[ Page 9151 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Homeowner Interest Assistance Act (Bill 79). Hon. Mr. Brummet

Introduction and first reading –– 9151

Oral Questions

Employment development bonds. Mr. Stupich –– 9151

Jem Productions. Mrs. Dailly –– 9151

Sale of timber rights near Terrace. Mr. Howard –– 9152

Northeast coal. Mr. Leggatt –– 9152

Tabling Documents

Provincial Capital Commission balance sheet, March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 9154

Science Council of British Columbia annual report.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 9154

Universities Council of British Columbia annual report.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 9154

Constitution Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 80). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 9154

Mrs. Dailly –– 9154

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 9158

Mr. Nicolson –– 9162

Mr. Ree –– 9165

Mr. Cocke –– 9167

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9172

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would like to welcome today my mother and her friends from Parksville, Mr. and Mrs. Hugh Lamont, who are here in the gallery.

Introduction of Bills

HOMEOWNER INTEREST ASSISTANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Brummet presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Homeowner Interest Assistance Act.

Bill 79 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT BONDS

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I started a series of questions to the Minister of Finance about the employment development bonds — so that he knows I'm still on that topic. Has the minister decided to table precise estimates on the disposition of the bond proceeds and the financing of the various interest subsidies and tax subsidies which go along with this latest vote-buying venture?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Those details will be outlined in due course. A number of them relate to future government policy and a number of matters have yet to be finally resolved.

MR. STUPICH: I think we're getting close to the time when they will be resolved.

When this legislation was debated in the House, the minister agreed that the funds could be used for northeast coal development as a job-development program. Can the minister now confirm to the House that the funds raised from the sale of bonds will indeed be used for the northeast coal project?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I believe that that reference was made among a number. I think the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) nods in agreement. It was one of several examples which was identified. I would not want the official opposition to conclude, however, that because it was used as an example the likelihood of that activity is of any particular significance. The precise utilization of those funds is to be determined. It has been determined in part by my colleague the Minister of Human Resources and Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who is chairman of the employment committee. In addition, Mr. Speaker, that also relates to future government policy.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to follow that up just briefly, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the House today that none of the money raised from the sale of these bonds from 1982-83 will be used for job-development programs in connection with northeast coal development?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would think that the answer would be that I could offer that assurance. However, again that relates to future government policy. I would refer the member to the long-standing rules in this House, and in other Houses, with respect to questions in question period about government policy that has yet to be finally developed.

JEM PRODUCTIONS

MRS. DAILLY: My question is to the Provincial Secretary. Could the minister confirm that a company involved in the production of six 15-minute television films, paid for at taxpayers' expense, is one Jem Productions?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's an interesting question, on which I don't have the information readily at hand. However, in view of the interest displayed by the member for Burnaby North, I will take the question as notice. As soon as I can get the information, I'll bring it back and satisfy the member's curiosity.

MRS. DAILLY: This is a new question, and I will preface it with the fact that the only information on which the minister is correct is my riding. He doesn't yet seem to know anything about his portfolio.

Would the minister confirm that Mr. David Brown, a former political adviser to the Premier, is a director of Jem Productions?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That strikes me as being a supplementary question to a question taken on notice. However, as I said a little earlier, the member is curious about this particular matter, so I'll take her supplementary question. Even though I appear to be out of order in accepting a question that is out of order, nevertheless, I'll take that one as notice and bring back the information as quickly as I possibly can.

MRS. DAILLY: Would the minister file with the House the cost and details of the contract between the provincial government and Jem Productions?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do you qualify that as a new question, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: It is a new question.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh. It strikes me as being a supplementary question to the first question.

I'll be glad to look into that and see if there is a contract. I'm not aware if there's a contract or not. I'll be glad to take the question as notice and bring the information back as quickly as possible.

MRS. DAILLY: Would the minister advise the House what the total cost of production of the six 15-minute films and the two-minute films presently being put together by Jem Productions will be?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Absolutely. I will.

[ Page 9152 ]

MRS. DAILLY: Would the minister advise the House what vote these productions will be charged against in the public accounts?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, with all due respect, I think that the Chair has allowed a very wide latitude in what could be construed as possible supplemental questions. I think at this time, since all of the questions have been taken on notice....

