[ Page 2585 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 24) Amendments.

Introduction and first reading –– 2585

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 40) . Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 2585

Presenting reports.

Two interim reports, McCarthy inquiry on Wildlife Act –– 2586

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 40) . Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2586

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 24) Committee stage.

On the amendment to section 5.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2586

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2586

On the amendment to section 6.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2586

Report and third reading –– 2587

Mineral Act Clarification Act (Bill 25) Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Gibson –– 2587

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2587

Mr. Cocke –– 2587

Division on section 2 2588

Report and third reading –– 2588

Constitution Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 38) Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2588

Mrs. Dailly –– 2588

Mr. Gibson –– 2591

Mr. Stephens –– 2592

Mr. Stupich –– 2593

Mr. Davidson –– 2595

Mr. Cocke –– 2596

Mr. Kempf –– 2598

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2598

Mr. King –– 2599

Mr. Lea –– 2603

Mr. Bawtree –– 2604

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2605

Mr. Barnes –– 2606

The House met at 10 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 21,1978, the executive assistants challenged the press gallery to a softball game at Ambassador Park. They subsequently won the match 15 to 11. But I understand that because of a late arrival, the executive assistants' team required the use of a member of the press gallery to even up the sides. It seems that Dale Hicks of BCTV came across to help out. After hitting the ball and running to first base, he was engaged in a major collision with the hon. member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and subsequently hurt his toe. The toe was X-rayed the following morning and was found to be broken. The executive assistants feel that Dale Hicks needs to be recognized for his contribution in the face of pain and agony which he subsequently suffered. They suggest that they would be willing to chip in and buy him a toe truck to help him get around and do his reporting duties.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, although we ave sympathy for the accident, nonetheless, it's not the kind of thing that we would like to have introduced in the House at this time.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts this morning and in part in the gallery are 60 students from Beattie Elementary School from Kamloops with their teacher, Mr. Zakowski, , and I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome as warm as it is in Kamloops.

MR. VEITCH: Seated in your gallery this morning are some very fine people: first, Mr. Abbie Brum, who has had a very distinguished career in the military as well as in industry. He retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel. Mr. Brum was one of the first people to land with the First Canadian Parachute Battalion in what is now East Germany. For many years he served as he general manager of the Maui Container Company on Maui. He is now located in California with the Del Monte Corporation in Oakland. With Mr. Brum are his good wife, Dorothy, his daughters, Karen, Call and Brenda, and his son Jimmie. I would ask this House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, there's a group of young constituents from Saanich and the Islands in the precincts today and a few in the gallery - grade 5 students from Royal Oak Elementary School. Would the House welcome them?

Introduction of bills.

NATUM PRODUCTS MARKETING

(BRITISH COLUMBIA) AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 24, intituled Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1978.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same and be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 24.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1978.

Bill 40 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading, with leave, today.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I feel there is a matter of breach of privilege of this House. I rise on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point or order rather than on a point of privilege?

MR. COCKE: On a point of privilege, if you will, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of privilege, please proceed. State the matter.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention a press release dated June 21, with respect to the bill that we now have before us, a press release outlining many of the education aspects of this omnibus bill. I'd ask, Mr. Speaker, that you check all the sources that you have and find out whether or not a breach of privilege has occurred.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I will take the matter under advisement and reserve a decision on it.

[ Page 2586 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I table, for your perusal, the matter.

MR. GIBSON: On that same point of order, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: It was a matter of privilege, hon. member, and it's not debatable.

MR. GIBSON: Oh. On that same point of privilege....

MR. SPEAKER: It's not debatable, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: I'm not debating it.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member rise on a point of order and then state a real point of order?

MR. GIBSON: I was just going to suggest that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was asking us to take that press release as notice, that's all.

Presenting reports.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I table herewith the first two interim reports of Judge J.L. McCarthy, inquiry commissioner, examining, under the Departmental Inquiries Act of British Columbia in the matter of the Wildlife Act, and in regulations, the receipt of any consideration by members of the fish and wildlife branch, past or present.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: By leave, I move that we proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 40, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which can be best considered in committee, so I move second reading at this time.

Motion approved.

Bill 40, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1978, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 24.

NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING

(BRITISH COLUMBIA) AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 5 as distributed to the members this morning.

On the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: It is fortunate that the minister realized that this needs to be brought in in order that these levies can be returned. I am wondering, in a short bill like this, how the omission occurred that we have to have this amendment coming in this morning. It would seem that this should have been included in the original bill and I'm wondering why the oversight.

HON. MR. HEWITT: As the member for Cowichan-Malahat is probably aware, we have had discussions regarding the effect of national supply management schemes and provincial marketing board legislation. In order to fully clarify the situation it was felt that, rather than just having a commodity board or a marketing agency, it had to cover the full scope. That's why the amendment was brought in. I would like to have seen it earlier myself.

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

On section 6.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move the amendment to section 6, as introduced by message this morning.

On the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: Again, it's obvious that the bill is no good if its not going to be proclaimed. It's fortunate the minister saw fit to add a proclamation to the bill. It's strange that a bill as short as this should require two amendments.

Amendment approved.

[ Page 2587 ]

Section 6 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 24, Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. HEWITT: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 24, Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1978, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

MINERAL ACT

CLARIFICATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this is the dis-graceful section of this bill that makes it retroactive back to 1974. Retroactivity is completely unacceptable in any kind of legislation. In many countries, retroactivity in legislation is unconstitutional. I say that the minister should not have introduced a bill with this kind of clause in it. I am going to vote against it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources please wait to be recognized by the Chair?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not even recognized by his constituents.

HON. MR. CHABOT: They've recognized me on numerous occasions. Five time they've sent me down to Victoria to do their business.

I also, Mr. Chairman, regret the necessity of bringing in this bill. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano suggests it's a disgraceful amendment. I suggest to him that it was disgraceful drafting when it was brought into the House in 1974. In order to ensure security of title, mineral title, mineral claims in this province, it's necessary to bring in this amendment.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I say that security can be ensured by present-day legislation. I oppose retroactivity absolutely.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, no, security of title cannot be ensured.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it brings sadness to our hearts to see the Minister of Mines continually using excuses. They've been government for three years, and for every infamous Act of his, he always has to cry about what happened in the past. Mr. Chairman, he isn't fit to be Minister of Mines with those kinds of arguments.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I can't tolerate that kind of ignorance on the part of that member. Mr. Chairman, this is a sloppy legislation that was introduced in 1974 by that former government that was rejected by the people of this province. The people of the province kicked that government out on December 11,1975, for a variety of reasons, and this is one of the reasons - because of the sloppiness in drafting legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. minister, we are on committee stage reading, which is to deal with clause-by-clause study.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much. Never in the history of this province....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Your debate might better be used during throne speech or budget speech debates, or even perhaps second reading, but it is not in order at this time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's really unfortunate that we have to correct...

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section of the bill, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: ... errors of the past, errors of the former government, errors of Hart Horn. The reason this amendment is here today is to clarify the mistakes of Hart Horn, who drafted the amendments to the Mineral Act

[ Page 2588 ]

and gave them to the minister to drop in this House. It's quite obvious, because of this clarification Act in here today, that Hart Horn wasn't capable of drafting legislation. Unfortunately, we have to rectify the mistakes of the past.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 27

NAYS - 16

Leave requested for division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Sections 3 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Leave granted for divisions to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 25, the Mineral Act Clarification Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 38.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, this bill is confined to the recommendations made by the royal commission on electoral reform. I take this opportunity to express appreciation for the work of the commissioner, Judge Eckardt, and the staff of the commission.

The specific recommendations contained in the interim report tabled in the House are set out in Part III of that document. The recommendations for amendment of the Constitution Act appear on page 42 and the pages following that set forth the proposed amendments to schedule C of the Act.

The commission has recommended that section 14 of the Act be amended so that the number of members of the assembly be increased from 55 to 57. That recommendation is given effect by Section 1 of the bill.

The boundary descriptions of the electoral districts in the province, as proposed by the commission, are reproduced in section 3 of the bill. Section 15 of the Constitution Act requires that these show the number of members for each district.

The bill provides that each electoral district will return one member, except the districts of Surrey, Victoria, Vancouver South, Vancouver Centre, Vancouver East, Vancouver-Little Mountain and Vancouver-Point Grey, each of which would return two members.

Mr. Speaker, in submitting this legislation to the House the government is accordingly submitting the recommendations of the royal commission for acceptance or rejection. The reasons given for those recommendations are set out fully in Part III of the report.

I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MRS. DAILLY: We had a very elaborate, lengthy speech from the Provincial Secretary on one of the most major bills to come before any Legislature. It appears that the unseemly haste in which the minister made her introductory remarks is just consistent with the unseemly haste in which this bill and the reform recommendations at the initiation of the commission have been handled.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We have now completed the technicalities of moving out of committee back into committee. I would ask the hon. members to please settle down. We are now in debate in principle.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, it is a disgraceful situation that in 1978 in the province of British Columbia we have a very, very outstanding example of gerrymandering. As we all know, that term originated in the United States many, many years ago. 1 believe it came from the state of Massachusetts; it was named

[ Page 2589 ]

After the governor who was known for one of the major attempts at this. In the United States today no government could get away with this. But here we are in the province of British Columbia, where we have a blatant example of gerrymandering brought in by the Social Credit government in the year of 1978.

This government, in all its policies, has been a vindictive government. They have been primitive and crude in their approach to many of the major problems in this province today. But here before us we have a bill which symbolizes the blatant crudity of this government. When you have a bill put before you on electoral reform which, first of all, eliminates two members of the NDP party and also obviously harbours the intent of eliminating a third one- no Social Credit, but all NDP members - and then this government stands up here.... I can see the members of the back bench looking rather concerned because we're attacking this bill, and yet they have not been eliminated. Yet here we find that three NDP members have been purposely eliminated through this report.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's think of the makeup of the report in the very beginning and who was put in charge of it. When the NDP set up the royal commission on electoral reform, they went out of their way to do what they realized was the only way for any government that has any principles to handle electoral reform in this province. They picked three people who were known throughout the province and respected for impartiality. Let me remind you who they were: the late Judge Norris, Lawrie Wallace - of whom yesterday or the day before the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) announced had received an honour in England -and Ken Morton, the chief electoral officer -three fair-minded, tolerant people, with no bias towards any political party. I'm sorry, Morton was secretary of the commission and the other two were the commissioners. But that is the way the NDP went about the whole matter of reforming and changing the boundaries in this province.

