[ Page 2647 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Constitution Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 38) Second reading

Mr. Macdonald –– 2647

Ms. Brown –– 2648

Mrs. Wallace –– 2653

Mr. Lauk –– 2655

Mr. Kerster –– 2656

Mr. Barrett –– 2658

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2662

Division on second reading –– 2665

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 40) . Committee stage

On section 2.

Ms. Sanford –– 2665

Hon. Mr. Wolfe . 2666

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 38.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

(continued)

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to say a very few words about this particular piece of legislation. I'm going to express my opinion very frankly about what is happening in this province of British Columbia.

If somebody set out to fix up the map of the Vancouver ridings to elect as many Social Credit coalition candidates as possible and as few NDP, what would they do? Well, they would figure that Vancouver East might elect NDP and Vancouver-Point Grey might elect Social Credit. So their first step would be to increase the size of Vancouver East by getting as many NDP votes in there as possible. If you are going to make the checker board of the purest political chicanery you've got to start in that way, and that's what they did. They've given Vancouver East about 5,000 more voters; it's up to 87,000 people in Vancouver East.

Then the other thing you would do, as you began to work on this problem of trying to fix the map just as much as you could for Social Credit in Vancouver, would be to shrink Point Grey as much as you could, because you'd figure that you might have Social Credit votes locked up in there and you want them to win in other parts of the city of Vancouver. By the time you were finished, you would make that the smallest of the ridings in Vancouver - and that was done.

Then you would look at Vancouver South and you'd say: "There is an end of Vancouver South where the NDP got a strong vote." You're supposed to be doing this in a fair manner in terms of saving democracy and having some respect for the political process, but you're not doing anything of the kind, so you would say: "We're going to cut. that bit off Vancouver South that was voting NDP to make sure these two members for Vancouver South would be elected."

They did that. I'm not just talking about the judge, I'm talking about the judge and the government. You could tell me that that report came in without having been seen by anybody, that it came from the judge without any political interference, and I would not believe it no matter who told me that. I do not believe it.

Then, of course, you've eliminated a Vancouver seat: Vancouver-Burrard. You've taken the very strong NDP part of Vancouver Centre off and given it to Vancouver East so that now we're 87,000 people, just to make it as big as you can. It's called gerrymandering; it's called political manipulation; it's called cynical politics; it's called the thing that kind of brings down respect for democracy among younger people who wonder whether the political process of democracy is really worth saving. That's what you do about it.

And then, just to prove the cynical nature of the political manipulation, you have in Vancouver-Little Mountain an area around Quilchena and Arbutus with maybe about 1,000. Even though at that point Vancouver-Point Grey is smaller in population than Vancouver-Little Mountain, you nevertheless take from Vancouver-Point Grey that little knob of 1,000 people or so and add that into Vancouver Little Mountain so that by no chance, according to their thinking, will that riding be lost by the Social Credit Party.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that what's been done in the city of Vancouver is the apotheosis of political immorality. It's sheer manipulation. There is no explanation in this book as to why they would do that and 10 angels swearing would not persuade me that this is not as wicked a piece of political skulduggery as we are ever likely to see.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The hysterical member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: I'll repeat that for the giggling Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and I'll repeat it in Penticton. This is as wicked a piece of political skulduggery as this province has ever seen. I will repeat it in Penticton; I will repeat it all over the province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's too sick for me.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, it is. It's a cynical manipulation of the democratic process by a gang of opportunists who do not deserve respect. I'm not going to say any more; I'm going to say it outside.

[ Page 2648 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Go ahead.

MR. MACDONALD: Might makes right because you've got the majority. But that's the only way it makes right. This is a bill that should never see the light of day in this form. It's a disgrace to this Legislature. I'm not even referring to the fact that Atlin has 3,100 voters and Vancouver East - with two members, it's true - has 87,000. Forget that; that's only part of it. I'm just talking about the way they've carved Vancouver up in a cynical, politically manipulative way. I say that's political immorality at its worst.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm never going to forget your birthday, because it was while I was at your birthday party in the Ned deBeck Lounge, sipping at a glass of Calona red dry or something, that an- impeccable source came up to me and said, as he was sipping from his glass of Calona red dry: "I hear you guys have been wiped out." I made a flip comment and he made a flip comment and we both let it rest at that. But I tucked it away in the back of my mind and I wondered: "If the Eckardt report is all that secret and no one knows what is going on, he's probably making it all up."

Of course, once the report came down, it became very clear that he was not making it all up - this top-secret report which no one had seen and which was not influenced by any input from the government. Somehow or other information about what was going to happen to Vancouver-Burrard got leaked out to this very impeccable source, who was at your birthday party, which occurred the day before my birthday party, and he shared that information with me.

What I really want to talk about is what this cutback in representation means to the city of Vancouver, because I really don't think it matters who the MLAs are. I think the important thing is who the voters are and what kind of representation they have. This really is just part of a series of what has been happening to the city of Vancouver since this government decided to punish them for voting in a larger number of NDP MLAs than Social Credit MLAs - certainly - which resulted in that strange manipulation of borders.

I see straight lines become circles and figure eights to ensure the re-election of Social Credit members and the elimination of New Democratic Party members - the "impartial" wandering of lines and strange meandering of borders to ensure not only that the voters do not have an opportunity to be represented by the people of their choice but that a minority in power hangs on to its power no matter what the ethics of the situation or the morals involved. I'm using words which I know, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, are strange to that government, but they're probably words that they should learn something about.

The cutback as it affects Vancouver started out with a cutback in services, and I guess the Vancouver Resources Board being eliminated was the first volley in the round of the attack on the city of Vancouver - the first move in ensuring that the citizens of Vancouver had no input or involvement in decisions affecting their lives. I would imagine that the battle put up by the opposition to try and prevent the elimination of the Vancouver Resources Board was the first nail in the coffin of the riding which we used to know as Vancouver-Burrard, and which has somehow been gobbled up in strange electoral, manipulative border raids by three other ridings.

First was the cutback in services, and second, of course, is the cutback in funding. If we look at the shifting of the burden of taxation for education and transit and health services and human resources from the province to the residents and the taxpayers of Vancouver, we certainly see the cutback in provincial government support and cutback in funding. Cutting back the number of MLAs of whatever stripe who represent the Vancouver area by two is really a cutback in representation. Basically that's what it is.

Whether one eliminated Social Credit MLAs or New Democratic Party MLAs, or Liberals, or Conservatives, or whatever, what it really means to the voters of the city of Vancouver is that there are two less representatives for that particular community at a time when its population is growing. The first member for Vancouver East, I think, placed it as succinctly as possible when he talked about the immoral gerrymandering of a bullying minority in government to ensure that they hung onto power, no matter what the cost.

Certainly this government has never ever been famous for its respect or concerns for people. They've never cared about what people thought, or what people wanted, or even what people needed. The only concern they've ever had and they've ever demonstrated was for their own selfish ends and means, and for hanging onto their own power.

Mr. Speaker, the under representation of Vancouver will imperil the workings of this House and will work to the disadvantage of all British Columbians. Foregoing for the moment the gross disfigurement of the Vancouver constituencies as outlined in this bill, we should look at Vancouver as a whole. Comparing the 10 proposed seats with the rest of the

[ Page 2649 ]

province, we find that Vancouver is underrepresented in relation to 20 other constituencies. Of course, the member for Vancouver East mentioned the most glaring example of that, which is the constituency of Atlin. But that's just one of 20 other constituencies, not to mention North Peace River and South Peace River and a number of other constituencies where the representation far exceeds that of the residents of the city of Vancouver.

But I want to talk about some of the things that happen as a result of under representation. Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, is, after all, the creature of the provincial government. In fundamental areas it lives or dies upon the sufferance of this House. This government seem determined to kill that vital city by slow strangulation. We already know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is loath to accept the ad a counsel of the Vancouver municipal government and that he acts arbitrarily when h sees fit and goes against the will of the elected representatives of that city. , Now, however, the city of Vancouver will have fewer voices in Victoria, fewer members through which to express their grievances, to make proposals and to examine and report on matters affecting that city.

Secondly, Vancouver does bear a very special burden in this province - indeed, in this country - as the third largest city in this country. Many problems originating elsewhere in the province end up on Vancouver streets, as the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) likes to tell us from time to time - not because Vancouver is more receptive to these problems, but because urban areas have always historically been a place of refuge for those fleeing the law, fleeing oppression or seeking a better life. The flow of people to the city, especially people with problems, is a global trend.

Urban centres are just that: centres. Whether it's the upcountry business man who needs a special piece of equipment; whether it's the heroin addict who is looking for cheap drugs for a fix; whether it's the young man who has been laid off - as my son was recently, from a job in the forest industry; whether it's the woman in trouble, or the elderly person needing special medical or mental health services - all of these people tend to gravitate towards the city of Vancouver. They 'use the city's services, they use the city's streets, they use Vancouver's amenities and sometimes they require the application of Vancouver's law enforcement officers as well.