MRS. DAILLY: I have one final supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: We'd have a new question....

MRS. DAILLY: Then I shall have a new one. Thank you.

Will the Provincial Secretary assure this House that those films in which David Brown, the former political adviser to the Premier, is involved will not be used in Social Credit Party campaign films?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is yes.

SALE OF TIMBER RIGHTS NEAR TERRACE

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to pose a question to the Minister of Forests. I'd ask the minister if he can confirm that he the minister, consented in January of this year to the sale by MacGillis and Gibbs Ltd., a company that was in existence in Terrace, of harvesting rights to some 40,000 cubic metres of the allowable annual cut timber in the Terrace area to Whonnock Industries Ltd.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm going to have to take that question as notice, because I can't recall every consent and decision made by my ministry and by myself over the years. I will make every effort to get back to the member as soon as I can.

MR. HOWARD: Could I ask another question then, Mr. Speaker?

Can the minister confirm that the price paid for the sale of these harvesting rights — public property — was $900,000?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, since the question has already been taken as notice, with the particulars explained, it would be very difficult to pose that question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, more and more we seem to be deviating from the practice of the House on this matter of supplementary questions. In all the time I've been here since question period was established — both the time I was in opposition and since I've been a member of government — it has been the practice of the House that there be no opportunity for supplementary questions at the time a question is taken as notice. The time for a supplementary question is when the question is answered in the House. Then there's full opportunity for those supplementaries to be asked.

Each time we deviate from the practices of the House, which have been long established and well developed, we weaken the opportunity for the House to function effectively. I'd like the Speaker to take that question and perhaps come back to the House with a ruling at some later time.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon. members, rather than go into the merits of the argument at this time in question period, may we defer any further comments on this until question period has concluded, at which time we may then pursue it, in order that question period may be pursued to its fullest in the House.

MR. HOWARD: Broadway Bob has still got his brains in Times Square. I did not ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I asked a specific question. Can the minister confirm that the price paid for those harvesting rights — public property — was $900,000?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The question asked was taken as notice. This is quite obviously a supplementary to that question. If the member is really interested in seeking information, as is the purpose of question period, I can certainly assist him. If he would like to bring me a list of those questions he would like answered, I'd certainly dig out the information and get it to him. I'm sure this information is also available through normal ministry channels.

MR. HOWARD: It would be a waste of time directing any communication about forests to that minister. He obviously knows nothing about it.

Is the minister aware that one month after he consented to the sale of those harvesting rights — I charge that he did this — MacGillis and Gibbs Ltd. went into receivership, some 40 to 50 workers have lost their jobs, and there is now no possibility of getting MacGillis and Gibbs plant back into operation because there's no timber supply available to them?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I have taken the member's question as notice. I understand that question period is not a time for members to make speeches, but rather a time to ask questions on urgent matters about which they want information.

MR. HOWARD: It's also a time to receive answers, Mr. Speaker, a fact which seems to escape the minister.

Can I ask the minister one other question then? Can he advise the House with respect to the sale of those harvesting rights which he approved — a sale for $900,000 — how much money was received by the Social Credit Party?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, clearly the Chair is at a very real disadvantage when the member stands on what appears to be a new question, which on reflection, I'm sure, the member will realize bears much more similarity to a supplemental than it does to a new question.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. First of all, would the minister finally confirm that the government of British Columbia has decided to borrow all the funds necessary for railroad construction on the northeast coal project? In other words, has the pay-as-you-go promise got up and went? Will you finally confirm to the House that we are borrowing for that Anzac line?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I would have to refer him to the Minister

[ Page 9153 ]

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is the fiscal agent for the British Columbia Railway, that railway that is doing so much to create jobs in this time of need in this great province of British Columbia.