But then, when the Social Credit came in, they completely scrapped the idea of this $200,000 commission and the facts that were laid before them. They have to go ahead, start all over again and appoint one person and that person happens to be someone who has run twice for the Social Credit Party - once Conservative, I understand, and once Social Credit. How can any government sit over there and take its responsibilities in the manner in which it should, when it goes out of its way to appoint someone who obviously has to be labelled as partisan? So what we have before us is the inevitable result. The whole matter of electoral reform is one that affects every single person in this province. I'm sure the people of British Columbia have expected - hoped, at least - that on this matter they could have an unbiased report from the government. But that is not to be. Here we are, facing this biased report and the very person, the minister who happened to bring in the report is - most interesting - the hon. Provincial Secretary.

If we look specifically at the Little Mountain area which she now represents, we find out that there is a very interesting little jog in the map, which I know some of my fellow colleagues will be re-emphasizing after I sit down. It's quite obvious, there's this little jog sitting right out there with no rhyme nor reason to it. But what does it mean? It means that the Provincial Secretary's riding, which she won last time, now very conveniently has added to it an area which is certainly known not to be an area that would support the NDP. Surely not, but that's the way it is. The map speaks for itself. Speaking of unseemly haste and the way in which this whole commission operated, I recall getting a call from the Burnaby council stating that they had received an invitation to give their points of view to the Eckardt commission, I believe, several days after the commission had met. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think if we check around the province, we will find there are other situations where this happened - not all, I quite agree. But we find that in my own area, anyway, they were asked to come and give their ideas on changes in boundaries and they received it after the commission hearing.

So the whole background of the setup of this commission - who was appointed to head the commission, the unseemly haste in which the commission operated and then, of course, the very unseemly haste in which the minister and the government have brought this report forward to this House - certainly leaves some very strong suspicions in the minds of anyone, whether politicians who may be affected or not, that this does not appear to be a report based on a nonpartisan, unbiased situation.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the report, there seems to be very little consistency in the redistribution measures. For example, we see that the suburban riding of Delta, now held by Social Credit, was made a two-member riding. Apparently it could be in an effort to ensure the reelection of two Socreds because of the high concentration of Social Credit votes in that riding. Another suburban riding of Coquitlam was divided into two one-member ridings, apparently because it went Social

Credit by only a few votes in the last elec-

[ Page 2590 ]

tion. The cares of division of that riding could guarantee the election of at least one Social Credit member in the next election.

Whether you are involved in politics or not, whether you are really concerned about this whole matter, when you face the facts of these kinds of measures recommended in this report, it certainly must raise in anyone's mind the thought that this report is hardly what you would call an unbiased report. The other interesting thing is that the report was suddenly tabled in this Legislature at 2 p.m. on June 20. The Queen's Printer didn't even have sufficient time to provide all members of the House with a copy, and only one copy was provided to the entire 18-member NDP caucus, and that applied also to the other leaders, I know. I know the rest of your caucus did not get copies, and I want to protest that right now. Nevertheless, within 24 hours the government was presumably able to read, digest, and adopt the recommendations and have them drafted into legislation and printed in time for all members to receive a copy of the legislation by 2 p.m. the next day.

I heard across the floor: "That's efficiency." I would hate to refer to other governments in our history who have been known for efficiency, but have also been known for some other very negative aspects along with their efficiency, such as totalitarianism and other undemocratic moves. So I don't think the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) would want recorded too much that he puts all his emphasis on efficiency and he doesn't care about democracy. This report certainly is not a report that reflects a true democratic institution.

When any government asks for a royal commission, whether it be in education, forestry, et cetera, you do expect that the government is going to study the report and examine it with some detail, we would hope. But to have a report presumably handed to a government one day, and then legislation produced on that report the next day, one cannot help wondering why. And one can't help wondering, when the government acts in such a hasty way, albeit efficient, as the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources wants to suggest, if it has some ulterior motive for moving so fast.

It makes one wonder how any government could possibly digest a report of this size, with all its implications. What did they do? Because they brought in their legislation the next day. Did the cabinet stay up all night? Did the caucus members meet with the cabinet all night? I would hope they had an opportunity for their input before this legislation camp through. We know that that was absolutely impossible, so we leave it to the public. Certainly they inevitably will be the judge of the handling of electoral reform in this province by this government. We leave it to their judgment as to whether this was an unbiased report, or how heavy a hand the government had in the drawing up of the boundaries that we see before us.

I think the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , in closing debate on this bill -and I can assure you it won't be for quite a considerable time - will give the opposition and the public some explanation of the many inconsistencies that are found in this report.

My colleague to the right, who will be back shortly to take part in this debate, the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , I'm sure will have some very serious questions to ask, which he hopes will be answered, on why his riding was changed and moved. 1 understand from the report of the size of it being rather small, and yet we have the constituency of Atlin, which had just aver 3,000 voters, remaining the same. Now if there is a reason for this, this is all we're asking. But naturally, if you happen to be the member for Revelstoke-Slocan and you see this inconsistency with your riding being changed because, we are told, of its size being too small, and yet Atlin, with 3,000 votes, remains intact.... I think he has questions to ask which should be answered, and I think the Provincial Secretary has a responsibility to explain to us why this happened.

I notice in the report the commissioner does suggest that you must try and not tear apart constituencies. You must try to keep an historic trend in a constituency and yet, whatever one may say, Vancouver-Burrard may appear to most people to be a somewhat transient and, certainly, an urban riding, but Vancouver-Burrard has been with us for a number of years. I believe it has developed as much its own community spirit as some other ridings. Now why has Vancouver-Burrard been eliminated? Surely it's not because it is held by two very capable and strong members of the New Democratic Party. I would certainly hope not, Mr. Speaker.

, Again, I would hope that the Provincial Secretary, who has brought in this bill, would perhaps explain to the House why we have this strange little jog in her riding. After all, she is piloting the bill through the House and I think we'd be interested to hear about that little jog that goes through the minister's riding.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure if we went back in the history of this parliament we would see many debates on electoral reform. I'm not sure how

[ Page 2591 ]

many have been presented since this Legislature first came into existence. In the short time that we've had to prepare ourselves for this bill, which has been practically no time, I was preparing to go to the library earlier this morning to look up some of the Hansard debates on the past commission report on redefining boundaries in this province. But then, of course, I had to stop halfway there, because I remembered that until the Social Credit government was defeated, we did not have a Hansard. That was most unfortunate, because 1 think it would have helped, perhaps, to have read into the record some of the debates which took place in the past when these kinds of bills have been presented to a Legislature - bills in the hands of autocratic governments who have no shame, Mr. Speaker, who have no concern for fairness, who are only concerned at achieving political victory at the polls at any cost. May I say that this bill symbolizes that. I say shame on this government for bringing in such a bill in this form before this House in this unseemly haste, and I hope the public of British Columbia will have their time very soon to express what they think about a government that puts efficiency ahead of everything else and puts democracy at the bottom of their list.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I want just briefly to review the history of the Constitution Act amendments we have before us. There were promises made during the 1975 election that there would be a commission into electoral reform. Now there was already a redistribution report, which had been prepared at considerable public expense by Judge Norris, available to the new government, but they chose to ignore that. They were asked questions in this House for two years as to when this commission on electoral reform was going to be appointed. It was obvious that there was a debate raging inside the government caucus and the cabinet as to whether or not they wanted to touch this question of electoral reform, but they finally - about six months ago - appointed a commission that was to take as its first task redistribution and maybe get on to electoral reform after that.

MR. NICOLSON: Who lost the debate?

MR. GIBSON: I do not know, Mr. Member. We'll see what the report on electoral reform says. That was the one that was really promised during the election; what we have now is a report on redistribution.

A commissioner and his staff of three or four, or perhaps more, worked for five months on redistribution and other items of public hearings. They had the advantage of their own research, they had the advantage of public input in many sessions, and they did a complicated job. Their report was made public only three days ago. The bill that we are debating today was made public only two days ago. The report did not include with it an analysis of the political impact of the changes that were going to be made. There was an analysis of the numerical impact of the riding-by-riding breakdown of the number of citizens, but there was no analysis of how this report would have changed the political balance of this province, had it been in effect at the time of the last election. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is one of the essential questions that springs to everyone's mind when they consider the equity or not of redrawn boundaries in this province.

So two days ago we finally get this bill in a week that hasn't exactly been a quiet week. We've passed numerous Acts in this Legislature this week. We've been looking at, among other things, the forest bill; we saw the Family Relations Act come down; there has been a number of things of importance to engage the time of MLAs during this week. And now, two days later, we are being asked in this House to pass these very important amendments to the Constitution Act that will affect the political climate in this province in ways as yet unknown and unanalyzed, because it wasn't analysed in the report and there hasn't been time to analyse it in any other way. Now the government wants to ram this one through -maybe they have had time to analyse it.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The member over there is saying: "No, they didn't have time to analyse it." Then why, in the name of heaven, are you trying to put it through so quickly?

The one thing I can say about the bill so far, Mr. Speaker, is that the North Shore is reasonably dealt with, but the changes are very, very slight on the North Shore. On the other hand, we have heard that there are very legitimate grievances in other parts of the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Burnaby.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. member, whether they're legitimate grievances or not, it seem to me it's up to each member who's going to speak in this debate. I hope you will take part in this debate.

Why does the government want to ram it

[ Page 2592 ]

through so quickly? The Premier told Paul St. Pierre in an interview only a few days ago that he had no intention of having an election this year. Now the only reason you need this bill through right now is if you're going to have an an election this year. Otherwise there's time for members of this assembly and for voters around the province to have a look at the specific suggestions of the commissioner and get some informed reaction as to the political propriety, quite apart from the numerical propriety, of the recommendations that have been made. On the basis of that unseemly haste - to use the words of the hon. member for Burnaby North - I simply can't support this bill. It is wrong to bring a bill of this importance in and try and ram it through this Legislature so quickly.

Mr. Speaker, when are we going to get a sensible system in this country and in this province in respect of the question of fixing electoral boundaries?