It is ludicrous to think of the city of Vancouver in the same way in which we think of other cities in this province. Not only is it the largest city in British Columbia, as I said before, it's one of the three largest cities in all of Canada. Because of this, Vancouver needs and deserves full representation, and this is what this bill is about to wipe out.

The bill is designed to clone the member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) rather than provide Vancouverites with full representation in this House. At least it didn't clone the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) ; that would have been a real disaster. If there's any good thing to be said about the bill, it's that it didn't clone the member for Richmond in this House, so that the representatives can see how grievously Vancouver is being misrepresented and, indeed, the people of the province as well.

The third point I wanted to raise about Vancouver is that the M[As from Vancouver perform special services for the province as well as for that city. For example, the province is frequently asked to send a representative to various conferences and congregations which occur in Vancouver, such as the Habitat conference, for example - an occasion on which all Vancouver MLAs of all political stripes had to play an important part in representing the Legislature as well as the people of the province.

Vancouver being the gateway to the province, MLAs are frequently asked to participate in citizenship ceremonies, whether on behalf of immigrants or groups seeking to to do business with this province. Duties performed by Vancouver MLAs do honour to all of us, and Vancouver MLAs do a job for the entire province in this regard. Yet for no reason at all and with no genuine or good explanation given, the role is about to be reduced. The effectiveness and the dignity of the government as a whole is going to be limited by the curtailment of two members.

Another aspect I'd like to look at is that of financing. At this time I'd like to refer to the experiences of our neighbours to the south. The imbalance between rural and urban representation in state governments in the United States led to serious neglect of American cities. American city governments found that they could not get support and understanding at the state level, so they increasingly bypassed the state and went directly instead to the federal government. Over a period of time the result of this was the strengthening of the federal government's relationships with lesser jurisdictions. We found that Washington became the seat of power and the source of grants and financial aid.

[ Page 2650 ]

Despite the BNA Act, we have tried to maintain a better balance between all levels of government. This government frequently acts in conjunction with the federal government and sometimes even in co-operation both with the federals and the municipal government. In this way we have managed somehow to maintain a balance. This balance is threatened if Vancouver is not fully represented in this chamber. The chances of co-operation are lessened. The probability of lack of representation in the creation and initiation of important programmes is increased. In the long run Vancouver will probably find it more expedient to bypass this House and deal directly with the government in Ottawa in all of its relationships. This will not only contradict the express policy of even this government but will also lead to difficulties between Vancouver and the suburban communities. Clearly, then, it is in the best interests of everyone in this Legislature as well as of everyone in this province that Vancouver be represented in a fair and equitable way. The representation which Vancouver must have must be equivalent to its fair share.

I want 'to talk about what gerrymandering does to a neighbourhood. "Gerrymandering" is a word I know the members of the government are very familiar with; it's certainly something that they are very expert at. They are very efficient and expert gerrymanderers - all of them - in the most blatant, crude and brutal way. The ballot box registers and sums up the decisions of individuals, and this is as it should be. Each individual should have equal weight in casting a ballot. But this is not the whole story. Human beings are social animals. They are social beings who exist only in societies and only in communities, and these communities are important to us all. Of course, each of us belongs to more than one community, as we learned yesterday, for example, when I had the opportunity along with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and even the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to attend Greek Day in the Kitsilano area. One of the things about our communities is that, as well as the overall community, we have ethnic communities that are important and real communities to us as well. This is something that governments fail to understand when they chop up and divide communities for political purposes, without taking into account the kind of ethnic or social ties that hold them together.

There are the social bonds, which are perhaps more important when it comes to affairs of representation and government. The socio-economic communities or classes are the building blocks of our society. These socio-economic groups are empirically identifiable because they are very real communities. Each community is different. Those who have limousines or who fly first class are part of a different community from those who use urban transit. Those who live off the labour of others belong to a different socio-economic community from those who feed themselves and their families by selling their ability to work. It enhances democracy to recognize these differences; it creates the preconditions for social unrest when we ignore them - certainly in the way in which this government is beginning to ignore them. It is a rational electoral structure, therefore, that understands and takes into account the needs of these communities, and it is an irrational electoral system that attempts to circumvent and divide these truly natural communities; this is what this piece of legislation does. It divides up neighbourhoods and socio-economic communities in order to give a powerful and bullying minority more power and in order to keep the weak less able to participate. When this is done consciously and with malicious intent it is called gerrymandering.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) expressed some surprise about the use of the word, as though he didn't understand what it meant, so I am giving him this definition: the deliberate and malicious attempt to destroy a community and neighbourhood in order to give a minority, albeit a powerful minority, more power and to make the weak less able to participate in decisions affecting their lives. Mr. Speaker, does this government meet that criterion?

All that one has to do is to look at a map of Vancouver and to look at the constituency of Point Grey, for example, which, as the first member for Vancouver (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out, has become much smaller even than the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard, which disappeared from the face of the earth as a result of the political decision made by this government in its attempt to hang onto power which it recognized it couldn't hold simply by relying on the voters of the city of Vancouver; power which it knew it was in very clear and imminent danger of losing simply by virtue of giving the voters of Vancouver the right to make that kind of decision.

What we find is that Point Grey becomes smaller and shrinks so that a section of that particular riding can be taken out of it in the most blatant way and placed in another constituency, to strengthen a riding which also is in danger of being lost. It shoves together an area with a high percentage of

[ Page 2651 ]

family households with an area such as Kitsilano, with one of the lowest, and it forces two different communities to come together with the intent of effectively disfranchising one. Mr. Speaker, when you take a small group of people and place them in with a larger percentage of people, what you ensure is that the smaller group loses its voice. That is the only result that comes from forcing Kitsilano into the Point Grey area. You ensure that all the people in Kitsilano who worked so effectively against this government in 1972 and again in 1975 have lost their voice. They are going to be gobbled up by the majority in the Point Grey area.

Mr. Speaker, it shoves together an area heavily populated by single-parent families, who have special problems in our society, with an area that is characterized by two-parent families and affluence. The end result of this is that the single-parent families and their children have once again lost their voice. It is not enough that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) scapegoats them. It is not enough that they're underrepresented. According to the census figures, the University Endowment Lands have 35 single parent families, and Kitsilano has 495. Mr. Speaker, those 495 single-parent families from the Kitsilano area are being forced into the Point Grey area with its 35 single-parent families. The end result of that is that the single-parent families from Kitsilano, have lost their voice.

The same thing applies to renters and tenants. Tenants take a beating because a carefully managed minority of tenants as opposed to owners has been conveniently arranged. These are some of the things, Mr. Speaker, that no one thinks about when they look at what this restructuring of borders has done to the Vancouver area. Because I am familiar with the Kitsilano area, having represented it since 1972, 1 am telling you that the thing that concerns me about it is that not only the single-parent families are going to lose their voice by virtue of being gobbled up in a riding in which they are outnumbered by two-parent families who are affluent, but also a minority of tenants, by virtue of being gobbled up by a neighbourhood of which more than 55 per cent of the people living there are homeowners, are also going to lose their voice.

So it is not just a matter of disfranchising, Mr. Speaker. It's not just a matter of removing representation from the city of Vancouver. It's a matter of effectively ensuring that the weak, those people in the area who before did not have a very strong voice, will now lose their voice altogether. We find that as a result of the new borders being drawn, 20 per cent of the people in the constituency will be renters as opposed to more than 65 per cent who are homeowners. That is the result of the gerrymandering and redrawing of borders on the part of that government.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, once again the unemployed will be disfranchised because, by throwing the Kitsilano area in with Point Grey, we are putting an area of high unemployment with an area, again, of affluence and very low unemployment. It is not as though the entire Vancouver-Burrard constituency were put into Vancouver-Point Grey, but a small area of the Vancouver-Burrard constituency being put into the Point Grey area ensures that those small groups of single-parent families, those 495 single-parent families, that small group of tenants, that small group of unemployed people who, when they were all together in the Burrard constituency had a voice, have now lost their voice. They are going to be gobbled up by a much more affluent group of people and by representatives who will not and cannot speak for them because they cannot identify with them, and who certainly have demonstrated that they have no feeling whatsoever for them.

The same considerations, Mr. Speaker, apply to the proposed new constituency of Little Mountain, because you have to realize that Vancouver-Burrard has been dismembered. It's not simply a matter of being gobbled up by one constituency; it has been cut into three pieces. It's an act of cannibalism. That's what's happened to that constituency. Again, by taking a third of that constituency away and putting it in with the Little Mountain constituency, we find that the rich are again given more weight than the poor, because you have taken a small group of poor people and put them in with a large constituency of wealthy people, and they are going to lose their voice. They are going to lose their representation. Those who have needed government services are going to be gobbled up by people who don't believe in government services and have never supported the concept of servicing people.