MR. LEGGATT: My next question is directed to the same minister. Earlier in this session the minister went to great lengths to deny reports from Tokyo that Japanese interests had obtained control of the Quintette mine in the northeast coal project. Will the minister now confirm that the Japanese have in fact obtained management control in Quintette, to the effect that as much as a single truck additional to that contract cannot be purchased without Japanese approval?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, you know, I wish that poor guy would get things straight once in a while. I did not deny that....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What we were talking about and what the member was talking about.... He was standing up trying to tell the public of British Columbia that the steel industry of Japan would have control over the northeast project in setting the price of coal. I had to spend a couple of weeks going around the province, Mr. Speaker, just to tell people that the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) was in error. Now he's got the whole thing twisted around again. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I'm glad that the Japanese steel industry, with its vast experience in developing coal mines throughout the world, is taking a look at this project, and certainly they are wanting to find out how much money is being spent and where. So far as I'm concerned that's a good stamp of approval in the international marketplace, because the Japanese steel industry has vast experience in that area.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, with respect to the points raised in question period, Mr. Speaker, I was listening carefully to the questions and there's been some objection taken by the treasury benches to Your Honour's ruling on these questions, which has been, substantially, I think, in the view of any right- and reasonable-thinking member of the House, a correct view. The point is this: that a specific question asked of a minister does not preclude a new question on the same topic if it requires a separate answer and a separate piece of information. It could well be, for example, that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) could not remember giving direct consent or approval and has to look up his notes. On the other hand, he may well have known the full contract price for the sale of the timber rights. The minister did not claim to be completely ignorant of the transaction, and therefore the Speaker was quite correct in ruling that it was not a supplemental question but indeed a new question.

It seems to me — and this is why I stand at this time to continue the point of order — that the ministers, knowing full well that an election is forthcoming, are taking questions on notice, knowing that they will never be required to come up with the answers before the electorate has had a chance to deal with them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has made his point. Again, I'm sure we're all aware of the responsibility we have to follow our standing orders and, of course, the precedents that guide us. I commend that highly to all members.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the only way I can get the floor is on a point of order to ask leave of the House to table a copy of a letter that I wrote on July 29, 1982, to your predecessor relating to procedural matters in the House.

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT: Yesterday, dealing with the emergency debate, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Speaker to give a ruling on the emergency debate that I presented to the House on the serious unemployment in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope to have that later in the day, hon. member.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order concerning the issue raised in question period today, Mr. Speaker, I commend to you the ruling of Speaker Schroeder on June 30, 1982, to be found on page 2 of theVotes and Proceedings for that day: "...as a proper supplementary question seeks clarification or explanation of an answer already given, there cannot be a question supplementary to a question taken on notice."

So the issue you will have to face, Mr. Speaker, is whether it is a new question or a supplementary question. The fact that a member on either side of the House phrases a question without using the word "supplementary" does not in itself mean it is not a supplementary question.

MR. HOWARD: Could I deal with that point of order? I want to raise a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, clearly, we seem to be passing into a debate situation more than points of order. The member has already raised one point of order and another point of order has been responded to.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I submit to you that the point of order raised by the government House Leader, with his affected accent, does not properly reflect the facts that occurred during question period. I want to reiterate them to Your Honour when you're considering this matter.

My first question related to an action of the minister. The second question, which was not supplemental, related to whether he had knowledge of what was done by two parties outside the jurisdiction of his ministry. They're two separate things. The third question, which was not a supplementary, had to do with whether he was aware that the result of anything that may have taken place before, which he consented to, resulted in driving 40 to 50 people out of work and denying them any future opportunities.

MR. SPEAKER: Let us not canvass the discussion again. The member was permitted to raise those questions. Again, the Chair is at some disadvantage when a member indicates that he is going to rise on a new question. The Chair would appreciate the consideration of all members, when they direct a question, that it not be a supplemental.

[ Page 9154 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in order to help you keep the House....

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point of order, hon. member?

MR. COCKE: This is a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. It's a point of order with respect to the decorum of members in our House. When the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), referring to my colleague, says "what an animal," I think it's time this House somehow or other gets back to work in terms of the government and their....

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the balance sheet of the Provincial Capital Commission for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tabled the fourth annual report of the Science Council of British Columbia and the eighth annual report of the Universities Council of British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 80, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued)

HON. MR. CHABOT: This morning, just prior to moving second reading of Bill 80, the Constitution Amendment Act, 1982, a great deal of agitation appeared to be emanating from the opposition. A number of interruptions were taking place, and they seemed very agitated about this piece of legislation.