Let me draw to your attention an interesting numerical coincidence. We have in this Legislature currently 55 seats, and recommended by the commission to go to 57. The federal people in British Columbia now have 28 seats after their most recent redistribution. Interesting - almost exactly half of what we have here. Why can't we get together? Why can't the federal and provincial governments work together on reasonably harmonized ridings so that MLAs can deal with MPs on matters of common interest? Why can't we get together on a reasonably harmonized representation commission that works on a continuous basis to ensure the propriety of ridings? And why can't we work together on a continuous and harmonized voters list which would be maintained on a permanent basis and which would apply not only to the provincial government but to the federal government, and I say to municipal governments as well, so that at the time every election comes up we don't have to go through this exercise again of a panic enumeration and missing a lot of people? We should have a continuous list and the governments should be working together. And there's none of this kind of reasonable provision in this bill, nor any hint from the government that their thoughts are moving along that line.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's completely inadequate in that sense. And I think it's completely hasty, and a case of attempting to ram this legislation through the House in the other sense. For both of those reasons I will not be supporting this bill.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, I think, of course, there is good and bad in this bill and I suspect that no matter where the boundaries were drawn somebody would be crying out because they had been hurt.

Interjection.

MR. STEPHENS: Oh, yes, they gave me some of the votes that were formerly belonging to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , and I'm just delighted that those Conservative voters will now have a Conservative to vote for. It's quite apparent that some of the things that have happened are quite good. I commend the report for the creation of the new riding of North Island. That's one of the areas that was in great need of assistance. But, on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, many things in the report that can be dealt with probably better at the committee stage appear to be beyond all logic and reason, to ignore natural boundaries and to have made small adjustments that cannot be justified by any kind of logic. The main objection that I have, Mr. Speaker, to this report is that we were told by this government that it would not accept the Norris commission report because it wasn't broad enough. It was necessary for the matter of electoral reform to be gone into in great detail. The mandate of the Norris commission was much more narrow than the mandate of this commission. So that report was put aside in the hope that this government would come up with a broader look at the whole election procedure in British Columbia. What we actually have now is only a portion of that report which covers no greater area than the Norris commission covered. For that reason, the government quite clearly has gone back on its intention. It's now shoving down the throats of the people of this province a report which it deems to be more favourable than the one that the previous government managed to obtain. It's my suggestion and my position that the previous commission report was much less biased than this one.

It's hard to ignore the fact that in the greater Vancouver area and lower mainland area, between each 40,000 to 50,000 voters is represented by a member in this House. Then we look at the Richmond riding and find that it has 80,000 people there represented by one representative. That simply cannot be explained away. There's no reason for that except that it might be quite disadvantageous to this government to have had any division in that area at all. It's impossible to ignore the jog in the Little Mountain boundary which I think probably can best be described as "Gracie's finger." It denies all reason why

[ Page 2593 ]

that boundary has jogged into Point Grey.

If you look at the map you can see that the boundaries are generally drawn in straight lines or at clear angles following clear boundaries. But that particular jog is totally unexplainable except for the desire to capture some Social Credit votes, and if you look at the polling maps of the previous election, you'll see that's exactly what it did.

I'll have more to say at a later date, Mr. Speaker, but as this report stands in whole, I cannot support it.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, perhaps before I get into the material of my second reading debate, I might make an announcement of interest to some members in the House. This will be your last opportunity to see the red suit. The Nanaimo NDP in one of its regular fund-raising drives has asked me to contribute this to an auction sale, and I've agreed to do so. I would like some support in this moment of sorrow and also some support in my sorrow in the legislation that we're debating right now. I snuck it in!

Reading from the introduction, the instructions to the commissioner were:

" (a) To secure, by whatever redefinition of electoral districts is required, proper and effective representation of the people of all parts of the province in the Legislative Assembly; and that in formula ting the recommendations to be contained in the report, the commissioner takes into account, where feasible, historical and regional claims for representation."

Mr. Speaker, we find no fault at all with those instructions.

The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , the leader of the Liberal Party, asked several questions. Why do we have to do it in such a hurry? Now certainly the instructions before us there imply that there's no need for any great haste.

If I could just interrupt, Mr. Speaker, I've had one offer already of $100. I'll pass that on to the Nanaimo organization. They may come after the person who signed this note.

AN HUN. MEMBER: Does that include the moths?

MR. STUPICH: I've been wearing it often enough; there are no moths in it.

There's no reason for haste, Mr. Speaker, in the instructions brought before us. The hon. leader of the Liberal Party asked why the haste. There's no reason that there couldn't have been some co-operation with the commission that did the federal riding redistribution. Certainly there is nothing in these instructions that implied that it was necessary that we do it entirely on our own, that we ignore everything that had been done by previous commissions or by the federal commission that was redefining federal election boundaries in the province.

What reason then, Mr. Speaker? It's been suggested by the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) that the other reasons for haste could very well have been political - political reasons for doing it differently, for doing it again, for taking a new look at election boundaries. Nothing other than political reasons would seem to explain some of the things that are being done in this particular report and that are being adopted in the legislation before us now.

On page 10 the commissioner mentions factors that should be taken. into account in redefining boundaries. Population is certainly a reasonable factor and one that is taken account in the federal riding redistribution, where there are upper and lower limits related to an average. But certainly population was largely ignored in the report before us. There have already been references to the constituency of Atlin, with a population of 5,043, which is just slightly over 10 per cent of the average constituency population - not of the largest - in the province. So population was obviously completely ignored. Then you look at the other end of the list and you see Richmond, which is almost twice the average size population-wise. Obviously the commissioner, after having reported that population was important, then proceeded to ignore it.

Geographical limitations. Certainly there has to be some consideration for geographical limitations, Mr. Speaker, but why mention population if it's going to be completely ignored? If we're going to carve the province up geographically, why not do it geographically alone? If we're going to be representing rocks, trees and stumps, let's just divide the province into some 55 or 57 or whatever equal sizes of property and say that rocks, trees and stumps are going to elect M[As.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd like that, eh?

MR. STUPICH: I wouldn't like that. No, I wouldn't agree with that for one moment. I do agree with taking into account population. I do agree with taking into account geographical limitations. But I don't agree with ignoring either one of them, as the commissioner seems to have done in this report.

Communication and transportation. There's been a lot of talk about communication in the last couple of days with the public and in the

[ Page 2594 ]

Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I think I won't go into communication and transportation right now, but certainly they are less of a problem than they were some years ago.

Distance from government agencies. Certainly that's a factor, Mr. Speaker, but government agencies can easily be moved in order to achieve the kind of reasonable representation that is talked about in the instructions to the commissioner.

Social, economic and cultural ties are all important, but are things that change regularly from time to time.

Regional and historical claims. Well, what could be more historical than the riding of Vancouver-Burrard? Would could be more regional than the city of Vancouver, with the representation that it has had in this House? I will leave it to the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan to get further into the question of Revelstoke and the regional and historical claims, resource management and watershed patterns, future population and economic growth.

Of course, the federal government in trying to do a redistribution is not so concerned with future growth, which can't really be estimated. In 1966 when we did a redistribution, we were told that the riding of Atlin or the constituency of Atlin should be maintained because of the potential for future growth. I admit, there's lots of potential, lots of room up there. It's a great area. There's lots of room to stack more people. But that potential has not been realized in the 12 years since the 1966 redistribution. The same might be said of the East Kootenay part of the province that was retained in the 1966 redistribution, again because of the possibilities of future growth, when everyone knows that the potential for future growth or that the actual growth is going to take place in the heavily populated parts of the province rather than in the sparsely populated.

Mr. Speaker, there was a redistribution back in 1938. It was done by a legislative committee. The CCF member for Comox at the time %us a member of that committee. When he saw the riding boundaries that were presented to the MLAs for their consideration and their approval, and when he heard the explanation as to the rationale for arriving at these boundaries, the rationale is the same as that presented to us now on page 10. The same arguments were used for drawing the boundaries as are being used today in 1978. That's 40 years ago. The arguments are good. At that time, one of the constituency boundaries that was being changed considerably was that of Nanaimo and the Islands. At that time the Gulf

Islands were added to Nanaimo, Colin Cameron, the member for Comox at that time, asked the staff member who was making these recommendations how these particular factors could be applied to the suggested boundaries for Nanaimo and the Islands. The population did fit, but there was geographical limitation. We're looking at the city of Nanaimo and at the southern end of the riding, the island -at least it's an island at high tide - called Resthaven.

Obviously, something other than the factors before us had to have been taken into account in presenting those boundaries. When the staff member was asked to explain in the light of these factors how they could possibly recommend the proposed boundaries for Nanaimo and the Islands, the staff member could only say: "Sometimes, Mr. Member, there are other considerations." Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that the commissioner had other considerations in mind with respect to many of the boundaries.

I'm going to deal now with my own constituency. Looking at population, and at Nanaimo compared to Cowichan, Nanaimo comes in with more than the average. But that's not terribly important; it's close enough - 50,000 as opposed to an average of 47,000. Cowichan has less than average, 45,000 - just a difference of about 5,000 - so population-wise I couldn't complain about that.

Geographical limitations - fortunately on the Island that doesn't matter too much. They're close enough; they're small enough that they can be handled.

Communication and transportation. Well, again, Mr. Speaker, there's the Island Highway that runs through both constituencies. That's no problem. So far it would look as though the commissioner might have taken all of these arguments into account in proposing the boundary that he did. Distance from government agencies - again, Mr. Speaker, no particular problem.

Social, economic and cultural ties. Now here, Mr. Speaker, certainly the proposed boundaries have not taken into account this particular factor. The ties between Ladysmith, Chemainus and Duncan have been well established for as long as those communities have been established. Ladysmith's ties are to the south, not to the north with Nanaimo. That doesn't mean there isn't travel.

Had this been the only factor that was ignored then I might have had to say that it's a reasonable boundary. But it isn't reasonable from the point of view of that factor.

Regional and historical claims. Mr. Speaker, as long as there has been a Legislature in the province, Ladysmith has been associated with

[ Page 2595 ]

Duncan and Chemainus and Lake Cowichan as one constituency. Nanaimo and Ladysmith have never been associated together. Nanaimo was associated long ago with Alberni but never with Ladysmith in a provincial constituency. Certainly, if one were going to at all consider regional and historical claims, one would not propose joining Nanaimo and Ladysmith in the same constituency unless there were some other compelling reasons for so doing.

Resource management and watershed patterns. Here too, Mr. Speaker, obviously the commissioner ignored completely that factor in proposing the boundary that he did. For Ladysmith, Chemainus, Lake Cowichan, logging is the industry. Nanaimo is a communications centre, a trading centre. Obviously that factor was ignored completely.