A recognized, identifiable neighbourhood. has been destroyed as a result of this redrawing of borders. In addition, two weak, tottering, inefficient and inadequate members of this Legislature are going to be held up by the golden hand of that jagged line with which the Socreds pulled out enough Point Grey votes to ensure their re-election - all this on top of the simple, partisan, political implications and intentions.

I am sure that neither Judge Eckardt nor any

[ Page 2652 ]

member of that government thought about the people living in that constituency when they divided them up and parceled them off in this way - in exactly the same way they divide the natural resources of this province, and parcel them off. That's exactly the way in which they looked at the people. The result of this then, Mr. Speaker, is that our city and our electorate become not a portrait of the people who live in our riding, or live in our city, but a disfigured collection of representatives. People will not recognize themselves in their government, and more and more of the people in the city of Vancouver will not be able to trust the people who govern them, will not support the people who govern them, and will not be represented by the people who govern them.

The basic tenets of democracy have been ignored, and a purposely unequal situation has been created, which in turn will lead to social tensions, regional hostility and economic difficulties. Mr. Speaker, this bill is an embodiment of all of the worst of these factors. This Legislature belongs to all of us, not to the people in the Legislature, nor even to any one-, man commission. It is a direct consequence of the action of people using one of their most cherished democratic rights, the right to participate in the selection of those who rule them. That's what this Legislature is all about. And that right has been taken away from one section of the people who live in the city of Vancouver. In the minds of the people, in the school books that teach them the fundamentals of government, in their daily practice in community groups, unions, and other associations, the right to vote, the right to have an equal share in decision-making is a most readily recognized democratic process. To tamper with this, to fudge and manipulate this process is to meddle in the very heart of democratic values. And that's what this piece of legislation is all about. To accept the suggestions of one man with little or no public discussion, and make radical changes in the voting patterns of a country or in a city, is a very serious matter. This Legislature, which belongs to all of us, cannot and should not accept this without question, without reasoning. This pre-emptive attempt is, in fact, an attempt to alter the will of the people. The people of the city of Vancouver in 1975 voted for who they wanted to represent them, and by act of this Legislature that right is being taken away from them.

This Legislature not only belongs to the people, it is assumed to be of the people. People expect that, as Edmund Burke said, "virtue, spirit and essence of a representative body lies in its being the express image of the feelings of the nation." Or as Mirabeau said: "A representative body is for the nation as a map drawn to scale is for the physical configuration of the land. In part, . or in whole, the copy must always have the same proportions of the original." And this is not what is going to result from the passage of this bill. To alter the election and formation of this body to represent the thinking, feeling and reasoning either of the government or of Judge Eckardt is contrary to this ideal and we should not tolerate it.

MR. KAHL: We're not supposed to read speeches in here.

MS. BROWN: You're supposed to listen to them, anyway. It is only because 1 consider that what this government is doing with this piece of legislation is a serious tampering with the democratic rights of the people of Vancouver that I have made extensive notes. But it would be too much to expect the temporary member for Esquimalt to understand that.

The reality of any electoral system always falls short of the ideal. No legislative body is ever a precise template in miniature of the society. The ideals are clear, but the translation into reality is complex. The portrait of a people's political wishes has to be drawn in a single day - a map composed on the basis of a single event, namely, a general election. The result is that we end up with a Legislature drawn up according to the precise contingencies of time, the mood of thousands of people on a particular day. This cannot be helped, but it does explain why our electoral system is so important, so basic to the functioning of a liberal-democratic system.

A second factor, Mr. Speaker, which prevents pure democracy is geography, because elections are a human activity, the sum of individual human choices. But the framework is necessarily physical and geographic, and that is certainly very true of a province as large as ours, with as scattered a population as we have - as it's true of the entire country.

In our quest for the ideal, Mr. Speaker, we have chosen to divide our society into constituencies, into the lateral areas marked by boundary lines. The design of our electoral system can, and does, place constraints on the painting of our legislative portrait. In physical geography and social geography the people change, but not at the same rate nor according to the same forces. Boundaries of all kinds, including electoral boundaries, are often drawn arbitrarily with no attention to the kinds of human forces which I spoke about

[ Page 2653 ]

earlier. The surveyor's straight lines have cut many a natural community in two, because boundaries may fall on mountain ridges while people travel along the valleys. It's a testimony to our reason that we've always been able to deal with these constraints, because human beings can alter natural boundaries. A bridge across the river, which previously separated two communities, can bring together in a new way the physical shape of the natural landscape that's constantly being changed, and changed to meet the social needs of people.

For this reason it is often both necessary and desirable for boundaries to be changed, to be adjusted to meet new circumstances. But when they are changed, those in charge cannot, Mr. Speaker, act blindly and they cannot ignore the way in which people live. To ignore social realities is to ignore the pigment and the colour of our portrait.

A similar restraint on the ideal springs from the fact that the basis of our electoral system is residential - people vote according to where they live, and that's a decision which we've made. There is a discontinuity between the surface boundaries and the three dimensional ways in which people live. The pattern of housing in a community does express something about the people of that community. Large economic forces affect the pattern of living of the people in that community. To a certain extent, this is the result of thou sands and thousands of small decisions based on economics and, to a certain extent, the direct manipulation of society to create particular patterns.

But, generally speaking, the results are at least visible. We know where the rich live in Vancouver and we know where the poor live. These wealth patterns tell us something about people and those patterns usually remain relatively stable from one generation to another. Judge Eckardt may have been blind, Mr. Speaker, even as this government may be blind; but anyone who lives in Vancouver or who has ever had to represent any constituency in Vancouver knows the difference between Point Grey and Grandview-Woodlands and between that and Kitsilano. And there is a difference between Southwest Marine Drive and Fairview Slopes and between that and Mount Pleasant. And none of these differences have been taken into account in the redrafting of the borders and in the meanderings of the boundaries drawn by this government.

Mr. Speaker, commissions established to redraw boundaries have to pay attention to these matters. In this case they were totally ignored. And it is for this reason that many feel that this report and the subsequent legislation, which we are now discussing, should not only be dropped but that the author should be roundly condemned. It would be both naive and much too charitable to suggest that the flaws in our ideal portrait are usually the result of the difficulties of adapting geography to society or the failure of reason in the map-makers, because this is not the case. The fact is that democracy is essentially a radical idea; democracy always stands as a threat to all forms of privilege. It stands as a threat to abuse of concentrated power, to subordination and to oppression, and that is why it is always under attack, and from time to time rulers and governments make conscious attempts to avoid democracy. And that is what we are finding with this bill at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to use my entire three minutes; I think I've got my message across. What I wanted to say is that this piece of legislation is a very conscious attempt on the part of that government to avoid democracy; it's a very conscious attempt to deprive the people of the city of Vancouver of fair representation. It's not just a cutback in services; it's not just a cutback in funding any more; it's a tampering with the democratic process. And %A-'re all of us, in this Legislature and in this province, the poorer as a result of that.

MRS. WALLACE: 1 do not intend to reiterate the arguments that have been put forward very ably by many speakers in relation to the Vancouver situation. I think the case has been well presented and the results of this bill that is before us are certainly evident in the Vancouver area. That case has been made very clearly. Neither do I intend to spend any time discussing the situation in Revelstoke where a similar type of action has been taken and where again the objective of that action seems so very obvious as to be a crude attempt to disguise a political move in the name of a redistribution bill.

I intend to deal with the situation that 1 know very well, and which relates to my own constituency, not in any personal way, Mr. Speaker, but simply by outlining some of the very obvious facts in connection with what has gone on in that particular area. It's the numbers game. It's a case of looking at the total votes cast not over just the last election, but the last many elections, and deciding how it could be manoeuvred that instead of having two seats represented by the New Democratic Party, the lines could be changed so one would cancel the other. That is what has been done with no justification - not even attempted

[ Page 2654 ]

justification. I would point out that in the report it is the only change where Judge Eckardt has not even attempted to give any written explanation of why he has made the recommendations he has made. Instead he has simply made the recommendation. It's obvious why he didn't try to justify it, because there is no justification.