Before being interrupted — the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) would say "so rudely interrupted" — I was saying that you cannot put a price on fair representation or the right of individuals to voice their opinions at the ballot box. Bill 80, being presented here, offers short- and long-term solutions to the question of equitable representation in this province. The recommendations of Mr. Warren's commission give this Legislature the chance to move British Columbia forward; and anyone who votes against this bill will be denying British Columbians their voice in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MRS. DAILLY: First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on your ascension to that position.

The stench that is emanating from this bill is simply overpowering in this chamber. This bill has been brought to this House by a dying government. This government is dying and won't accept the fact that, with the public of B.C., they are finished. Through this gerrymandering bill they are attempting to perpetuate themselves in power.

The NDP opposition want to give fair warning to the Social Credit government and the Social Credit Party that the people of B.C. have had enough of you and your corruption.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Again I must caution all members that parliamentary language in the heat of debate always tends to be a little more volatile. I would ask the member whether upon reflection she might wish to withdraw that particular remark.

MRS. DAILLY: It is going to be very difficult for me as the leadoff speaker and for my members who are going to follow me to try to couch our debate in what you would call decent terms, because we're dealing with an indecent government.

MR . SPEAKER: Nevertheless, hon. member, I must ask that the term "corruption" be withdrawn in its connotation.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, in all practice and precedent in this House when referring to either a political party or a group there has never been any discussion or interruption from the Speaker with respect to terms such as the member enunciated; when it refers to an individual it's an entirely different proposition. But when it refers to a group it's quite legitimate, I suggest.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate the comment by the member who has just risen. Nevertheless when that term is brought to bear on the government, it includes members, and as such there is a varying difference. We must appreciate the fact that we have rules that guide us in this chamber. With the member's knowledge and command of the English language, certainly she has the ability to express herself in terms that are acceptable in the parliamentary method.

MRS. DAILLY: There is corruption in this province. It is a form of political corruption which we have had placed upon us in this Legislature by the Social Credit government. It is through this bill that I intend to bring forward to this House.... In time the official opposition will bring forward to every citizen in British Columbia what is being brought forward by a government which, as I said, will not accept the fact that their days are numbered. In their desperation to perpetuate themselves in office they have decided that the only way they can do it is by bringing forward to this House a bill that is the ultimate in gerrymandering.

But, you know, Mr. Speaker, if I may take you and the members of this House back in history, we should not be shocked or surprised that the Social Credit government is indulging in this reprehensible manner of dealing with constitutional reform. We have just to look at the history. In fact, we can go back to the 1952 election, just prior to Social Credit's coming in, when the Liberals, the Conservatives and the beginning of the Social Credit government were on the scene in British Columbia. May I take you back to that period and show you the kind of history of this province that we hoped we were finished with? Instead, in 1982 we find a government that is becoming the champion of gerrymandering, not only in Canada but in the whole continent of North America. Two cases by one government of gerrymandering.

There's no question in our minds, before I go into the history of what has happened to this province, that the Eckardt report was gerrymandering and that Gracie's Finger was premeditated. It became such an embarrassment to this government that they had to withdraw it — but not because they believed it was wrong, not because the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) would accept the fact that it was a total embarrassment. They only withdrew it under the heat of political pressure.

I want to take you back and show you what the NDP, and formerly the CCF, have had to put up with, as well as the people of British Columbia. When you try to make the opposition the victims of gerrymandering, you are insulting

[ Page 9155 ]

every citizen in British Columbia. Just prior to the 1952 election, the Liberal administration.... I thought this would be of particular interest to the Liberals who sit on that side of the House couched in a cloak of...what shall we call it? We don't know what the Social Credit is.

Just prior to 1952, the Liberal administration in British Columbia, with the support of Conservative members, passed legislation which established a preferential voting procedure throughout the province. Do you know the purpose of this reform? It was to facilitate the election of a free enterprise government and foreclose the possibility of the election of a CCF government. What has changed? In 1952, the purpose of that government was to do anything they could to keep out the CCE. In 1982, we are faced with a dying government that is desperately once again trying to keep the NDP from power. They can't do it by their ideas, they can't do it by their policies, so they are going to use political corruption to keep us out.