Future population and economic growth. Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt but that the Nanaimo area is growing at a greater rate than is the Ladysmith-Chemainus-Duncan area. Population is increasing faster and is likely to go on increasing faster. Yet Nanaimo is coming in with a higher population than is Cowichan. The population, as I say, Mr. Speaker, isn't that important. In light of the knowledge that the population is going to grow faster in Nanaimo than it is in Cowichan, why set these boundaries that are going to make that difference grow rather than decrease?

Mr. Speaker, as was told to Colin Cameron some 40 years ago, it is obvious that the commissioner must have had some other reasons in mind in proposing the boundary that he did " I know from my own knowledge of reports and presentations that were made to this commissioner and to the previous commission, no one recommended - at least in public - that Ladysmith be included with Nanaimo. There was no need to do it from the point of view of population. There was no one asking that that particular joining be made. It did disturb social, economic and cultural ties, or at least it proposes to. It does disturb the regional and historical claims. It ignores them completely.

What other consideration then, Mr. Speaker? Well, as was told to Colin Cameron, sometimes there are other political considerations. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the only explanation in this case would seem to be political, a hope from. the part of the people who gave, I suspect, the commissioner some instructions that are not included in the document before us now. The hon. Provincial Secretary said it was handed to her just moments before she tabled it in the House. As an hon. member, I do not doubt that for one moment. I don't doubt it, Mr. Speaker, but I do believe that someone did talk to the commissioner or to someone on his staff and indicated to him some changes that would benefit the government in office today and express the hope that some of these changes would be incorporated in the report when it was tabled in the Legislature. I can see no other explanation, Mr. Speaker, for the proposal to move the boundary between Nanaimo and Cowichan south to the extent that Ladysmith is included with Nanaimo. If I needed no other reason, 11r. Speaker, I would vote against the bill before us today.

If I can make just one more point, Mr. Speaker, in every case where the commission has come in with a recommendation - and many of them are obvious; no explanation was required and an explanation didn't help us very much - generally there was some explanation as to why the commissioner was recommending what he did. Even when he wiped out three seats currently held by NDP members, he had some rationalization of what he was doing. But when it comes to including Ladysmith with Nanaimo, he doesn't even pretend to have any reason for doing it other than political, in the hope, Mr. Speaker, that by hiving off a community that historically and culturally and everything else has always been favourable to the CGF-NDP to Nanaimo, a constituency that they have apparently written off politically, they can perhaps take Cowichan-Malahat.

If there is any other rationalization, any other justification, or any other explanation for what the commissioner has recommended with respect to that particular boundary change, I'd like to hear it. If there is not any such explanation, then, at least in my mind, it certainly confirms my concerns when this particular government asked a previous member of the Social Credit Party to prepare a report, in contrast to the sort of impartial commission that was named by the NDP government.

I join with my colleagues in voting against this legislation.

MR. DAVIDSON: First, I want to welcome the news that the constituency of the hon. member has requested his suit for an auction. I greet that most warmly.

I really wasn't going to get into the debate at this particular time, until the member for Burnaby North spoke and mentioned the riding of Delta. I was concerned that during that period of time the riding of Delta was referred to as if it just encompassed the Delta boundaries, and that there would be two members in that riding. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The riding of Delta, as it is presently constituted, is made up of the entire munici-

[ Page 2596 ]

pality of Delta, a large section approximating half of Surrey, and all of White Rock. The population breakdown is approximately 70,000 in Delta; approximately 17,000 in White Rock; and approximately 60,000 people in Surrey. This is a total of almost 150,000 people, making it the largest riding by population in the entire Commonwealth. The member infers in her remarks that it is unfair to create another seat in this riding. This riding has been promised redistribution since 1972. We've looked forward to it, we deserve it, and we anticipate it. Indeed, we warmly welcome the recommendations of the commission report.

It is simply not reasonable to expect a constituency of 150,000 people to be represented by one member. It's not fair to the member, and it's not fair to those whom the member is representing. We have representation by population. The Eckardt report, which we have before us, states that the average size of a constituency should be approximately 44,000. Even on this basis, the population of Delta is approximately 68,000 to 70,000 people; its well above the average. So we can honestly say that we could use more representation in Delta, as could Richmond, which currently holds 80,000 people.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

It is not fair for the member to suggest that this in any way represents gerrymandering. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of this House that when I made my representations before the commission, as did the mayor of Delta, members of council, the chamber of commerce, and several independent individuals, there was not one recommendation other than what was eventually followed by Mr. Eckardt's report.

Further, there was not one person there who agreed with the previous Norris commission report whereby Tsawwassen was split off and joined with White Rock. That in no way made rhyme or reason to one person at that particular time.

It is very clear that that has been a much needed revision of the population representation vote in this Legislature. It is unfortunate that Vancouver has lost some seats, but, at the same time, it has been unfortunate that areas like the one I represent have been underrepresented by numbers in this Legislature. There is a shift in population, and there is a transition taking place from urban to rural - from the centres of Vancouver going out to the urban areas. This has been taken into account.

I can only speak for my own riding and the immediate area. I think that the report before this House is an eminently fair one. It takes into account geographical considerations. It makes Delta, a single municipality, a single riding. It means that the member can now communicate with one council, with one school board. Even though there are 68,000 people, it is still easier and certainly much more fair than under the previous system.

Insofar as Surrey is concerned, there are now two members representing approximately 140,000 people. The area suggested in the report, I believe, was 130,000; but I believe you'll find it to be much closer to around 140,000 at the present time, including White Rock. This breaks down to approximately 60,000 to 70,000 people per member. Surrey is now a dual-member riding. It would be almost impossible to divide Surrey in any way that would be representative for one particular member. So it's a dual member riding, as was my recommendation and as was the recommendation of many before the commission, and it was taken and followed.

Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in supporting the recommendations of the commission, nor do I have any problems supporting this report. I think it's an eminently fair report. It gives all parties of this House equal opportunity at obtaining seats, and I think it is unfair of members to suggest that, because of redistribution, one party is favoured in an election over another. The people of the province will make up their minds as to who they are going to vote for and boundary lines will have no relative distinction in that area. I support the report most warmly.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate to oppose the bill in the strongest manner possible, to oppose a bill that that wasn't brought in in unseemly haste, but a bill that reminded me of Speedy Muffler King. We're supposed to be really speedy and all that's to muffle the whole question before us. This is a speedy-mander. Who has ever heard, in the history of the British Commonwealth, of a report brought in on Tuesday.... This report, this well-thought-out document - and I' won't deny that it's well thought out - was brought in on Tuesday. We didn't have to hold our breath very long, did we? We have a piece of legislation that's a pretty high-powered piece of legislation that takes just a little while to print, and I'll bet the printer's eyes by now are burning and will be burning for some time to come if, in fact, they had to wait that long - and who knows whether they did or not? - but the fact is it came in on Wednesday. Now that is just incredible: a

[ Page 2597 ]

report on Tuesday, a bill on Wednesday, and here we are debating the issue on Friday.

The happy member for Boundary-Similkameen, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) , who, by this dainty little report, has now been given Summerland....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, well, you've been given Summerland, sweetheart, 500 extra votes -lucky, lucky you.

Mr. Speaker, 1 listened very carefully to the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) . The member for Delta said: "Yes, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) was quite wrong in terms of her suggestions about the redistribution in Delta." We have no argument about Delta having been broken down, no argument at all. Our argument is that if you are going to insist upon small ridings in the north -20,000, 5,000 and that kind of representation, one member for 5,000 people - then do not deprive urban people of their representation. You must, under those circumstances, add more MLAs.

Mr. Speaker, 1 want to take you to Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island, with a total population less than Burnaby's -118,229 people in Prince Edward Island - has 32 MLAs. For crying out loud, we've got two million people - 2,466, 000 - and we're going from 55 to 57 MLAs. Now, if there is a case for additional members in the north or other areas, or if there's a case for maintaining those sparsely populated ridings with a member, then there is an equal case to increase the number of MLAs. And I don't think it has to be done to the extent that the Minister of Agriculture may be imagining; but certainly we could go over 60.

Mr. Speaker, we see Atlin in the north exist with 5,000 population and we see Vancouver-Burrard, with 50,000 population, absolutely abolished. Now that isn't good sense at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's good politics.

MR. COCKE: It is good politics, and let me add to that. I want you to look at the map of Vancouver-Little Mountain. You will notice that the boundary is very nice and even; it comes all along the water, then it comes up Maple Street, which comes right up into the Arbutus area, and then finally into West Boulevard. But what do we find? A hand - a gerrymander - and at the end of it is a finger, and what does that take in? It takes in a solid block in the old Quilchena golf course, which is now a very posh development, and it puts that....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Good old CPR - always there with the big shots.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You are going to get scratched by that member.

But that is for the convenience of the member who is presenting this bill, Mr. Speaker. And there can be no doubt of it. Why would that hand be out there? Why would that outstretched hand be there except to support her, safe in the hands of gerrymander? There can be no other reason for taking that part of Point Grey, which is absolutely solid, and throwing it into this new Little Mountain riding - no reason by population, no reason to break up Vancouver-Burrard in the first place.

I'll tell you why they broke it up. I've heard some talk over there, and I've heard the Premier say that Burrard was an "iffy" riding. You know, we've been going around Burrard. The two members for Burrard (Ms. Brown and Mr. Levi) have been doing a fine job of representing those people. And what did they get for their fine job? I'll tell you what they got: they got denied a riding. And if that isn't a gerrymander I want to know what a gerrymander is. There can be no doubt about this.

I'll give you another example.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're wasting time.

MR. COCKE: If you think I'm wasting time, Mr. Minister, who hasn't been around here long enough to even be dry behind the ears, you can just go to blazes, because I'm speaking on behalf of the people of this province, and I will continue to waste your time.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) alluded to the Cowichan-Nanaimo debacle, and he's quite right. Nanaimo was already a perfect size, and not only that, it represented a community. The boundaries were practically contiguous with the municipal boundaries of Nanaimo. So what do they do? They take Ladysmith - a strong NDP area - into Nanaimo. They take it away from the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) on the off-chance that it will defeat her. But they'll never defeat that grandmother of ours - never, Mr. Speaker. All over this island they're going to be saying: "Leave our grandmother alone!"