We had in Nanaimo and Cowichan-Malahat two average-sized constituencies with an average population. Nanaimo, at the last election, had 50,000 registered voters; Cowichan-Malahat had in excess of 45,000 - equal distribution. We had a nice straight line following a river and then a district boundary dividing the two constituencies. What have we now, Mr. Speaker? We have the strangest configuration dropping down to include strong New Democratic Party areas -Cassidy, Yellowpoint, Ladysmith - right down into the top end of Chemainus. There's no natural boundary whatsoever. Then it jogs back up to make sure that Thetis Island is included in Cowichan-Malahat. There's no justification whatsoever. It's taking out of Cowichan-Malahat somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 votes and putting them in Nanaimo, which is already 5,000 more than Cowichan-Malahat. It's now making a situation where Nanaimo will have in excess of 55,000 votes and Cowichan-Malahat something less than 40,000. Is it any wonder that the judge did not even attempt to justify such a move? It's absolute gerrymandering. It's an obvious move, because the history of that constituency goes back to show that same kind of manipulation by other governments.

We originally had Newcastle, represented for many years by a labour and a socialist representative in the person of Sam Guthrie. In an attempt to correct that situation - and a successful attempt, I might say, for a couple of elections - it was made Cowichan-Newcastle, but eventually that changed. The voters of Cowichan-Newcastle returned an NDP representative, first in the person of Sam Guthrie and later in the person of Robert Strachan. It was attempted again, Mr. Speaker. Cowichan-Newcastle was again moved a bit farther south and turned into Cowichan-Malahat in an attempt to defeat the sitting member. It didn't work in that instance, and he hung on for 22 years in that constituency.

Then came 1975 and the sitting member was no longer there. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that you are well aware that your party thought they had Cowichan-Malahat. It was spread around that constituency that the NDP was on the way out there, that they'd made a fatal mistake. They'd chosen someone who was not known in the constituency, so they thought, to represent them. We were going to lose that constituency.

Let me tell you, they were very surprised when the NDP won. But I knew we would win because I knew the people of that area and I knew we could hang on to that area. I knew the people in Ladysmith and Cassidy and Yellowpoint and I knew the people in Duncan and I knew we would hold that seat and we held it.

Now the answer is to move the boundaries again - not because of me. That's immaterial, Mr. Speaker. That's beside the point. The fact is it is the numbers game - two seats for the NDP or one for the NDP and one for the Social Credit. That's what they're looking at, Mr. Speaker. That's what they're after. It simply is nothing short of dishonesty to make those kinds of moves in the name of democracy.

MR. SPEAKER: Ron, member, with great reluctance, I have to ask the hon. member to withdraw any charge of dishonesty against any member.

MRS. WALLACE: No, I'm not charging any member. I an simply saying that the intent of this bill appears to be dishonest. It is dishonest to make those kinds of changes in a bill, to present a bill to this Legislature with the idea that this is a fair and equal redistribution when in fact you are reducing the size of the smaller constituency and increasing the size of the larger constituency and calling it fair and just and equitable redistribution. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that does not savour of an honest decision. It savours to me of something that has a planned political significance and that is a sorry day for British Columbia when w find ourselves discussing this kind of a bill in this kind of a mood.

It's been suggested that it was an independent tribunal. Mr. Speaker, we had the report filed in this House, with one copy to the opposition and supposedly one copy to The government, when it first came in, filed within half an hour of its receipt. Yet within minutes, the members of the back bench were making detailed remarks and questions about which riding who was going to run in - the kind of remarks that could not have been made had they not had some knowledge of that report. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that those members were quite aware of what was contained in that report. If they had not known, there is no way that the bill would have been presented to this Legislature, word for word, within hours after that report was filed. No government does that, Mr. Speaker. They would have wanted to have a look at that report to see what it said. But I suggest they knew what it said and that's why this bill was before us

[ Page 2655 ]

in such a rush.

Mr. Speaker, it's a sad day for me to stand in this Legislature and be faced with a discussion of this type of a bill. I know that we on this side of the House bear different opinions from the people on the other side of the House, but I would hope that in the true spirit of the democratic process we would have at least some semblance of fair play. That appears to be sadly missing and I am very saddened tonight as I stand to speak on this bill.

MR. DAVIDSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear that the member's remarks indicating that members of the back bench had previous knowledge are entirely false. I would like the record to show that most clearly. The remarks, if any, which were made during the passing out of the particular document being referred to were made after consultation, one with the other, over the same similar document that was issued to the Premier of this party, and not by previous knowledge.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I wish that if members have a point of order they would clearly state a valid point of order. It is not proper for a person to seek the floor the second time by rising on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult bill to debate because in part we are representing our constituencies as they now exist, and not ourselves, and yet everyone here must admit to themselves that we do have a sense of identity with the constituencies that we represent and that we do feel personally under attack during this kind of a redistribution debate. However, I wish to assure the chamber that we on this side of the House do not feel a proprietary interest in our constituencies. We are not elected as in fiefdoms; we are elected to represent the people of our constituencies. We have heard the debate on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, reflect the concern of the members of the New Democratic Party about the people who are being affected by this redistribution bill. They are not the people in this chamber. They are the people of the constituencies themselves, the electors.

I was thinking that if we were to be fair and if we were to be objective, we should discuss the philosophy behind the report of the commissioner and the great haste with which it has been accepted by the government. The philosophy purports to be, generally speaking, representation by population. We know this simple statement - that is to say, representation by population - taken by itself, without further explanation, cannot in any way be an adequate explanation to us and to the people of this province as to what electoral boundaries and what constituencies mean. If it were a pure, simple statement the 1975 results, with 40 per cent of the vote to the NDP, would mean 40 per cent of the seats, or 22 seats; 49 per cent of the vote for Social Credit would mean 27 seats; and 11 per cent to the other two parties would mean four seats. So we know there is not, strictly speaking, in a simplistic way, representation by population.

It is therefore incumbent upon the commissioner to reflect several tenets and guidelines in producing a report to the Legislature with respect to electoral boundaries. Those tenets and guidelines must include the communities that are involved, the geographical areas that must be represented throughout the province, and a general understanding of the traditional breakdown in support that is in the percentage of the vote basis. I think that it is clear that the commissioner did not have that in mind. I think that it is clear that the commissioner has designed his report to give the minority - that party which has the most votes as of 1975 - an even greater number of seats than they received in 1975 with a smaller percentage of the vote.

It seems to me that in the city of Vancouver - which I know best, Mr. Speaker - the commissioner or his staff needed a computer to come up with the combination and permutation that is represented in his report, because it is only by a poll by poll, vote by vote count that the commissioner could possibly come up with the boundaries that he did in the city of Vancouver. The programme to that computer was a simple guideline: give the Socreds as many seats as possible within that jurisdiction by programming all of the information, poll by poll, vote by vote into that computer.

It has taken us several days with our calculators figuring out exactly what combination could give the most number of seats to the Social Credit Party, and those are exactly the boundaries that the commissioner is recommending in his report.

It is clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that that was the design and the purpose. It is clear to me that that is one of the most vulgar abuses of power imaginable in a democratic system. We have seen abuses of power, we've lived with it, we've criticized it and we've stood up to those that we feel we represent. Abuses of power from time to time do occur - most of the time advertently, sometimes inadvertently -but an abuse of power strictly and cynically

[ Page 2656 ]

intended to increase the electoral opportunities of the government in power can only be described as a vulgar abuse of power.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think that this will not be treated lightly by the electors involved. I cannot help but think that they will not be the guinea pigs of the commissioner or this government. They will not be subjected to the manipulations so articulately described by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) and the other speakers. I cannot help but think, Mr. Speaker, that they will not forget this kind of cynical manipulation, this back-of-the hand treatment of fundamental democratic principles.

If we were to view the commissioner's report in its most charitable light, one must say that the judge had very little to do with the report. In the remote danger that from time to time some of the people will forget what has been done, we'll always be there to remind them. I can pledge to you, Mr. Speaker, that the members of this party will be reminding them frequently. We'll be pointing out just in which way we feel that they have been treated in a dishonest and manipulative fashion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I had to warn the previous member against the use of the same word; I must warn the hon. member for the same. We must withdraw and imputation of wrongdoing, particularly in relation to the word "dishonest." I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw an imputation of any wrongdoing on the part of any member of this House.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, when it refers to the actions of government, one can use the word "dishonest." When one refers to the actions of an individual member of the Legislature, one cannot use the word "dishonest."

MR. SPEAKER: I'm only asking the hon. member to withdraw any imputation against any individual member.

MR. LAUK: I haven't made any, so....

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the vulgar and cynical way in which the tremendous power, which was described by the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) in some speeches past.... The government in a British parliamentary system is elected to a virtual dictatorship for its term of office. The British parliamentary system was designed for honourable people. It was designed for people who, even though they had the opportunity to be dictators, would not be dictators. It was designed for honourable people who are elected to represent the people of the jurisdiction and was designed to give the maximum power to a government with good intentions.

Reflected here in this bill we have probably the most cynical expression of this government since its election to office, and it will probably stand as its most cynical action.

I cannot help but feel that this government will pay the price, and after they have paid that price we will all pay the price. The very democratic system that we have lived under and that we want to keep alive is paying a price by virtue of this bill.