Those of us who have studied B.C. history are aware of what happened — the CCF was kept out of power. The interesting thing is that in 1953 we again have a B.C. election, but this time the Social Credit candidates actually obtained a plurality, despite the preferential. So the Premier at that time — Premier Bennett Sr. — naturally decided to abolish preferential voting and return to the single plurality, because it was going to benefit his government and his party.

Then we move to 1966 and another opportunity for a government to have a change in boundaries, and look what happened. There was an editorial in the Province for Thursday, February 17, 1966, entitled "Mr. Bennett's Margin of Safety:"

"So Premier Bennett just couldn't resist tampering with the Angus royal commission's plan for redistribution. What a pity. It's puzzling too, isn't it? Does Premier Bennett really think the possible margin of safety afforded by retaining a couple of government-oriented northern ridings is worth inviting opposition cries of political meddling and gerrymandering?"

It's history repeating itself.

Then we come to 1978, a Social Credit government again. In the meantime, the NDP appointed a three-person commission. I want to remind the House that the NDP has been asking for, and I personally have moved amendments asking for, an electoral reform in this province, which this Social Credit government does not want to touch because they want to have the opportunity to manipulate election reform in this province.

What's really interesting, Mr. Speaker, are the two reports I have in my hand here. Most of us received them today. You'd think they were both Warren's report, wouldn't you? Well, as a matter of fact, one is Warren's report. Guess what the other one is. The other one is Eckardt's report. Both bound the same. What a farce! Why didn't you just put on it "The Social Credit Party Election Reform"? What's the difference?

Here is a government that picks its own person — one person — in the case of Judge Eckardt, a former Social Credit candidate, to rearrange the seats in British Columbia. And what did Judge Eckardt do?

MS. BROWN: Don't call him a judge.

MRS. DAILLY: Whatever his name was at the time. Well, Judge Eckardt. What did he do? He eliminated three NDP seats. Imagine that! I can't understand that. One person appointed by the Social Credit government and what does he do? He comes up and he eliminates three NDP seats. It's a very strange coincidence.

What's even stranger, Mr. Speaker, is when you read — if I can find it here — what Judge Eckardt used as his rationale for doing what he did in eliminating the three seats. If you can bear with me, I'll just find that particular item. What he did — in the meantime, I think I can pretty well remember it — is that he decided — and now I've found it, Mr. Speaker.... I want to read you a quote from Eckardt just to show you how this Social Credit government used these reports to manipulate the seats in their favour. Judge Eckardt said:

"It's necessary in a parliamentary system 'to have a relatively intimate atmosphere.' It is disruptive if you cannot see the colour of the eyes of those on the other side of the floor, let alone the colour of the shirt of the fellow" — how do you like that one? — "in the corner of the room. You pay attention to the people you know. You tend to ignore the people you only know by name or reputation."

And so it goes on. That folksy little statement there is the basis for Judge Eckardt deciding that he shouldn't increase seats at that time, but instead should eliminate them.

The only other fact behind the elimination of three NDP seats was: "We are concerned that this chamber could not afford to physically hold any more seats." Now we know the basis upon which hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money are spent by the government to produce an electoral reform that will just try to perpetuate them in power.

So Judge Eckardt, on the basis of our not being able to see the colour of each other's eyes across the floor, decided that he couldn't enlarge this House. Do you know why? Because the Social Credit government at that time was worried about those three seats. They were held by strong NDP members, so they wanted them eliminated. And eliminate them they did. But the people of B.C. were not fooled: they still elected those three members from the NDP. And they won't be fooled with this report. Therefore the government of that time — the same government that sits over there now — in 1978 used the colour of the eyes and the fact this chamber isn't big enough to eliminate three members from NDP ridings.

So what happens? They then appoint another one-person commission, even over the objections of the commissioner whom they appointed. And what comes out of that? The complete reverse. This time they're not worried about whether this chamber can hold enough seats or not. It's not concerning them at all. They're not worried about the colour of the eyes that we can't see across the floor. What they're seeing is: "Oh, we've got a couple of little ridings" — in size and population, that is — "such as Cariboo and Peace River. Do you know, they always go Socred. The time has come for us to double the seats there so we can maintain Social Credit in, those ridings." So in 1978 it's obvious Eckardt was told to eliminate on the basis of the colour of eyes in this chamber; and then in 1982, again, we have the government manipulating and increasing the seats in Social Credit ridings.