We're here to discuss a bill that was put forward one day after a report - no thought,

[ Page 2598 ]

no time to digest the report. Who could have possibly read it in that time and digested it? Nobody, Mr. Speaker. Talk about unseemly haste; it's Speedy Muffler King.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk in terms of this whole question of a real reason for increasing representation in this province. We saw in the Fraser Valley an increase from six to eight MLAs. We saw in the city of Vancouver a decrease from 12 to 10 MLAs. We saw in the north an increase of one MLA. There is no reason under those circumstances for denying the urban people representation. There should have been more MLAs created as a result of this report. But, instead of that, they hold it down to a 57-member House, hold it down in such a way as to deny three NDP seats.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) woke up, in exactly the same way as the two members for Vancouver-Burrard woke up one morning . came in to work happy, was handed a report at 2 o'clock that said: after the next writ is issued, you ain't got no place to go. Well, I'm here to tell you they're all going to go some place, and the people are going to see to it that they go some place, by virtue of this.... You know, I can call it nothing more than just a piece of very valuable material for the government; but, Mr. Speaker, I think that the people are going to see through it.

And there isn't any better symbol than the symbol that*I see before me in that extension of the boundaries into that marvellous subdivision called Quilchena Place - or whatever it is - into that solid Socred country, to absolutely ensure the election of the Provincial Secretary of this province and whomever she chooses, 'in her largesse, to win with her.

That is it. That is the symbol. That's what this bill is all about. Is this bill to tell us that we're to vote for that sort of thing, that sort of behaviour? How could you ask it, Mr. Speaker? How could they ask it? That isn't behaviour at all.

Mr. Minister of Agriculture, I understand your embarrassment, having been part of the largesse of the Provincial Secretary. She must like you because she saw to it that you got Summerland as part of your riding, and that's a nice, juicy little melon to hand to the friendly minister behind her.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that there's no more Vancouver-Burrard. That's been a fine seat. It's been on the government side - that is, on the Social Credit side - on occasion and it's been on our side on more occasions. But that riding has been so well represented in the last two parliaments that they felt it's time to let them go down the tube. The first member and the second member for Burrard have both done a fine job and it would seem that here's a good excuse to make it tough for them. Well, I'm here to tell you that I hope that our party sees to it that they're both re-elected to come back and show this group just exactly what our people are made of.

MR. KEMPF: That %us quite an act to follow but I think we have to consider the remarks from whence they came. I will be very brief. I stand in my place today to speak in favour of this bill. In so doing, I would commend Judge Eckardt for the decisions which he has made in regard to redistribution in British Columbia.

My colleague from Delta spoke of under representation. I would like to say to this House today that the addition of a seat in the northern part of this province was a good move. It's a move that will be accepted by the people of the north. For far too many years in this province of British Columbia, the north has been shortchanged in the number of representatives in this Legislature. I look forward after the next election to the increase from eight to nine northern members to sit in this chamber, whose job it will be to represent in this House of 57 members aver 60 per cent of the land mass of the province of British Columbia. I think that's a step forward. I think it's a great step forward.

As for the boundary changes in my constituency of Omineca, there, too, I would commend Judge Eckardt. The present boundaries of my constituency encompass 56,000 square miles, most of which is a great, vast no-man's land.

MRS. WALLACE: How many people?

MR. KEMPF: There are 27,000, Madam Member. It stretches from from Germansen Landing north of Fort St. James all the way to the Yukon border.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm a little sad at losing the two small communities of Fort Ware and Fireside, but they can be much better served from the north. Therefore the decision to include this area in North Peace River and the new riding of North Prince George was a good one.

I support the changes in the name of the people of the north and, Mr. Speaker, I support this bill.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would like to rise in support of Bill 38.

MR. LEA: Surprise!

HON. MR. HEWITT: Maybe I will try and

[ Page 2599 ]

clarify some of the misinformation that the opposition has brought forward this morning. Norris brought forward his report in 1975 and, of course, I'm sure in that caucus over there, there was great discussion and great concern over the fact that the former Premier called the election before that report was adopted, because that was a promise I think he made.

Eckardt came forward in 1978 to carry out a review and, of course, to have further hearings so people of this province could make representation to him. I think we all have to take into consideration there are population changes, increases in population and redistribution of population to urban centres and various areas of the north.

Mr. Speaker, ample notice was given; ample representation to that commission was made. It was well advertised. Everybody in this province had an opportunity to express their opinion. What concerns me, I guess, is the questioning of the credibility of a judge of this province. They harken back to the fact that this man was a political candidate, I believe, in the early '60s before he became a judge. It's rather disconcerting to me, and I'm sure to the people of this province, that they question the credibility of a judge in this province.

They talk about political distribution or gerrymandering. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that in this redistribution of the Boundary-Similkameen riding, I picked up Summerland, which is, I guess, very nice, but I would have been much happier had Judge Eckardt adopted Norris' report for Boundary Similkameen, because in that case I would have picked up Summerland but I would have dropped the Grand Forks area, which, of course, historically has been NDP. So I can tell you that as far as this report goes the Norris report would be much more attractive to me as MIA for that area.

So it's a smokescreen, Mr. Speaker, in regards to the opposition bringing forward the fact of political gerrymandering under the Eckardt report. Any redistribution in any province, as far as I'm concerned - and I'm sure all members would agree - is not easy, because every politician and every aspiring politician is going to be affected. That's why a commission is appointed, a commission that can carry out its function outside the influence of government, a reputable commission which can bring forward recommendation.

That's why, once a report is brought in, legislation should follow. There shouldn't be great delays because if there are you have that redistribution of population, but you also have every politician and every aspiring politician finding find some fault because it affects them personally. I think the report indicated fair distribution and fair representation of the people of this province.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is concerned about why certain areas were changed around. All of those factors were taken into consideration in redistribution. That's why you see some of the differences. In many cases the main factor is people representation. But if you were to take an average of people across this province, can you imagine the size of the ridings in the north? You'd have one man who all he could do.... He'd be traveling all the time to see his constituents. That's why those numbers represented up there are much lower than they are, say, in the densely concentrated areas of Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey, Delta, et cetera.

He talks about geography, but I think that's another factor that had to be taken into consideration not just by Eckardt but also by Judge Norris. Communication and transportations and social and economic ties - all those are factors. Every commission that has been appointed, whether it was 50 years ago, three years ago or this year, had to consider all those factors. I'm sure that every member here recognizes that it just isn't a simple matter of drawing lines across a province or taking an average population.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) likes to play the numbers game and, of course, is commenting on his colleagues from Burrard, et cetera. About the only thing I got out of his speech was the fact that those members over there are more concerned about the jobs that they hold than the people of the province that they're supposed to represent. And that's what concerns me as a member of this House.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I'd just like to say that the Eckardt report is a report that took into consideration all those factors that love mentioned. I think it is a fair report. It touches every politician and every aspiring politician in this province, but it's something that has to be done and something that will give fair representation to the people of this province. I'm quite pleased to support it.

MR. KING: I agree with one of the comments that the Minister of Agriculture just made. Mr. Speaker, I do indeed agree that a commission to study electoral boundary reform should be outside and beyond the influence of government. That should be implicit and without question. If the minister and his government truly believe that, then I find it most

[ Page 2600 ]

curious that they would appoint a person with the taint of a political affiliation in his recent background- a defeated Social Credit candidate in 1969.

Mr. Speaker, if the government truly believed that this kind of report should be beyond the pale of any political taint and discussion, then obviously they would have found someone who did not have that kind of political connection, and that kind of political affinity. I think there was a purpose that they sought someone who had an allegiance to the Social Credit Party. I think the results of the recommendations and the contents of the bill before us demonstrate that very clearly.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Might I ask the Minister of Agriculture, who has just finished participating in this debate, to restrain his comments while the member for Revelstoke-Slocan is on his feet.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I think you were the only one paying any attention to the Minister of Agriculture's comments in any event.

I certainly hesitate to question the credibility of any individual in this province, whether it be a judge, or whether it be any other citizen. I do not do that lightly. But how can the government, in all good conscience, possibly appoint someone who is a former candidate for its political party and ask him to do a non-partisan, independent job and expect that his credibility will not be questioned? That is crass nonsense and the government knows it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit about my own area and tell you a bit of the history of that particular riding, because there's tremendous conflict between the findings and recommendations of the current commission and what has taken place over the years in the Revelstoke-Slocan area. Prior to 1966 we had two small ridings, that of Kaslo-Slocan, which embodied the Slocan Valley, the Arrow Lakes and a portion of the Kootenay Lake area, the single riding of Revelstoke, which embodied Sicamous, part of the Shuswap riding. Admittedly they were both small ridings.

Kaslo-Slocan had been held for some 20 years by Randolph Harding, who was a very well respected member of this Legislature, a man with tremendous provincial stature. In 1966 Revelstoke was represented by a Social Credit member - also a man, I might add, who had considerable stature throughout this province. That was Arvid Lundell. He was the mayor of the city of Revelstoke and the publisher of one of the papers and he was the MLA for that riding, and had been on and off for a number of years. He did a good job of representing Revelstoke. There is no question of his dedication to the best interests of that community. But, Mr. Speaker, just prior to 1966, Mr. Lundell, along with a lot of other Social Credit backbenchers of that day, had the temerity to question certain of W.A.C. Bennett's policies and voiced criticism. I think Stan Carnell was another one and Jake Huhn. Lo and behold, each and every one of those three members lost the nomination for Social Credit in 1966. Boundary reform camp in, and the riding of Kaslo-Slocan was merged with the riding of Revelstoke. Arvid Lundell, the sitting resident for Revelstoke was back in Nova Scotia for a weekly newspapermen's convention. The election was called and a man by the name of Burton Campbell came into the new riding with two busloads of Social Credit supporters from the south end of the newly created riding, and the sitting MLA, Mr. Lundell, lost the nomination in absentia. That's the kind of historical background in manipulation that we have with that party, Mr. Speaker.

