one of our many great civil servants who has done so much.

On Vote 35: ministry operations, $78,648,000 (continued).

T. Stone: Chair, there’s not a heck of a lot of time left in the afternoon here, but we had left our previous question-and-answer component of estimates talking about jobs. I do want to come back to that, hopefully sooner than later, But I wanted to touch on an issue that is pretty significant and that is, frankly, very distressing, hot off the presses.

That relates to word that — very shortly ago, this afternoon — has come from the United States Senate that U.S. Senator Mike Lee has moved forward with three bills in the U.S. Senate to repeal the Passenger Vessel Services Act, which he and his colleagues are referring to as “an outdated, protectionist law that harms American jobs and American tourism.”

[4:35 p.m.]

The legislation is being introduced in the Senate in the United States. This is the same Senate that unanimously approved legislative changes recently to allow, on a temporary basis, cruise ships to bypass British Columbia’s ports. It was the hope of everyone involved here in Canada — and certainly, in British Columbia — that this would be a temporary measure.

Now, we had raised concerns on this issue in this chamber consistently, for many months, to be told by the Premier and various ministers of this government that, essentially, there was nothing to worry about here. First, we were told that it was never really going to come to pass, that there was no way that this would pass through the U.S. Senate. When it did, unanimously, we were then told that it wouldn’t pass through the House of Representatives. Well, it did, almost unanimously. We were then told that this legislation would be very unlikely to be signed by the U.S. President. It was signed and became law.

The lack of urgency on this particular file, frankly, is breathtaking. We’re talking about 20,000 British Columbian jobs, and we’re talking about an annual economic impact of about $2.7 billion to British Columbia’s economy every single year. This government’s lack of urgency on this file, the lack of attention to this file and, frankly, the dismissive attitude that has been thrown at the official opposition and at others in the tourism sector and, in particular, the cruise ship sector — that have very consistently and very passionately, rightfully so, expressed their concerns about these changes becoming permanent — have been very, very disappointing, to say the least.

We now learn today, as I’ve said, that Mike Lee, the Utah senator, is moving forward to do exactly what we and folks in the tourism sector and the cruise ship sector have said all along — that the United States is likely to make a move to make this permanent, a permanent bypass of Canadian ports in the cruise sector.

I will quote directly out of the news release that, again, was released from Sen. Mike Lee’s office only moments ago. It says:

“The PVSA,” which is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, “is bad news. This arcane law benefits Canada, Mexico and other countries that receive increased maritime traffic at the expense of American workers in our coastal cities, towns and ports. Reducing demand for jobs and travel opportunities here in the U.S. is the opposite of ‘America first,’ and in the context of ocean liners, this protectionist law is literally protecting no one, as there hasn’t been a cruise ship built domestically in over half a century. The PVSA is bad economics and bad law, and it’s far past time that Congress reconsider it.”

The bottom line here is that this government has been asleep at the switch on the cruise ship sector file, consistently saying that even a temporary bypass of Canadian ports, British Columbia’s ports, would not come to pass, and it did. We have expressed worries that this would become permanent. It now appears that the United States has taken the first step towards making this a permanent measure.

In light of the fact that there are 20,000 B.C. jobs at stake, my first question to the Minister of Jobs is: what is he and his government doing today to assure British Columbians that there’s going to be a cruise sector here in this province in the months ahead?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: As the member knows, the measures that had passed through were temporary and, of course, the measure was put in place for a temporary basis.

The new information that the member says that has just come out…. I just want to notify the member that staff have reached out to engage with the federal Minister of Transportation, also the Canadian ambassador to the U.S. Staff have already reached out. Minister for Tourism, Arts and Culture and the Premier’s office. Staff have also spoken to the Prime Minister’s Office about this. Obviously, this is not what American tourists and international tourists will want.

[4:45 p.m.]

We know that Victoria is a destination of choice for many travellers. Having been born and raised here in Victoria, I know directly from tourists who come here and the feedback that they provide. So we want to ensure that the tourism industries both in Canada and the U.S. come back strong when it’s safe to do so.

Of course, I’m sure that the member opposite agrees that we should wait until there are enough safety measures in place before people can come across our borders — unless his position or the opposition’s position is different. I’m happy to hear what their take on that is. I suspect that their position is that we should wait until the safety measures are in place to allow international travellers to come into British Columbia, but if that is different, then perhaps the member can enlighten this House.

T. Stone: Well, let’s just make sure that we’re not engaging any revisionist history here. The very first letter on this issue came into the Premier’s office on October 21. This was an Alaska delegation letter expressing concern on the part of the state of Alaska on talk in Canada of extending the restrictions in our country with respect to our ports being closed. That’s October of last year — again, October 21 of 2020. That’s eight months from where we are today.

Then there are a series of further letters and communications exchanged between the United States senators Murkowski and Sullivan from Alaska, that were copied to the province of British Columbia, the Premier’s office here. This is all happening through February, and we have already established as fact that there was very little engagement during this time by the province of British Columbia and certainly by the Premier’s office.

There were calls for the province and the federal government to agree on supporting technical stops in B.C.’s waters and, in fact, the U.S. delegation was adamant that if they could get a commitment from their Canadian and British Columbian counterparts on support for technical stops, that would provide them with the assurance that they could bring their cruise sector up in operation again sooner than the Canadian sector, but, no, that when Canada was ready, when British Columbia is ready, they could then resume normal operations incorporating British Columbia ports as ports of call.

This is all happening, again, starting in October, working its way through the early part of 2021, in February, right up until senators Murkowski and Sullivan decide they’ve had enough of lack of urgency and engagement on the part of the Premier’s office here and British Columbia and Canada jointly. So they moved forward with the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act, which provides for the temporary measures that, again, we were told were never going to happen. The Premier and others in government said that this would never get to this point. Well, here we are.