Mr. Speaker, how can those members, who are supposed to be honourable members of this Legislature, sit there and be part of a plot and a plan by their, whoever it is, government? You're all responsible; you're all part of it. How can you sit there and allow yourselves to be part of a plan that is not right,

[ Page 9156 ]

that is reprehensible, that is unethical and that is politically corrupt?

We are debating this important bill and the Premier of this government is not even in the House. He is out electioneering — preparing for the election. Even though he's out there announcing programs, those programs are so weak that he still has to ensure his government; he has to manipulate electoral reform in this province to try to ensure their seats. They are so unsure of winning on whatever their policies are that they won't leave this chamber until they can manipulate the change. Let me tell you, you won't leave this chamber easily. The NDP opposition intends to make sure that the people of this province know what a reprehensible, unethical government is in power in this province.

Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing is that the things I'm discussing today with you have been completely backed up and endorsed by people who are in no way, shape or form NDP advocates. In that light, I would like to point out to you some of the recent comments that have been made in some very conservative journals about the possibility of this Social Credit government going so far as to manipulate electoral reform in this province for their own purposes. Some of their own members are shocked. I can't understand how some of those so-called honourable members can sit there throughout this debate and not say: "Look, we've had enough. We can't be part of it." Does power mean so much to the Social Credit government that you want to corrupt the whole political process of this province? What an example to set for the young people of this province, who are cynical enough today about politics. Now they're going to find out that the government that has been in power in this province for seven years has maintained itself and is trying to maintain itself in power again by manipulating and changing the rules of the game to suit its purpose.

We have the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) piously talking about wanting to get schools back to the values, and religion back in the classroom. I say let's bring some Christian ethics right here onto the floor of this House. In the same Christian ethic, I want to make it clear that all the other religions and their values would be welcomed here, if this House could be based on those values. So that is really hypocrisy coming from that Minister of Education. Set the example, but don't go around this province speaking out of both sides of your mouths.

Even the Vancouver Province, September 9, 1982, said: "One Riding, One Member. "Electoral Reform Commissioner Warren's plan for six more two-member ridings and one three-member riding in B.C. is a poor stopgap measure.... Multi-member ridings tend to stay around in B.C. once they're in place...." They go on to point out how they are not really fair because the party that is in power in that riding usually maintains and perpetuates itself. It is pretty obvious what the Social Credit government is doing. They know it's wrong to perpetuate multi-member ridings, but if it will get them elected, they're going to do it. This whole government never bases itself on what is right ethically. What they are doing is: "What can we do to keep in power?" What price power! To listen to the new Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) talking about the values of democracy and what price on a seat.... How can he sit there when he knows that if the Warren commission followed its own mathematical formula his seat wouldn't even be in this House any more? We hope that when he closes the debate, if he wants to get into the rationale of that, he will explain to us why he is still going to be sitting here if he manages to get elected. I will tell you, if you try to go out on the hustings with this kind of political corruption, you are finished.

The point is that the Social Credit government is attempting to rationalize the acceptance of the multi-ridings in Social Credit areas....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Step outside and say that, big mouth!

MR. BARNES: You go out. I'll tell you outside.

MS. BROWN: Pick on someone your own size!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Burnaby North has the floor. It is her right to be heard uninterrupted. It seems most illogical that we're talking about democracy and are not even allowing a member who has taken her place on the floor of this chamber to say what she has to say. I ask members to bear that in mind and permit the member to carry on, as is her right. It is our responsibility to hear her.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just hope you will accept the fact that this debate will be emotionally charged. There is no way we can avoid it. We'll attempt to keep within the bounds of the rules of this House. But you know, Mr. Speaker, we don't have a very good example. We're asked to keep within the bounds on the floor of this House, but that government changes the rules for their own election purposes. Two wrongs don't make a right. I know that if the NDP fall into this same politically corrupt manner of the Social Credit government, there's no hope for this province. Some party has a responsibility to point out to the public of B.C. what is being done to them by the Social Credit government.