Now I want to tell you something about the geography of the riding in 1966 when Revelstoke and Nakusp and the Kaslo-Slocan area were married. Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that when those two ridings were merged in 1966 there was no highway link between Revelstoke and Nakusp? Nakusp lies 60 miles south of Revelstoke on the Arrow Lakes. Indeed, when I attended my first nominating convention in 1968, which was held in the village of Nakusp, I had to travel to Vernon, over the Monashee highway to Needles and back up the Arrow Lakes to Nakusp, a round distance of about 200 miles to reach a point 60 miles south of the city of Revelstoke. There was no highway connection. There was a ferry connection, I think, on a once or twice weekly basis.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in the ensuing years we had a first-class highway built linking the Trans-Canada Highway at Revelstoke with the southern Trans-Provincial down at south Slocan. We have a first-class ferry service. We have developed very considerable tourist attractions based upon that new route, which is a very scenic one. Now, all of a sudden, they tell us we have nothing in common any more, so they have to pull Revelstoke out of the Revelstoke-Slocan riding and assign it to Shuswap. Well, I want to ask any intelligent, impartial observer: if on the one hand it makes sense to merge an area in 1966, where there is not even a highway connection, by what logic do you find in 1978 that those two

[ Page 2601 ]

areas have no affinity and they should be split up and Revelstoke sliced off and added on to the Shuswap riding?

I don't care too much personally, but I wonder by what kind of logic the independent, impartial, defeated-Socred Judge Larry Eckardt arrived at that kind of conclusion, and what kind of intellectual rationale the group across the House came up with to suggest that that kind of situation is anything less than a political gerrymander for the purposes of this government's electoral objectives. The people up there know what it is.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I think the people in my riding are more upset about this than I am. The phone calls that have been pouring into my office in Revelstoke have nothing to do with me personally as their MLA, although I'd like to think that I have done a good job for the people in that riding and that the people have some confidence in my representation. I'd like to believe that, but I want to tell you that the phone calls that are coming in are less concerned with me as the politician than they are concerned about the way they are being used as a pawn in a political game. People do not like being manipulated. If this government feels that they can slip this kind of sleazy conduct through and that the people of British Columbia are not sophisticated enough to understand it and to be repelled by it, then they are making a terrible mistake, Mr. Speaker, a mistake which I suggest they are going to pay for at the polls in the next election, no matter how they cut the ridings up, no matter how they slice them up.

It's a bill that is born out of fear; it's a bill that is born out of the lack of political courage to face the people on the terms that they happened to win the election with in 1975. Mr. Speaker, the government knows that they are in trouble. They know that many of their policies have been oppressive and have angered people. In the sleazy attempt to try to avoid meeting the taxpayers head on in terms of accountability for their policies, they have tried through manipulation to get in through the back door. 1 can draw no other conclusion.

Quite frankly, I don't see too much wrong with Revelstoke being in with the Shuswap, or a portion of it. I didn't see too much wrong with that in 1966 when the riding did have that configuration. But I want to tell you, it made a lot more sense in those days than it does now, because over the years Revelstoke has developed a commerce and an identity and an affinity with the south end of the riding, the Kaslo-Slocan area. That is the area, Mr.

Speaker, that has had to stand the disruption and the social and economic upheaval of the total Columbia River development, B.C. Hydro's development to provide power generation for all of those ridings down in the lower mainland that my colleagues and the government worry about. The entirety of the Columbia River development and the dam structures reside in Revelstoke-Slocan riding and the Nelson-Creston riding and the Rossland-Trail riding. There is a natural affinity born out of the function of Hydro in that area. Can-Cel's tree-farm licence extends the length of the Arrow Lakes to 100 miles north of Revelstoke. There is a natural industrial affinity.

I want to know what the rationale was for slicing the riding up at this time. I don't know whether it's some gameplaying in the way they got rid of Arvid Lundell, who was one of their own n-em ers, and a fine one. I opposed him politically, but I had, and still have, the greatest respect for the contribution Mr. Lundell made to our public life over the years and still makes in the city of Revelstoke. I wonder what he's going to say about this. I'll be very interested in hearing what Arvid Lundell has to say about this particular move to once again use Revelstoke as a pawn in a political game. It is disruptive, not very healthy for the community, and I think it's very disturbing to the population.

Let's have a look at the numbers of it, Mr. Speaker. Revelstoke-Slocan was a comparatively small riding. I think my number of registered voters in 1975 was 10,483 - admittedly a fairly small number of voters, but a very large riding in terms of geography. I want to say that the northern members are not the only ones who face the problems of transportation and communication in their ridings; they are not the only ones with a large mass to cover with sparse population. The riding of Revelstoke-Slocan embraced Mica Greek 85 miles north of the city, Revelstoke city itself, which has the major proportion of the population, and then down the Arrow Lakes through Nakusp to the villages of Burton, Fauquier and Needles - all important little communities with their own particular problem - and thence down another valley in the centre of the riding, the Slocan Valley, taking in New Denver, Silverton, Slocan and Winlaw - all spread out and all very difficult to represent in terms of travel and communication with the people.

Yet those people deserve to be represented. They deserve to see their MLA and consult with him or her. The Kootenay Lake on the other side takes in the Ainsworth Hot Springs,

[ Page 2602 ]

Kaslo, Lardo and Argenta areas, which are very spread out. It took 10 days for me to do a job of traveling around the southern end of that riding visiting all of those municipalities and listening to people's problems. We now find in this new report that that size of a riding with that kind of geography and with 10,000 registered voters is no longer sufficient. We've got to slice it up.

Let's have a look at the riding of Atlin.

Interjection.

MR. KING: I'm not concerned with Norris; the Norris report is not before us, Mr. Speaker. We've got the Eckardt report before us. That's what's going to affect the lives of the people of British Columbia at the moment.

Here we have in Atlin a total of 3,158 registered voters, compared to over 10,000 in the riding of Revelstoke-Slocan. Atlin remains as is with a Social Credit member. That kind of population is okay, presumably, as long as it is represented by a Social Credit member and viewed to be a secure seat by the government.

What about Columbia River? It had 6,608 registered voters in 1975, some 4,000 fewer than Revelstoke-Slocan. They don't eliminate Columbia River; they add Kimberley, on to it.

In terms of population in the new ridings, let's have a look at the new proposed riding of Shuswap-Revelstoke. It covers a tremendous geographic area in miles with a sparse population. We go from a fairly modest population to a population of 43,230, which is a larger population than some of the urban ridings in the lower Fraser Valley. If we listen to the argument put forward by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) that geography should be looked at and where there's a large area, there should be a lower voter population, how, then, can we rationalize the situation where the proposed Shuswap-Revelstoke riding has a population of 43,230, and an area like New Westminster has only 38,393 - a high-density, concentrated population? Shuswap-Revelstoke now has a higher population than New Westminster, which is spread over 10 or 15 times the size of New Westminster. What kind of rationale can you come up with for that configuration?

I don't think there is anything the government can say that can make sense out this kind of report - nothing whatsoever. In terms of servicing that riding, it can be done. It will be difficult. Whether the current member for Revelstoke or someone else represents it, it will be a very difficult job. We have a higher population than New Westminster. It's probably six to 10 times the geographic distance to go to reach those voters than for the member for New Westminster. Yet it's okay to leave little Atlin up there with 3,000 voters.

What conclusion could any reasonable person draw from that kind of distortion, other than that it's a crass political job? That's all it is. It's a gerrymander of the worst order. In so doing, I don't know what influence the government has exercised on the commissioner. I find it difficult to believe that any reasonable man, much less someone who has been a judge, could draw these kinds of distortions and offer any rationale for them.

I think the government is responsible for destroying a man's credibility in this province. They have called upon that commissioner to draw configurations which make no sense at all and which lead to the one conclusion that it's a political gerrymander of the worst order, and they've used him as an instrument for that goal. In so doing, I think they have brought dishonour, suspicion and shame to his reputation. I think it was unfair of the government to put Mr. Eckardt in that particular position.

I'm willing to listen to the government's rationale. I have heard no speaker yet offer any rationalization for the kind of thing that's been done here - none whatsoever. They can jeer at us if they will, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You ought to be ashamed, Bill.

MR. KING: Gee whiz, Mr. Speaker! When the Minister of Human Resources tells me I ought to be ashamed, that's really something. There's the man who wants to compartmentalize people and steer them back to some little cubbyhole because his government is not prepared to provide for their needs.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MR. KING: He tells me I should be ashamed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate the fact that you're being interrupted by other members, but we are on second reading.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed. I'm ashamed of the Minister of Human Resources. I am ashamed of the government. I am ashamed of this report. I am ashamed of the bill that's before the House. I'm sure that the voters out there feel the same way, and I think that they are going to express that shame. They're going to express that displeasure and they're going to give the government a kick in the teeth at the next election.

[ Page 2603 ]

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else I can say about it. It is a shocking situation, but it is a rather personal thing too when one's riding is abolished. Perhaps it should not be, but I think over the years an MLA, like anyone else, develops many friendships in the riding he represents. You develop a feeling for and an emotional attachment to communities, friends and people. It's one thing to have that kind of relationship destroyed by something that makes sense, but it's very disconcerting and it certainly angers me when that kind of association is broken up for the purpose of crass politics.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very much full of regret at seeing the old south end of the riding, the Nakusp area and the Slocan Valley, divorced from Revelstoke in the future. The only good and positive thing about it is that that area, I am confident, will continue to be represented by an NDP member. I'm sure that as part of the new Nelson-Creston riding, my colleague from that area will do an excellent job in terms of providing quality representation to the people in that area. I know that the kind of confidence he has won in the current riding of Nelson-Creston will be enhanced by the portion which he is gaining from the old Revelstoke-Slocan riding.

But it is a disgusting bill, Mr. Speaker, and a very disgusting performance. The unseemly and untoward haste with which this bill has been pushed through the Legislature after the interim report was introduced pulls away any mantle of separation in terms of the Provincial Secretary's conduct and that of the commissioner. I repeat that it is a disgusting Act.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, this is a proud moment that this bill has come into this House, because it proves beyond doubt the kind of threat that our party, the New Democratic Party, is to the established wealth in this province. Every member of our party should stand tall today and this week, because we have before us a bill designed to try and wipe us out.

They've tried over the years to wipe out our party. They've tried with' various kinds of coalition, at the political level and at the smoke-filled room level. For years and years and years, the people's party - a party that is paid for by working people, ordinary people, a party that is represented by ordinary, working people, and a party that takes up the issues of ordinary working people - has been a party that the wealthy and those who have in this province hate and cannot stand. We see before us this week in this Legislature another Act by the wealthy to try and do away with the party that is a threat to their well-being.