All the while, senators like Mike Lee out of Utah, increasingly and with significant emphasis, continue their refrain that what they see as temporary for now will become permanent in the future. That brings us to today, where we actually…. Our worst fears appear to be materializing before our eyes — again, eight months after the initial letters were received by the Premier’s office. So, again, we’re talking about economic catastrophe if this actually happens in communities along the coast, obviously — the ports of call.

[4:50 p.m.]

When we consider the impact here in Victoria, cruise ships are responsible for almost $200 million in economic activity every year. In Vancouver, every single cruise ship that stops in Vancouver brings $3 million plus of economic benefit to the city of Vancouver. The industry overall has an impact of just under $3 billion on B.C.’s economy. It’s 20,000 British Columbians that are employed in the sector.

These impacts in Vancouver and Victoria obviously are separate from the additional impacts that are felt in communities all over British Columbia that rely on cruise passenger traffic to come into Victoria, Vancouver, Prince Rupert and then perhaps disembark for a week or two and jump on a bus tour, perhaps, or go up to the Okanagan and do wine tours or any number of other things that they could do. So the economic impact of this and the government’s lack of urgency on this file, again, is breathtaking and, frankly, reckless.

I would like to know, again, on behalf of all of the thousands of small businesses out there, the cruise ship sector in particular, the 20,000 British Columbians whose jobs are on the line if this sector doesn’t come back…. Even if 10 percent of the sector doesn’t come back, that’s a multi-billion-dollar negative impact to British Columbia’s economy.

On behalf of the sector and on behalf of all of those British Columbians gainfully employed in the sector, I’d like to ask the minister if the Premier has reached out to the Prime Minister as a result of this latest development. Has the minister engaged with his counterparts in Ottawa? Has the Premier’s office reached out to the Governor of Washington, his good friend? Has he reached out to the Alaskan delegation?

What is this government doing in terms of crafting a strategy and a plan that’s going to safeguard an industry that, again, brings in almost $3 billion of economic activity every year and employs 20,000 British Columbians? What is this government doing to make sure that Mike Lee’s bill actually doesn’t become the law in the United States and that, rather, we see our cruise ship sector come back, and come back stronger than ever?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Of course we’re going to continue to stand up for our B.C. tourism industry. The member knows that. We’ve continued to stand up for all of the important sectors of our economy.

The member will know there were threats that came against our blueberry industry just recently. We took actions, worked with our partners, and we got a favourable outcome. The member also knows the first trip the Premier made on softwood lumber, when he first got elected — the first trip he did — was to Washington, D.C., to address the challenges that the U.S. is posing on softwood lumber.

The member was informed this week that the Premier has committed that once the borders are open, and when it’s safe to travel, he’s made a commitment to make another trip over there to fight for our sectors. The record for us standing up for our economy is pretty solid. It’s hard to control what senators in different parts of the U.S. will say and try to do, but we’ll continue to fight. We’ll continue to fight for our economy and for the important players in our sector.

The member has asked a couple of questions. I’ll add that the Premier met with Senator Murkowski this week. We have already reached out to the Prime Minister’s Office and reached out to the U.S. ambassador. We’ve obviously had a chance to engage with the Alaska delegation this week, and also, the Minister of Transportation has engaged with the federal Minister of Transport. So we’re doing all the steps we can.

Of course, the member knows what we can do within B.C. Of course, there are federal jurisdictions involved, so we’re taking those steps. But again, I think what’s important here is that the member is not stating clearly if their position is that we should, right now, open the border to international tourists coming in. They’re not making that clear. They’re not really making clear what their position is. I think that they should make their position clear. Are they saying we should open the borders for international tourists or not? But we’re going to continue to fight for our important industry here in British Columbia.

With that, noting the hour, we will rise and report progress, and ask for the committee to have leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. D. Eby: I believe that we’re doing a deferred vote, so I call Bill 7, the Electoral Boundaries Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 5:02 p.m.

On clause 2 (continued).

The Chair: Members, we will be proceeding to the deferred division on whether clause 2 of Bill 7, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021, shall pass.

Pursuant to sessional orders, the committee will stand recessed for ten minutes. We will then resume for the vote. So the committee is now in recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:02 p.m. to 5:12 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will proceed to the deferred division on whether clause 2 of Bill. 7, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021, shall pass.

Of course, that means the division will proceed in five more minutes.

[5:15 p.m.]

Members, we will now proceed with the division.

[5:20 p.m.]

Clause 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 55
Alexis	Anderson	Bailey
Bains	Beare	Begg
Brar	Chant	Chen
Chow	Conroy	Coulter
Cullen	Dean	D’Eith
Dix	Donnelly	Dykeman
Eby	Elmore	Farnworth
Fleming	Furstenau	Glumac
Greene	Heyman	Horgan
Kahlon	Kang	Lore
Ma	Malcolmson	Mark
Mercier	Olsen	Osborne
Paddon	Popham	Ralston
Rankin	Rice	Robinson
Routledge	Routley	Russell
Sandhu	Sharma	Simons
Sims	A. Singh	R. Singh
Starchuk	Walker	Whiteside
	Yao
NAYS — 26
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Cadieux	Clovechok
Davies	de Jong	Doerkson
Halford	Kirkpatrick	Kyllo
Letnick	Merrifield	Milobar
Morris	Oakes	Paton
Ross	Rustad	Shypitka
Stewart	Stone	Sturdy
Tegart		Wilkinson

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Bill 7, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:26 p.m.