In the Province editorial of September 9 it was stated: "There's no question that some ridings" may need larger seats, but "correcting such imbalances is an ongoing practice in a province as large as B.C.... The imbalances should be corrected in ways that do as little harm as possible to the ideals of ballot-box democracy. Multi-member ridings do more harm than good." Here is theVancouver Province, which is not noted to be a political supporter of the NDP, coming out and expressing their concern about ballot-box democracy. That's what it's all about.

The Province goes on to say:

"The citizen in a two-member riding has two votes while those in others merely have one. Furthermore, multi-member representation favours the party strong in those ridings, and in this case the Socreds must be gleefully rubbing their hands. If the traditional form prevails they can pick up five or six more comfortable seats. Mr. Warren may have had little option under the government's terms of reference...."

That's interesting. There's almost an implication here that there was some direction. The NDP is not afraid to come right out and say that that report was manipulated by the Social Credit government.

[ Page 9157 ]

Then Mr. Warren goes on to say that all these ridings should be abolished. It's almost ridiculous when you have a man who makes some very strong, cogent arguments against everything that he ends up recommending. It's unbelievable. One is certainly led to question whose hand may have been involved in the final decision on recommendations.

I mentioned the Vancouver Province. The Vancouver Sun of September 9 also expressed concern and shock that ridings such as Cariboo and North Peace River should have an extra member. They said it has been

"recommended on the basis of a mathematical formula that has absolutely no relevance to the needs of either the constituents or their representatives. Mr. Warren might as well have awarded another seat to the riding with the most lakes, the most mountains or the most dogwood trees. By using a geographical ruler to put two Social Credit ridings ahead of other areas...."

Let me point out that there are nine other ridings that are larger in population than these two ridings that magically were selected to be increased. But the interesting thing is that the majority of those are NDP-held. "Mr. Warren destroyed his own credibility and opened a political Pandora's box that will make the Gracie's Finger wrangle seemed like a high school debate." This is from the Vancouver Sun: "The Social Credit Party is probably overjoyed with Mr. Warren's report. But before acting on it the government should carefully consider one thing." It goes on to point out to them the cost of the seats, etc. Here again we have the Premier speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He's telling everyone to pull in their belts, but at the same time he's saying he really feels sorry for the MLA for Cariboo and the one for Peace River. They need more help, so let's give another $650,000 to create those new seats at a time of restraint.

I don't care if the Provincial Secretary wants to say the NDP puts a price on democracy. We put a price on justice and proper electoral reform in this province, and on honesty. That's what we put a price on — above all, honesty. How that Provincial Secretary can sit there and present this bill and try to rationalize it.... I want to assure him that there's no way the people of this province can accept this bill. I assure you that if you intend to ram this bill through before the next election you are going to regret it. The people of B.C. do put a price on democracy; they put a strong price. They want their political leaders to have some form of political morality, integrity and honesty. If you persist in bringing in this bill, you do not have political morality, you do not have honesty, and you are suggesting to the people of this province that you are politically corrupt.

Back again to Gracie's Finger. That, of course, was one of the most overt signs of an attempt by this government, who were just a little bit afraid that they might not get those two members elected from Vancouver–Little Mountain, so they took the chance. They don't do any subtle gerrymandering. There's nothing subtle, nothing silent, about the gerrymandering by the Social Credit government. Do you know why? Because there's a basic arrogance in the Social Credit government that they think they can get away with it. They think the people of B.C. are so busy with economic problems right now, what are they going to care about a few little seats being changed here and there? Let me tell you, when you underestimate the political standards and ethics of the citizens of B.C., you don't belong in office.

You know, Mr. Warren collected over $400 a day. I could be corrected, but I understand it cost about $2.5 million for this whole exercise. Is that correct? Whatever it was, we know it was a considerable sum of money that would mean a lot to people who are out of work today. Whatever the total came to you can correct me. What I'm saying is: what a waste of money!

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: All right, so you can correct me on the figures, Mr. Provincial Secretary. Apparently that's the only argument you're going to have with me, that you can disagree with me on the cost. Whatever the cost is — I don't care if it's ten cents or a hundred thousand dollars — it was a complete waste of money. You used the taxpayers' money to manipulate yourselves into what you think will be power again. Let me tell you, from your point of view, it is going to be a waste.