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) takes his place in this House and says that the people of the north are happy with this bill because it gives the people of the north one more seat. Mr. Speaker, that member has no idea of the quality of people in the north to make that statement, because the people in the north want a fair shake for themselves, but not at the expense of their southern neighbours. Yes, the north needs more seats in the Legislature because of the difficulty of servicing large, sparsely populated geographic areas. It needs more representation. I'm glad to see a new seat for the north, but at the expense of our brothers and sisters and often times family who live in the south - we do not buy that.

Yes, we want our share. We have been shortchanged in transportation. We have been shortchanged in government services. We have been shortchanged in the cost of living. We have been shortchanged with ICBC charges. We have been shortchanged by almost every level of government and almost every institution in this province. But all we want is fairness. The member for Omineca should understand that. We want to be fair. We want to get our fair share, but not at the expense of people in the lower mainland. That isn't what we want.

What we see is a bit more fairness for people in the north through this report, and an absolute lack of fairness for the city of Vancouver. That's what we see. For northern members who belong to the Social Credit Party to stand up and say that's all right with them, I think, is disgraceful. That is not what the north stands for. That is not what the people in the north tell me. I doubt very much whether the people in the north tell the Social Credit members that they want to have something at the expense of their neighbours. But that's how the member for Omineca interprets it. The people in the north want something for them elves, even at the expense of others. It's not the way I read it. I read it that there are fair people. I believe that there are fair people. The member for Omineca has made a mistake. He has misjudged the people he represents. They do not want anything at the expense of their neighbours.

Now let's take a look at this report. We saw just a few years ago in this House what was the beginning of this report. We saw the member from Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) cross the floor from the Conservatives to the Social Credit Party. We saw the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) cross the

[ Page 2604 ]

floor to the Social Credit Party from the Liberal Party, along with his colleagues from Vancouver-Point Grey, the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the hon. Minister of Education (Ron. Mr. McGeer) . We saw them start to band together to protect wealth in this province at that very time. It hadn't been done in so overt a way since the coalition previous to the first Social Credit government. We saw it start to happen again. The beginning of the report that we see in front of us today was the bid for power, the wealthy saying: "We have ruled this province and we wish to continue to rule this province and we're not satisfied that we're in charge of industry in this province. We're not satisfied that we're in charge of a great many of the social and economic institutions in this province. We will not be satisfied until we have political control of this province." They got political control of this province on December 11,1975, through the actions of the member for Saanich and the Island, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Education and the Attorney-General, when they first sold out their principles.

Now we see a government selling out its entire principle to bring in a report in a last desperate bid to hang on, not for themselves, but for the people they represent -the wealthy, the industrial captains of industry and the concentration of wealth. We now see the second part of that saga: first of all, the joining together of lackeys to represent the wealth; now a report that will ensure that those lackeys are re-elected in order to represent the wealth in future parliaments of this province. That's what we see.

And the member for Omineca stands in his place saying that the people of the north are quite willing to see the population of Vancouver sold out in order that the north can get some equity. "Ask them, " he says. The member for Omineca says: "Ask them if they're petty, cheap people." Ask them if they are the way the member for Omineca sees them. I say the member for Omineca is wrong. They are fair people and they want nothing at the expense of Vancouver. They want Vancouver to have a fair deal and they want the north to have a fair deal and they want the central part of this province to have a fair deal. This report is not giving it. This report is nothing more than another step in the lackeys' bid to represent the wealthy. That's all it is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ron. member, I must ask you to withdraw the word "lackeys." It's unconstitutional.

MR. LEA: From where, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: From the remarks you just made. Just that one word I would ask you to withdraw.

MR. LEA: I withdraw the word "lackey" and say that they are the willing messengers of the people who own this province. They are people who really like to rub shoulders with the rich, but are not particularly rich themselves. They are spattered with quite a few millionaires, but you know, Mr. Speaker, in wealth terms they're absolute paupers. The wealthy care no more for those willing messengers of theirs.... As a matter of fact, I would be willing to bet that the people who are in charge of the wealth of this province respect this party more. They pay them to do their bidding but they respect this party more. That's the %, my it boils down. Nobody respects willing messengers, be they lackeys or not. Nobody respects them; all they do is use them.

And now we see a report come into this House in which they are willing to be willing messengers once again. They are willing to sell out political principles, willing to sell out philosophic principles - some of them, those who have them - in order to make a last desperate bid for power - not to represent them elves, not to represent the people, but to represent the wealth and the power that has run this province behind the scenes for aver a hundred years.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I think this map of Vancouver, where Little Mountain takes a little bit of a jog into Point Grey to scoop up a few extra Social Credit votes - they hope - so that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) can be elected again. I think that that little map and the way it looks on that map is an apt description of what the Social Credit Party want to do to this province. If you look at that little jog that goes into Point Grey, it gives the finger to everybody. That's what they're doing. They've been giving the finger to everybody for two and a half years. They even drew it into their electoral boundary map to make sure that they were arrogant enough to put it in, because they really believe they're flying high. They feel that they can give the finger to the people of this province on behalf of the wealthy, and that's what they've done; they've done it again; they've proven they're willing lackeys of the wealthy.

MR. BAWTREE: I'm not going to take very much

[ Page 2605 ]

time in this debate, but I did want to say a few things about the particular riding that I represent and the changes that are going to be taking place. I have lost a few areas in my riding, Mr. Speaker. But I would agree that the areas that I have lost were areas that were very difficult to represent. Communication with them was only through other people's ridings. I had to go for at least an hour through one of my adjoining members ridings; in order to get to some of the small areas in my constituency. And in this instance, those people now will be in Okanagan North. I'm sure that my colleague from Okanagan North' will be able to communicate much more rapidly with them - certainly by road - than I was ever able to do from the Shuswap riding. I'll be sorry to lose these areas because you do, as the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) indicated, build up and develop a sense of rapport, a sense of identity with a lot of your people whom you represent in a riding.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan accused Judge Eckardt of gerrymandering and many of the members on the opposition side have made that same accusation. He asked what the rationale was for changing the boundaries of the Shuswap and the Revelstoke-Slocan areas. Well, I suppose one of the rationales was the fact that transportation is much easier now. In the hearings that were held in Revelstoke, all the people who were there made the recommendation that if changes were made, Revelstoke and the surrounding area be joined with Shuswap to the west, because that is where they felt that their main communication was. They felt that when they wanted to go shopping to the larger cities, they didn't go east, they didn't go south, they went west into the Salmon Arm, Vernon or Kamloops areas. This was the rationale for making that decision. And every single one of the people making representation in the Revelstoke hearing before Judge Eckardt made that recommendation or agreed with it. And this included, Mr. Speaker, the person who said that he was representing the NDP for that area.

He also said that he did not agree with the Norris commission report, which joined Revelstoke-Slocan with Columbia River. He thought that would have created an area that was too hard to represent, and therefore he did recommend and agreed that the representation should be to the west - the joining should be with the western area, rather than one to the east, Columbia River.

1y present riding's boundaries go within just a very few miles of Revelstoke, so I don't expect that whoever represents Shuswap-Revelstoke in the future will have any great difficulty insofar as transpiration is concerned. So I think that there was a good rationale for Judge Eckardt's decision. I will be endorsing and voting in favour of this bill.

HON. MR. MAIR: I, like the previous speakers - and, I'm sure, one or two others - did not really intend to speak in this debate until I heard the hysteria from the member for Prince Rupert with his age-old rhetoric which I'm sure has Keir Hardie and the Pankhursts waking up in their graves and saying: "Hurray, we've found our way back into the 20th century." It gets a little tiresome to hear this same old garbage, and the use of the word "lackey" and then the withdrawal of the word "lackey" and then the re-use of it again. Well, lackeys we may be, but the public prefers our lackeys to Barrett's lackeys, and will continue to prefer them that way.

What troubles me is an attack on a judge because he took the right, given to all citizens, and some 10 or 15 years ago ran for public office. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if Mr. Justice Norris had come down with his report in 1978, God rest his soul, I would have been prepared to accept that report in 1978 notwithstanding his long-standing hatred of the Social Credit Party and the former Prime Minister, notwithstanding the politics avowed by his wife and his son. I would have accepted it as a man who was an honourable man, a judge, a public servant of long standing, and a person who had come down with a report that was unbiased and fair. I do no less for Judge Eckardt. I don't think there is any suggestion that Judge Eckardt has put any political bias into this report, other than from those who are cry-babies because they are now being put down in Vancouver to the number of seats they're entitled to.

MR. LAUK: He's not a judge.

HON. MR. MAIR: Now let me just make this comment, Mr. Speaker. I'm not a darned bit happy with what happened in Kamloops, quite frankly. Kamloops is going to be the second largest constituency in British Columbia, and it's going to be second only to Richmond in terms of population and - I don't know - perhaps four, five or six times as large, and that much harder to look after. Kamloops is entitled to another seat. So, indeed, do I think the Okanagan is entitled to another seat, and there are other areas in British Columbia that have not done as well as they

[ Page 2606 ]

thought they would do under this report.

On balance, looking at the overall report for all of British Columbia in 1978, and notwithstanding the fact that Kamloops has been short-changed and other places have been short-changed, it is a fair, unbiased and balanced report.

Mr. Speaker, all of the members opposite are saying: "We can't win in the new constituencies you've created in Vancouver, and you've taken away our little toys from us." Why can't you win in Vancouver Point Grey? My God, most of you live there! It seems to me that you ought to be able to win in your own constituencies. Why not? Mr. Speaker, I can do no more than echo the words of the Victoria Daily Colonist a day or two ago when it said: "When it gets down to elections, people vote for or against the government or for or against an alternative." They don't vote in long voting patterns or in ways they voted the last time.

Good gracious me, Vancouver-Burrard wasn't always an NDP riding. I can remember when it was a Socred riding for many, many years. What's the matter? If you've got a decent message, get out and tell the people and win the next election along these electoral boundaries. Don't come here squawking and bellyaching. Mr. Speaker, it just gets a little tiresome to hear this outworn, tired-out rhetoric over and aver and over again. If you've got something to say, get out and tell the people; let them be the judge. I only hope it's not too long, because they'll judge the same way they did in 1975.

MR. BARNES: I'm wondering if the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs intends to vote against the bill, now he has indicated....

HON. MR. MAIR: No, I told you on balance its a good bill - lousy for Kamloops, but good for the province.

MR. BARNES: No, you indicated that you had no particular concern one way or the other. Are you going to run someplace else besides Kamloops?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Please would the member who now has the floor ... ?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering why....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Oh, pardon me, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You understand the word "order, " I'm sure.