I say to the government that when you start to undermine the people's faith in the very democratic system under which we live - not just the government, but the system - you are treading on very dangerous ground indeed. When you start cutting out large numbers of people within our society and when you give even less of a voice to the voiceless, you undermine the very system under which we live. That's a very serious charge. It's the most serious charge I have ever made in this Legislature.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I really didn't expect that I would receive much of a reception to that charge from the members opposite, but we shall see the reception we receive to such a charge from the people as a whole.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. KERSTER: I have just a few very brief observations regarding Bill 38. First, I don't think I have ever heard in this assembly, since my election, so much blathergab in my life. I want to point out that every member of this assembly had the opportunity to put forward their views to the Eckardt commission. I think the fact that many of those members opposite who now choose to impugn the integrity of the commissioner didn't even bother to take the time to submit their views to the commission is reprehensible. It's always the ones who don't do anything who cry the loudest when something comes out that they feel isn't right for them.

Interjection.

MR. KERSTER: I hate to say this, Mr. Speaker, but the member for Vancouver-Burrard is talking about my moustache; I only wish it

[ Page 2657 ]

could compare with hers.

I must admit that the recommendations I submitted to the Eckardt commission were not implemented, and I can tell you right now that I'm not at all pleased by the fact that my massive majority of 18 votes appears to have been sliced right down the middle, and nine remain in each of the two new ridings in the Coquitlam . I don't think anyone, logically, could call that gerrymandering - maybe ghandidancing, or whatever you want to call it, but not gerrymandering. I don't agree with two separate constituencies in the Coquitlam's. In fact, I recommended a dual-member riding, but I do find some satisfaction that at least the commissioner recognized and has publicly acknowledged the fact that since January 19,1976, I've been doing to work of two members, serving nearly 120,000 people.

Interjection.

MR. KERSTER: The member for Prince Rupert is really quite phenomenal. Even after his halfhorsepower mind quits, his mouth continues.

Mr. Speaker, I think you will recall that Mr. Justice Norris recommended in his report a dual-member riding for Coquitlam, and that was prior to the 1975 election. At that time the NDP considered Coquitlam a safe seat. The NDP implemented the Norris recommendations prior to the election. In their minds, I think, , they would have thought that they would have won both seats in that so-called safe riding. But first let me make it very, very clear - and I've said this in other constituencies, and constituencies of members opposite, on many occasions - that I don't think there's any such thing as a safe seat for any party. I think that was demonstrated when the former Premier lost Coquitlam in 1975. The only safe seat in this Legislature is in an area where the MLA works for her or his constituents regardless of their political philosophy, and works hard. They don't just stand up here on the floor of the House with empty and hollow accusations of gerrymandering, assassinating people's characters and so forth; they have to work for their constituency. Madam Member, I suggest you do that. It's fine to live in Point Grey and represent somebody who doesn't have what you have, Madam Member, but the fact of the matter is that a safe seat is the seat where people work.

Interjections.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, could I have some order, please? I listened to the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) and to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) without any interjections. I would appreciate the same consideration from that side of the floor.

Interjection.

MR. KERSTER: Shut up, Graham.

These allegations of gerrymandering are just nothing but utter nonsense. Anyone with an ounce of any common sense realizes that boundaries don't determine how people vote. The people themselves determine how they'll vote.

MS. BROWN: Why change, then?

MR. KERSTER: The member for Vancouver-Burrard says: "Why change, then?" What did they have up their sleeve with this Norris commission report? They were changing things all over. They were going to have 62 members in this House - another burden to the taxpayers of this province. Two members is maybe too many. In fact, I would suggest that reducing the number of members of this House would make some sense.

MR. BARRETT: Well, we know where to start.

MR. KERSTER: Well, we knew where to start, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, in Coquitlam in 1975. Mr. Speaker, if anything, I want to suggest to you....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps the tone of debate could be a little more reasonable if you'd address the Chair.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to address the Chair. However, there have been so many interjections that it's very difficult to do so. If the Chair would do me the courtesy of controlling this bashi-bazouk group across the floor, I'd be very happy to address the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. One who seeks the protection of the Chair should first ascertain to make sure that he himself is in order prior to asking that. I would ask that the member address the Chair and we can proceed in an orderly fashion. Perhaps the hon. members opposite could give the member the courtesy of some silence while he proceeds.

MR. KERSTER: That's all I ask, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if anything I want to say right now that I feel that the NDP are using the Eckardt report as an excuse, in advance, for

[ Page 2658 ]

losing the next election under the same leadership that led this province into the socialist wilderness and their own party to the disastrous defeat of 1975. That's the whole smokescreen that they are blowing at the people of this province right now, and I support this bill.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I can't think of a more opportune time to cast pearls among the.... Oh no, I won't say that.

Mr. Speaker, the question of speaking to this bill and the immorality of it is hardly relevant in this Legislature. If there was ever a mind-set government about preserving its coalition and its power, regardless of how they came to power or what kind of alliances they made or what kind of deals or what kind of abandonment of principles caused people to come together in the unholy alliance they have now....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: At least, Mr. Member, with your interruptions, they're always final. You have the last word on everybody, so, Mr. Member, I would hope that you would show me some courtesy before you lower us as a party into the gerrymander grave that you have there.

MR. KERSTER: On a point of order, I would suggest that during my very brief remarks I was reminded that I should address the Chair. I would ask that the Speaker remind the present speaker to also address the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: However, Hon. member, I would advise you, when rising on a point of order, to ensure that you are in fact on a point of order. I think perhaps it is up to the Chair to decide. If you would care to point out which standing order the member speaking is in violation of, the Chair will do its duty in enforcing it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm always in great humble thankfulness to one of the older members drawing to my attention what the rules are. After all, I was only recently elected in a by-election and I am thankful that the member was able to draw that to my attention. I was recently elected in a riding that mysteriously now has 10,000 more voters added to it overnight like a magic wand; 10,000 more voters in a riding that already votes 71 per cent socialist, so now we'll make it 75 per cent. Where do we take the votes from, Mr. Speaker? Why, you and I know, in spite of the interruptions, that 10,000 votes are taken right out of Vancouver-Little Mountain where the smiling minister who is the author of this bill now sits. One would think that self-preservation would be the motive for adding more votes to an area that already votes heavily socialist, in the hope of protecting that minister.

Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of pornography in this world. There's pornography that deals with the venal nature of man. There is pornography that deals with almost every area, but now we're dealing with a map of political pornography; one of those rare occasions where the politicians have an opportunity to express themselves, through gestures on a map, of their appropriate responses to each other.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, it did not come in a brown paper wrapper, Mr. Member.

One must wonder how the mysterious forces work in some kind of political osmosis that allow the judge to bring down a very complicated report one day and 24 hours later that very report appears without mistake in legislation. We have the complex legislation of the Forest Act amended because of errors. We've had all kinds of amendments. We've even had press releases on legislation before it is even introduced.

But in this immaculate conception of redistribution, what do we find? A 24-hour gestation period that produces this political pornography. However, there is some decency. At least some of the attention of the gerrymandering, and the gesturing of the gerrymandering, is at least geographically directed in some appropriate directions.

I want to draw the House's attention, just for our own amusement, since we know this is going to be crammed down the people's throats anyway, to a little ironic drifting over the red lines of this map. As the sun sinks slowly in the west, the Minister of Tourism travels farther into the Point Grey Socred area, once known as a Liberal enclave. But those two Liberals then saw the light, joined Social Credit and became overnight transformed....

MR. LEA: Born-again Socreds.

MR. BARRETT: Born-again Socreds, that's right. A 24-hour gestation period for the loss of principle, the loss of philosophy, the loss of commitment, but the seeking of power. I want to draw to my friends attention, and, more than anyone else, to you, Mr. Speaker, this particular peculiar drawing of the line on the west end of the new constituency of

[ Page 2659 ]

Vancouver-Little Mountain. Gerrymander is known for wandering electoral lines. On this map the most dramatic example of a wandering electoral line is this line going from north to south with an indecent intrusion into the constituency of Vancouver-Point Grey, abutting into the centre of that area with a little gesture, almost like an upright finger, pointed westerly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to your attention that that was the same gesture used by the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) , either indicating the level of his IQ or his indifference to the committee that he was dealing with. Take your pick: the level of his IQ or his indifference to the committee. The only thing that is appropriate about this little finger in this gerrymander is the direction of the two bills it is pointed at.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, it's pointed at the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) . If one finds small comfort in political pornography, at least there was some dramatic irony involved. This is the comic relief in the drawing of the map. "While we're at it, let's give the finger to Pat and Garde." That's what they did, folks, in the protection of Gracie -through you, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw any comments I made about names.

MR. LOEWEN: Withdraw a finger!