MR. BARNES: Should I take my seat?

MR. SPEAKER: Please.

MR. LAUK: I wish the Speaker wasn't so flippant.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) withdraw that remark?

MR. LAUK: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you wouldn't treat some members differently than other members in this House. You had absolutely no right to interrupt that member.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I will ask the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw that remark.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: All members in this chamber have the same opportunity. I will ask the hon. member to withdraw the charge of flippancy. I order the member to withdraw the charge of "flippancy."

[Mr. Speaker resume his seat.]

MR. LAUK: I accede to the Speaker's order.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that it is difficult to keep order in the House on occasion, but I think that all members are obliged to be temperate in their language. I do question, air, with all good faith, the kind of comment that was made by the Chair to my colleague from Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Barnes): "You understand the word 'order, ' I'm sure." That would appear to reflect on either the person's mentality or their credibility and, in that sense, I think it was somewhat less than appropriate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Your observation is very well taken. However, I would like to draw to the observation of all members that having called the second member for Vancouver Centre to order repeatedly, there was an obvious, to me, attempt to disregard the Chair. With that kind of attitude I

[ Page 2607 ]

have no other alternative, under the standing orders, but to ask the member forcibly to come to order. The purpose of my calling the House to order at this time was to remind not just the member to address the Chair, but to remind the member who had just finished his speech that he had already taken his seat and his speech was over. Had all hon. members known of my intention, I'm sure we could have avoided the entire altercation.

MR. BARNES: I've got 20 more minutes, Mr. Speaker. We will both try and hang in there. I hear some comments over there, Mr. Speaker, from someone who does not have the floor. I'm wondering if you would bring him to order.

I wanted to suggest to the House that we should have perhaps followed a custom of getting complete unanimous consent of all members of the House in selecting a commissioner to carry out an important responsibility such as redistribution of electoral boundaries.

Obviously we're having some difference of opinion as to the equitability of this report. I think in the spirit of what we have done in this Legislature in selecting an ombudsperson and an auditor-general, questions of obvious potential contention, we should have exercised that same option in selecting a commissioner. Having done otherwise, we find ourself at odds, obviously, because we all have our own political axes to grind and we certainly can't expect co-operation when we select one of our own friends to carry out the responsibility of deciding which politicians will survive and which politicians will be eliminated. I think the case is quite clear when we take a look at the disparities in the report.

HON. MR. MAIR: Who picked Norris?

MR. BARNES: Was there a Norris report before this House? Was there a debate on the Norris report?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARNES: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is out of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm quite prepared to abide by the rules of the House. I think I'll take my seat until we get some order.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs not interrupt the member who presently has the floor?

MR. BARNES: In the lower mainland area, we have pretty nearly two-thirds of the population, Mr. Speaker. There are some 970,000 voters in the greater Vancouver area out of a total of some two and a half million. Yet the number of representatives we have - which are, I believe, 21, covering some 15 ridings - is less than barely one-third of the representation, as far as the 57 seats are concerned. I'm wondering what the rationale was as far as the choices that have been made by Judge Eckardt in creating two new seats and yet reducing the number of representatives that will be in the most populated areas. We've eliminated two seats in Vancouver and increased seats outside of that area, except in Surrey where they've doubled a Social Credit seat.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I think that we know what the score is, Mr. Member for Omineca. I would also suggest, Mr. Speaker, since we're talking to individuals that are in their seats, that we've been hearing comments across the floor for the last week, even before the bill was introduced, about the former member for Vancouver-Burrard and the former member for here and the former member for there, indicating that perhaps the government was aware of what was going on.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. BARNES: You may say it's untrue, but I happen to have sat here and listened to the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) yell that across the floor to the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) . "Former member, " he said.

MR. BARNES: The point is that this is a big charade, Mr. Speaker; it's a big game; it's a political game deliberately contrived to protect the government. We all know that they have been trying to find some device to eliminate the New Democratic Party. Some had suggested a preferential ballot, a transferable ballot, in order to ensure that the Social Credit Party or its friends got the second choices. They'd make any attempt to distort and deny the people's choice and their opportunity to be represented fairly.

I'm personally not trying to protect my seat any more than any other member in this Legislature. The point I'm trying to make is that the changes that have been made should not have been made by a political appointee; they should have been made by someone whom we- could all agree upon, someone whom we could have confidence in and who would have been neutral.

[ Page 2608 ]

That's the whole point. We wouldn't have to go through this type of debate where suspicion is being cast upon members, and we feel that there are ulterior designs. Clearly, from the evidence of the changes that have been made in some of the ridings, suspicion is reflected upon the intent of this particular bill. I don't see how we can support it, knowing that we are being asked to, you might say, a last Supper, in terms of the designs of this bill. It's sort of like a sentence to self destruction. We are asked to come in and go along with a game that is supposedly fair and square, when everybody knows that its a political device.

We've used the expression "gerrymandering." When you look at the lines on the map, it's obvious that they were not drawn logically. They were not drawn in relation to population. They do not seem to have been drawn in relation to any other characteristics of any particular riding, other than the historical voting pattern in those areas. You see all kinds of cute little broken lines that indicate a certain support. I imagine that if you checked back over the polls that were returned after those elections, you'd probably find ... for instance, in the extended riding of Little Mountain, they took a nice chunk out of the Point Grey area. I guess they did not feel that the members for-Point Grey needed it, because they had more than their share. So they slipped a little bit into Little Mountain to help out the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe.) These kinds of things are going on; they don't make sense otherwise. Why would not you just run the line straight down, unless there was some population in there that was opposed to the government? From my standpoint, I cannot see why you are doing it.

The only way we can settle the argument is to get a neutral body - and its not too late, in fact. This is only an interim report and it is only a recommendation. It's not too late. In fact, there's no election coming up and the government has an excellent opportunity, now that the press has started to cover the recommendations, to take this back to the public, get some input, get some opinions and some expressions about what the possibilities are.

We haven't debated, for instance, how the two members will even be accommodated that have been increased in this chamber. 1 think there may even be some thoughts about redesigning some parts of the chamber if we were to take it back to the public. Who says that 57 members are adequate? Maybe there should be 65; maybe there should be less. You never know. But the thing is, we should have an open forum and open debate on these matters. It shouldn't be handled to the expediency of just the government. I'm suggesting that its a matter that concerns all of us. No one individual should receive special favouritism, such as the case of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. McCarthy) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , at the expense of two hard-working first and second members for Vancouver-Burrard.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: "Former members, " the Attorney-General said. Did you say "former"?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, I did not.

MR. BARNES: Well, it's pretty much the same thing when you look at the statistics. I think that was part of the design.

I would like to see this Bill 38 referred back to the public. Thank Judge Eckardt for his report; thank him for being as unbiased as possible, under the circumstances. Perhaps we should ask him to take his part in a panel or commission to select someone who is neutral. All of us would have a fair vote. We'd come up with somebody who has the ability to look at this problem, somebody we'd all approve of, and then we'd go back and get something that would really make sense and reflect the wishes of the public.

One of the things I found curious even before I became a member of the Legislature, was the expressions by people in the city of Vancouver who felt that they were being underrepresented. These are expressions, hon. member. This is what I say: you do not know what the people think. It's not me expressing my personal opinions; these are opinions of people in Vancouver where most of the population is. They don't understand why, for instance, a place the size of Atlin would have 5,000 potential voters and there would be something like 80,000 in another riding and they have the same representation.

It's. a point that should be discussed publicly. I think the public has a right to know how these decisions are arrived at. I don't think that is unreasonable. I know the problem of geography is a real problem, but at the same time there are other factors in an urban area such as we have in the various ridings in the city of Vancouver that require a lot of action, a lot of representation, a lot of attending meetings and writing letters and trying. to relate to the various organizations. Things are a lot more compressed. There may be need for a lot more representation in

[ Page 2609 ]

those areas than perhaps is needed in some of the rural areas.

But rather than debate the value of the different types of settings, let's take a look at how we get the representation. This is the thing that we should be debating. After all, we hope the population will continue to grow and that the economy will flourish. We hope to have people living in the north, that's true. We want to have our economy grow in the north. But the way we're behaving, you would think we want to keep the Legislature the same size and yet have the economy grow. We want to have the benefits of a flourishing economy with the Legislature remaining the same size. I just feel that can't be done.

The Legislature cannot remain the same size unless there is some control over what is happening in the province. We're not prepared to do that. I know that we promote, except for the Minister of Human Resources, involvement in the community. He's trying to run people out, but I'm suggesting that most of us would like to see the province grow; we'd like to see secondary industry; we'd like to have more capital coming into the province. That's true.

I appreciate your not speaking, just using your finger. The Minister of Human Resources is suggesting that I'm incorrect. He knows himself that if you do not have the money and the means, you can't live in this province. I suggest that you stand alone. I don't think your colleagues agree with you on that.

I'm suggesting that representation, Mr. Speaker, is something that should be taken to the people, taken back to the public, not decided by a one-man commission. I do not think that most of us are satisfied that these concerns have been met. In fact I feel that unless there is an open public forum - an attempt to once and for all eliminate the differences of opinion that go on across the floor, an something as important as boundaries - unless it's done in the same way we elect an ombudsperson and an auditor-general, we can't ever be satisfied with this problem.

This problem will always exist. There will always be concern, and suspicion about what the boundaries are like. It's just got to be removed from the political arena somehow. Somehow we have to eliminate this problem, because obviously what w have here is an unserviceable document. It doesn't meet the needs of the public. It only meets the needs of the government. It only meets the needs of the government of the day, in fact, not even the government of tomorrow. Every government that comes in will be trying to have an advantage by using this particular means of protecting itself. That's unfortunate. We should at least have something stable.

The only way that can happen, Mr. Speaker, I'm suggesting, is to take it out of the political arena. Let's not leave it up to the people who are trying to gain seats where the population will be. We're quite prepared to accept the loss of support, as long as it's for the benefit of the public as a whole, but not for the benefit of any particular political party.

Mr. Barnes moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to correct an erroneous statement made by the previous speaker. He suggested that I had made reference to the elimination of the seats in Vancouver-Burrard prior to the presentation of the electoral maps in this House a couple of days ago. I want to say that the statement that he attributes to the member for Columbia River is completely unfounded and untrue.

MR. SPEAKER: The statement stands corrected.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:57 p.m.