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank that member for that assistance. Mr. Speaker, his job is. difficult enough. When it comes to the appropriate terms perhaps related to that member, it's known as the embalming of Vancouver-Little Mountain.

That member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , who is really an esteemed member of this House, puts everything in his heart and soul and both feet into his job in this House - and when his head isn't working, well, he puts his feet up into the job. He's the only man who divided in one seat in one night, Mr. Speaker.

He spoke about service to his constituency. The senatorial tones of that member that he's picked up since coming to this House have been impressive. I agree that one should represent one's constituents. You work hard and represent all of your members and do your best thing, go your best route and answer all your mail, and you get re-elected. But what do you do when you work very, very hard, represent all your constituents and wake up 24 hours later and find out your constituency has been wiped out? Three NDP ridings were wiped out.

Judge Eckardt was asked to do the job. They say to us: "Oh, my goodness, don't attack a judge." I'm nor attacking a judge, Mr. Speaker, I'm attacking a defeated Social Credit candidate who was hired to do this job, a defeated Social Credit candidate who became a judge who, in most other instances, would have said: "I am honoured to be asked for the job; I am pleased that I've been selected for this job; I respect the confidence in my integrity. However, my own political background - refuses to allow me to lend my name to that job, simply because, like Caesar's wife, redistribution must be above suspicion."

Would not some judges, whether they were Liberal, Conservative, Socred or NDP, having been asked by a government to do a single representative redistribution job with no other assistance, and having been a defeated candidate of a party, have said to themselves: "The public would be better served it I stood aside on this call"? Are there not standing orders in this House, Mr. Speaker, that call on every member that if we are asked to vote on any matters that we have an interest in, it is our responsibility to clear that interest past, present or future, and absent ourselves from voting in this House? Is there not a standard that says that people who are in judgeships, regardless of the political background they come from, out of honour for the system we have of naming of judges should be able to define themselves publicly and say: "No, I won't serve because I'm a defeated NDP candidate, I am a defeated Liberal candidate, I am a defeated Conservative candidate or I am a defeated Social Credit candidate."? Would not honour be done to the judging profession, Mr. Speaker, had that kind of definition been made by a judge, regardless of his political stripe?

No, that worthy judge said: "I see nothing wrong with me being a defeated Social Credit candidate." Of course there is nothing wrong with him being a defeated Social Credit candidate. Lord hopes there are many of those in the near future. However, Mr. Speaker, I think it would have well behooved that judge to say: "I will not participate in allowing my name as a former Social Credit candidate to be put in this position. It would better serve the people if another party's appointee, if another person with a different political background were picked for the job."

MR. KING: Or no political background.

MR. BARRETT: Well, the judges do have a political background.

[ Page 2660 ]

Mr. Speaker, let me make the point in another way: can you imagine - and I want your minds to concentrate on this, because it will be difficult for you to see the frame of mind that is necessary to get the point I'm making, because we all know how fair the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is - her reaction if the New Democratic Party government had selected Justice Berger to do a redistribution for the NDP? Oh, I'm sure that the first to rush to the hotlines praising the appointment of Justice Berger by the NDP to do the redistribution would be none other than the Minister of Travel Industry. I would think that there would be a line-up of esteemed Social Credit MLAs wending their way to hotlines, to public meetings and to Social Credit gatherings saying: "Oh. how nice it is that the NDP has picked Judge Berger to do the redistribution. We're all going to show up and help the judge do the job that we know he'll do impartially."

HON. MR. MAIR: I would.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you would. Mr. Member, if that's the case, then let me test your sincerity. Pull this bill and give Judge Berger the job and then we'll see whether or not you really mean it.

Oh Mr. Member, if there is ever a hallmark of this coalition it is the sleaziness that has oozed out of almost every single decision and political move they've made. The public has seen this government as one of sleaze, of slippery, manipulative political opportunism. It has reached the point, Mr. Speaker, that even the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is forced to make barnyard noises in response to an intelligent debate. You know I find it most interesting to observe that minister over there. He has been so fixated by the delegated responsibility given to him by government that he now knows which end of the horse to get horse sense out of - and it is not the head.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps you can relate this to the....

MR. BARRETT- Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll relate it to the rest of the redistribution.

If it had been Judge Berger, lo and behold, who would have been the first in there to submit to Judge Berger's wisdom? The member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) ? Would he have given the same signal to the judge he gave in the committee room? Lord knows what that member would have done.

HON. MR. MAIR: Stop talking about the member for Esquimalt; he's a good MLA.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, pardon me if I offend the sensitivities of the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) . Even I didn't think I was capable of doing that.

Mr. Speaker, we have nothing in front of us but a naked gerrymander by a government that is insensitive and ultimately rationalizes everything that it does on the basis of: "Oh, well, they're socialists." When all else fails, the view of the New Democratic Party and its predecessor, the CCF, is that they're socialists. So anything goes - any kind of coalition, any abandonment of civic responsibility, any abandonment of morality in terms of politics, any abandonment of fairness, any abandonment of logic - because it's the socialists, the same socialists who fought the War Measures Act, the same socialists who were subject during the 1936 campaign to a tax because, if you voted socialist, they would allow the Japanese and Chinese to vote. Yes, it was the great Liberal Party that had that tradition of stopping the Chinese and Japanese from voting and took out ads in the newspapers. All through our history as a party, every step of the way, every principle that we've got....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Make fun of it, Mr. Member. I would rather have that as a basis of history in my party than Solon Lows and Owen Blackmores and the other history that is related to your party.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to lay at the feet of the present Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) the responsibility for the 1930s; but I will lay at your feet the responsibility for a Prime Minister of this country who abolished, in a moment of hysteria, civil liberties that were widely supported by most of the electorate in this country. And my federal confederates and I and my own colleagues provincially had the guts to stand up and stand for what was right at that time - and we were right. The imposition of the War Measures Act was a violation of basic, democratic, civil liberties in this country.

We have a witness here tonight of another move to crush democracy. One of the most destructive aspects of this kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the impact on young people out there who do not view this institution with the cynicism that those of us who have been here more than a week begin to develop. Hundreds of school children come through this in-

[ Page 2661 ]

stitution and see members pick their nose and yawn and swing around in their seats, and they do not really understand the power struggle that exists, that has taken place long ago before the debate began in this chamber. The debate on this bill will have no effect whatsoever on the bill. The government's majority will pass this bill. We can only hope that some little voice out there will reach the radio and the television and the newspapers explaining that a debate took place and there was concern about gerrymandering.

But what about those young people who believe there is a serious problem with land control? What about those young people who believe that there should be some environmental control? What about the young people who may end up the one in twelve in a mental institution? What about the broken families?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps you could relate this to the bill.

MR. BARRETT: What about the aged, Mr. Speaker, who depend on fighting MLAs to bring their cases and causes to the floor of this House, as the members of our party have pioneered since the first election of a socialist to this House in 1899?

1 can't help but feel that the assault on Vancouver-Burrard is a personalized, focused attack on two of the strongest champions of the ordinary people in this province, Mr. Speaker, both of whom are members of minority groups and never use that in their own way in terms of an election campaign. But their very election as members of a minority group, representing the socialist party, is proof positive that the system allows all voices from all walks of life to be here to fight for people who otherwise would be voiceless and powerless in this system.

Those with vast amounts of money - 14 millionaires in a government - and those with vast amounts of power find this kind of debate interesting and amusing, Mr. Speaker. Nonetheless, 14 millionaires cannot have as a basic commitment the halt, the lame, the crippled, the voiceless and those who need to be fought for year after year in a society that's based on hedonism and greed as a measurement of success.

You have deliberately cut down two MLAs from the New Democratic Party. The people of this province know it without any lengthy debate because they know what the nature of the author of this bill is and what she would do just to get even with her political opponents.

As for my colleague, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , one of the most effective cabinet ministers in the most difficult portfolio in this House - the former Minister of Labour - he has shown himself to be a man of the ordinary people, fighting for the com n people in the collective good of the trade union movement. There's another assault on that by the elimination of his seat.

Mr. Speaker, this night will pass and this bill will pass, but let it be recorded for those students who someday may read this debate, aside from the inane interruption of the government members and the fact that the government benches are almost totally empty, that we're dealing with the most important piece of legislation in front of us all this session. Let it be recorded that the Premier is not here. Let it be recorded that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is not here. Let it be recorded that out of the cabinet at this point there are only three members left - two and a half, to give somebody full marks. Let them determine for themselves who the half is.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Now we're down to two.

The point has obviously been made by my colleague for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) with a great deal of sincerity and conviction about her commitment to democracy. Those of us who are a bit older and a bit jaded are prepared to witness a lot of political manoeuvring, but what about the young people out there whom we want to hand this system on to? Are they to have faith in a government that would reach out to a defeated Social Credit candidate to do this kind of thing? Are they to have faith in a government that mindlessly in 24 hours brings in the bill and draws the map exactly t lie way that gerrymandering is scheduled to be drawn, Mr. Speaker?

My ultimate hope is in the common sense, the wisdom and the thoughtfulness of the ordinary, nameless citizens of this province who may not be sophisticated in all the nuances of politics or the rules related to this Legislature; who may not be aware of all of the delicate balances that go on in the intimate relationships that exist in putting together a coalition against the ordinary people. But there is an innate sense of fairness in ordinary citizens of this province. I know that with the passage of this bill, even though our party has been the focus of attack and three seats are lost, the innate sense of fairness of the ordinary British Columbian will say: "Hold on, this is going a bit too far. I think we had better teach that coalition a lesson and throw

[ Page 2662 ]

them out of office." I hope it serves that purpose.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, I would like to make comments on a couple of the statements that have been made in the debate, because the whole debate from Friday until today has really centred around three themes. I'd like to just address myself to those themes.

There were, of course, the exceptions by individuals who raised points regarding their own individual constituencies, and I relate to those concerns, Mr. Speaker. There are members on both sides of the House who have expressed concern. Any of us, as good MLAs serving our constituencies, would, of course, be concerned about losing any portion of a constituency, let alone a complete constituency. I relate to them because as individual members I appreciate that they're considering themselves as individual politicians and individual members in this House.

Mr. Speaker, as an individual I lose part of my constituency, or the constituency which the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and myself have been extremely honoured to serve for some time - myself as a member for Vancouver-Little Mountain prior to this parliament. As an individual I lose part of my constituency which I'm very sorry to lose. I say that with a very sincere feeling about my own constituency which I'm serving at the present time.

I think it is interesting that the member over there who is now chuckling and has so much to be chuckling about in Vancouver-Burrard right now talks about her constituency as though it's something that she owns. Let me remind you that Vancouver-Burrard was held by the Social Credit Party for 17 long years. It was well served by those Social Credit members and well served in this House.

Is there an NDP area? Is there a Liberal area? Is there a Conservative area? I'd like to remind the Leader of the Opposition, who was so critical of members not being in the House just five minutes ago, but who has now left the House.... He looks at his area as a strong NDP area. I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I don't consider Vancouver Last a strong NDP area or any other kind of area. It, too, was held by a Social Credit member. The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) who is in the chamber will recall that it was well served by Fred Sharp at that time as a Social Credit member and an honoured member of this House.

There is no such thing as an NDP area. There is no such thing as a Socred area. There are constituencies that people in our province have the honour and opportunity to serve.

I have been listening closely to the debate, and let me say that after the individual concerns were all put aside, the debate ranged around three items. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) raised the first. That was not carried on too much, but she said the haste with which the bill was introduced was unseemly. That was one point in the debate for the two days.

The second charge was that of gerrymandering. Various members of the House have attacked the bill as one that has been gerrymandered.

The third theme that runs through the debate throughout the two days is the attack on the royal commission that brought in the report, and commissioner Judge Eckardt and his staff. Let me address myself to the attack on the judge. I can only say that I am sorely disappointed that a highly respected citizen of British Columbia should be subjected to the abusive charges levelled by members of the opposition in regard to his service to the province. It's a reflection on all people who serve the province of British Columbia in public service. I would not think that it would come from members of the Legislature in this House. I find it strange indeed that such charges have been levelled in this House by those members of the opposition at people such as Judge Eckardt, who was formerly a candidate for public service, as was Judge Norris, who brought in the Norris report. It's interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , who stood in his place this evening just prior to my remarks and said that it would only be fair if, when a judge were asked to serve on a commission, he or she should decline to serve. We didn't see Judge Norris decline to serve. Why should he? He was a respected member of the community. He has a respected family, one of whom offered himself for public service in Vancouver Centre. It was the members for Vancouver Centre who were so critical of Judge Eckardt. Judge Norris's son served as an NDP candidate in that very constituency. How can he possibly stand in his place and be critical of a judge who, because of his feeling for this province, offered his name for public service?

Members of the Legislative Assembly, above all others, should be commending citizens of our province, not criticizing them for stepping out of their professional cocoon, for stepping out of their business area from the safety and the insulation of their private lives to put their names forward for public service. That's what all of us in this House

[ Page 2663 ]

have done. We all know - every single one of us - what a sacrifice that is. Who should be more supporting of that kind of person who would offer himself or herself for public service than those who sit there or those who sit on this side of the House? It's a disgusting attack on a man who is well respected in our British Columbia community. Mr. Speaker, I'm here to stand before you and tell you that I think that he has done a very fair job on behalf of the province of British Columbia. Because of your political attack on this govern--ment and on this party that represents the government of the province, I think that any attack should not have to be carried by the incredible attack on the personality and the character of Judge Eckardt, as has been done in this House.

As to the charge of unseemly haste, Mr. Speaker, it has been long documented in this province that there are large blocks of people who, by virtue of building or moving or placing their homes in a particular community, have found themselves in part of a community that is heavily populated and underrepresented.

The NDP, when they were in government - that very party that sits opposite today as opposition - promised the redefining of electoral districts, but in spite of that promise and an attendant promise to have a complete enumeration - remember that promise? - and the redefining of boundaries before an election, they called an election in the middle of winter without doing either, without redefining. Who called the election in the middle of winter out of panic, because they were so concerned that their financial ineptitude would be brought before the people of the province? They called an election in a big rush - broken promises, no enumeration, no redefining of electoral boundaries.

This government also made a commitment, this party also made a commitment, that they would not go to the electorate again without redefinition of boundaries. We are keeping our promise, Mr. Speaker. It is a commitment that has been made by the Premier of our province, by members of our government, by members of our party, and it was known by all in this House and through public statements by all of us that this royal commission, commissioned on January 12 of this year, would have a report before this House during this session. That was well known, well documented, nothing to do with unseemly haste. It was well documented that it would be before this House. We planned to fulfill the promise of electoral reform. We said we would deal with it in this session and we're doing that; that's part of the commit-

ment. The opposition knows full well that the House is winding down. They want: it to wind down. We know that governments only open parliamentary sessions and it's the opposition that can keep the House in session for months at a time; and we've seen them do it. It's in their hands to close the House down and they know it and they know that's why the bill is before them at this time for debate.

The report was delivered to me as Provincial Secretary last Wednesday at 1:15 p.m. and was tabled in this House shortly after 2 p.m. the same day. I want to make that point because it is a very important point to the debate, with all of the accusations that have been made on the floor of this House during this debate. In response to the charges of haste and also to the third charge made in the debate, which I referred to earlier, I refer you to the history of electoral reform in British Columbia. We can go back to the Angus commission of 1965.

MR. LEA: Let's.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, let's just do that. When the government of that day tabled that commission's report, this is what the NDP opposition of the day said - and I refer to the Victoria Times for Saturday, February 5,1966.

MR. LEA: That was the last gerrymander.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, let's just refer to it. I want you to know of the history of royal commissions.

AN HON. MEMBER: The history of Social Credit, you mean.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like, to quote from this report.

"A statement of support by the opposition was read to the Legislature Friday by Alex Macdonald, member for Vancouver East. He said any attempt to tamper with the proposals for new electoral districts which give greater representation to urban areas 'will be construed by the people of the province as political interference and gerrymandering. it is obvious that the commission applied themselves industriously to a very difficult task and they must be applauded for their efforts to do a worthwhile job for the political life of British Columbia. After considerable thought and a thorough examination of the Angus recommendations, and despite the fact that almost one-third of our sitting

[ Page 2664 ]

members are having their present constituencies eliminated, we are of the opinion that the Angus commission's recommendations must be endorsed and accepted in principle without change and should be adopted by the Legislature.'

MR. LEA: What did you do?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, let me tell you. Following that very statesmanlike approach by Mr. Macdonald, then sitting as a member for Vancouver East, Mr. Harry McKay is quoted on February 16 in the Vancouver Sun. Mr. Harry McKay represented Fernie as a Liberal member, and he is referring.... I want to make this clear. This is about a report that was brought in by the Angus commission contrary to the report that is before our House today in the form of a bill, which is word for word as it was delivered last Wednesday in my office. The bill is exactly the same as the report from Judge Eckardt; that's different from that bill. The Angus commission bill did, as a matter of fact, get changed by the government of the day.

MR. MACDONALD: It sure did.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Let me tell you what Mr. McKay said: "It is a blatant, arrogant and contemptuous Act. It is a Social Credit redistribution commission which has overruled the Angus royal commission."

MR. KING: It looks like you've got your own judge.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Just let's listen to this, Mr. Speaker. The Premier, Mr. Bennett, put it all a different way in an interview when he explained the redistribution bill.

"On the whole the government has accepted the recommendations of the royal commission, but there are a few changes. The government is not going to be a party to destroying the constitutional representation of the original settlers or the native Indians, and I am amazed that the NDP was willing to throw their native ridings to the wolves."

Of course, that refers to the fact that at that time Mr. Macdonald made that statesmanlike position - and I think it was statesmanlike - he didn't think anything of eliminating Atlin.

Then, Mr. Speaker , I want to refer you to the 16th, when Mr. Strachan made comments in the Victoria Times. It was reported by the Times legislative reporter at the time, Mr. John Mika:

"But a torrent of bitter words spilled out from both Opposition Leader Robert Strachan and Liberal Leader Perrault, who made corridor comments to reporters. 'This bill was written by two people, Gerry and Mander, ' snapped Mr. Strachan. 'The Premier has used the power of government to do what he wants. He has accepted some recommendations and rejected others to suit his own purposes. We said in the House to tamper with this report would be gerrymandering, and that is still our position.'

"Mr. Perrault said his party would oppose the government move. Seething with anger, he declared: "This is a political bossism of the worst kind. We invested thousands of dollars in a royal commission, but the final decision is made in the Social Credit headquarters back rooms. The Premier couldn't keep his sticky political fingers off the report of the commission. "

Then finally, Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, March 22,1966, the Victoria Times quotes Mr. Macdonald again:

"...protesting the governments 'political tampering with the report of a non-partisan commission, and the vote went to a division called by the Premier. Twentysix voted in favour, including Mr. Calder of the NDP, and 15 against. Six members were paired."

Some of the newer members of the House will not be familiar with the term "paired, " Mr. Speaker. But that used to be the kind of cooperation that we had in past Houses in this Legislature.

That was the climate and that was the debate during the Angus commission report. The government of the day took a report, and because they wanted the North Peace and the South Peace, there were two or three changes to it - not great, not major, not a lot, but they made a couple of changes to give representation to the Peace River country and to leave the native Indian representation as it was respected in this House, as it is today. There were all kinds of screams, Mr. Speaker. This government is presenting a report which is, in total, exactly as it was delivered to us and we're hearing screams as if we had presented something to them that was all fixed by this side of the House.

What screams, what charges of redrafting, redefining and rearranging would we have heard echoing through this chamber had we not delivered it to this House in the form of a bill exactly as it was delivered to my office

[ Page 2665 ]

at 1: 15 last Wednesday? Mr. Speaker, if the government stands accused of gerrymandering, we could not put the report in exactly as the report was received by my office through Judge Eckardt last Wednesday. We could not put it in the form of a bill before this House, as was done. This bill is the embodiment of the royal commission report exactly as produced by the royal commission. In placing this bill before the House, we are in effect submitting the commission's recommendation to the House for acceptance or rejection exactly as it is.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of the bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 27

NAYS - 16

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 38, Constitution 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 40, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 40; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, this Section 1s causing a lot of concern not only with those of us who sit here in opposition, but with the working people of the province. We have been waiting for the annual legislative back-of the-hand to the working people in B.C., and we had to wait this year until this omnibus bill before that back-of-the-hand was delivered -as it is every year by this particular government.

The working people, Mr. Chairman, are going to be denied what should be a basic right in this province and that is, through the collective bargaining process, to have some say with respect to the pensions which they will enjoy when they retire. Mr. Chairman, what we are seeing here tonight is the denial of that right. The minister responsible - in this case the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) - has set out to ensure that workers in this province, as far as the Hydro workers are concerned, will no longer have any say whatsoever with respect to pensions. Mr. Chairman, he's making these workers second-class citizens be cause they will no longer have that basic right which should be allowed to them under the Labour Code and as part of the collective bargaining process.

The Hydro workers, when B.C. Hydro decided to vary their pensions, went to the Labour Relations Board. The Labour Relations Board determined that workers should be entitled to bargain with Hydro as far as their pension schemes are concerned. Hydro appealed to the courts, and this issue, Mr. Chairman, ended UP in the Supreme Court of Canada with the Supreme Court of Canada upholding the position of the Labour Relations Board.

Well, Mr. Chairman, if the Supreme Court of Canada is going to uphold the rights of workers to bargain for pensions as part of a collective bargaining process, that won't do as far as the Minister of Finance is concerned in his capacity as a representative on the Hydro board. That won't do. They mu t then, through legislation, through this omnibus bill, be denied that right, presumably for ever.

What I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, is who this government has next on its list. It's because of the supreme court decision that we are seeing this change which will affect not only those people who are now employed by Hydro, but also in this statute those people who are employed by ICBC, B.C. Rail or the WCB. In one fell swoop they are going to wipe out the rights of those workers to bargain for their pensions.

[ Page 2666 ]

What are they afraid of, Mr. Chairman? Are they afraid that their own Crown corporation, Hydro, is not capable of bargaining the matter of pensions? As the Hydro Act is established the executive council has the right to determine in the end anyway what those pension increases shall be.

Why does this government not have any confidence in the ability of the Hydro executives to be able to manage the affairs of Hydro, including the collective bargaining process, in such a way that this basic right has to be denied the workers? Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if this government is so afraid that their own Crown corporations cannot handle collective bargaining, they should change the boards of directors of these various Grown corporations or else they should haul them in and give them some instructions as to what collective bargaining is all about.

Mr. Chairman, the ruling that was brought in by the Labour Relations Board states very clearly that collective bargaining does not mean that Hydro in this case has to accept what is asked for by the workers. But it does mean that Hydro should sit down and bargain collectively with their employees as far as future pensions are concerned. That's a basic concept of industrial relations in this province. The problem is that this government has no faith whatsoever in the collective bargaining process. They want to deny that right in this particular section of this bill to the Hydro employees.

What's the matter with the Minister of Labour who is allowing this section to go ahead? Does he have no faith in the collective bargaining process? Obviously not or he would not have allowed this to go through cabinet. He would have said that collective bargaining in this province is a very important process, one that we must respect and one that we must ensure is not interfered with and tampered with by the provincial government. The Minis ter of Labour has said nothing about this, Mr. Chairman. He's allowing it to go ahead. It's a direct interference in what should be the collective bargaining process in this province.

Mr. Chairman, when the MLA for Revelstoke Slocan was Minister of Labour, he brought in what is considered the best piece of labour legislation across this country and North America. This government wants to interfere and tamper with it. What's going to happen as a result of it is that we're going to go back to that same old tense, hostile industrial relations climate that we had prior to 1972. This government has not learned a thing. If they are re-elected again, they will do away with the collective bargaining process entirely if you give them a chance. They will bring in right-to-work in this province. That's what will happen. This is only one aspect of their attitude towards collective bargaining in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, on section 2 of this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, the scope is somewhat narrower than what you are actually engaging in debate. I'm sure the member is well aware of the rules of debate when we are in committee. So please just bear that in mind.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I think you recognize that every time this government tampers with the labour legislation and brings it back towards the pre-1972 days, they are in fact inviting the kind of tension and hostility that existed in this province prior to 1972. That's what they are asking for under section 2 of this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

At this stage I would like to have the Minister of Finance, as the minister responsible for Hydro, get up and explain to us why the government feels it is necessary to do away with collective bargaining for pensions as far as Hydro is concerned.

HON. MR. WOLFE: 1 can't help but think that the member is forgetful of the fact that, when the former government was in office, they introduced the Public Service Labour Relations Act, in which the public service were prohibited from bargaining in the matter of superannuation. This was as a result of the Higgins report of that day, having to do with collective bargaining, where it very firmly recommended this very action. This is simply companion to that, to provide that certain Grown corporations also might not have latitude for collective bargaining in the matter of pensions. In addition to this, I might say that, of nine other public utilities in the Dominion of Canada, there is only one in all of Canada which allows for collective bargaining in the matter of pensions. And a great many other private utilities also, of course, do not permit bargaining of pensions.

It is a matter of simply safeguarding the protection of the investment of the funds and of the future viability of these funds and of bringing this legislation into line with the public service legislation, which is handled in the same manner. I might say that these matters also have implications on the borrowing ability of Hydro in very large financial markets.

[ Page 2667 ]

So those are the reasons why this amendment is necessary. The same remarks would hold true, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the amend ments in clause 14, covering the PGE, in number 10 covering the ICBC, and in number 24, associated with the Workers' Compensation Act.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance has given us what I would consider a lot of garbage just now. I think the Minister of Labour (Hon. Hr. Williams) was advising him. But in view of the lateness of the hour, I would move that the committee rise and report progress , I'd be very delighted, Mr. Chairman, to continue on this tomorrow - and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just prior to putting the question, I would ask the member to withdraw the word "garbage."

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, that was a lot of erroneous information that the minister gave us which does not wash. I withdraw the "garbage."

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.