When we again go through the fact that Mr. Warren, in bringing out his recommendations, ignored his own formula completely.... By the way, Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet, I just recall the two and a half million dollars which I know Mr. Provincial Secretary will come back with, referred to, I think, the total cost of something other than the redistribution by Mr. Warren. Is that correct, Mr. Provincial Secretary? We'll hear from you later on that.

The matter of the cost of this has been questioned by a number of people in the province at this time. They look at it this way: they say, if you're going to have redistribution why should it not be done properly? What was the great haste to rush this redistribution program in? In the dying hours of the session we find that Mr. Warren is appointed. Two and a half months later Mr. Warren brings in a report. All of a sudden we are all rushed back into the Legislature under the presumption by the people of B.C. that the Premier of this province has some legislation that has to do with the economy to be brought forward here this week. Isn't it interesting that the only legislation that we're dealing with at the moment is on this electoral reform, which I want to point out again apparently is the whole reason for this exercise here this week.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Somebody says "tommyrot."

Where is the Premier today? He's not making his new announcements on the floor of this Legislature where he should be. He's making them outside as the start for his political campaign coming up. He can't even face the members of this House. He has to go out and do a big PR hype job. We and all his little army, including that new Provincial Secretary, are left here to attempt to defend the worst manipulation and gerrymandering this province has ever seen, while the Premier is outside hoping that he can get some PR and divert the public's attention from what's really going on here in this province.

We do know that the people of B.C. are concerned about the economy. The very fact that the Social Credit government has had to manipulate electoral reform in this province, I repeat, shows that they don't have the answers. They're afraid to go to the polls, so the only way they can go to the polls is by gerrymandering. It's pretty reprehensible that the people of B.C. are going to have a chance to judge what they think of a government that is so devoid of policies on which they can win an election that they have to manipulate and create multiple ridings in Social Credit ridings.

[ Page 9158 ]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The editorials that have come out and the hot-line moderators, many of whom we know are certainly not NDP supporters, have expressed almost shock and dismay at the fact that even their government, or the government which they may support, would be so blatantly unconcerned about ramming through an electoral reform for their own political, crass purposes. I think that when you find that some of your own supporters are concerned, it's about time you looked at yourselves. I think it's about time that you should say to yourselves that perhaps it is true that power does corrupt.

Some of you have been sitting in those offices as cabinet ministers for seven years now. Obviously you've become out of touch with some very basic, decent standards that should exist in our society. You have become so obsessed, apparently, with the power of your ministerial responsibilities that you don't want to give them up fairly. Instead, it has become necessary to rig the rules of the game and enter into the next campaign based on political manipulation.

We could go through report on report, editorial upon editorial, which points out that there is no rational reason for the acceptance by any government of a report that is so hastily drawn and so blatantly geared to the ensuring the Social Credit government's re-election. I want to point out again that we have two blue copies here; one is the Eckardt report and the other is the Warren report. All I can say is, that you're not very subtle about many things, so why don't you come right out in the open and simply entitle these reports "the Social Credit Party reform bill"? That's what it is.

There are a great number of speakers in the NDP official opposition who want to take part in what we consider the most important debate that has taken place in this province in many years, because what is at stake here is the survival of honesty and decency in government. If those members over there and that Provincial Secretary put this bill through, I can assure you, you're not going to win on it. But even in presenting it in this House, as I said at the beginning of my speech, you have created an odour in this chamber that is going to take a long time to remove. It is a stench that will take many, many years to remove. You have done irreparable damage to government and to your positions here as legislators by presenting this gerrymandering bill.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Social Credit government: stand up and show some shame. Show that you understand that you are destroying the principles of freedom and democracy in this province if you persist in putting through this, what I would have to call, totalitarian, centralized, manipulative bill. Democracy is at stake if this bill passes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: With respect to the bill before us, and the report which produced the bill known as the Warren commission report, to which the member who just took her seat referred several times, and the information which was contained within that report, and a few comments about the recommendations made by Commissioner Warren with respect to increased representation by MLAs in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.... The report, as produced by Mr. Warren and his staff, described the population shifts in the province of British Columbia, along with reference to geographical features by way of square miles in the existing constituencies of the province. The reference to population along with square miles seems to have been considered by previous commissions with respect to equitable representation within this Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, Commissioner Warren mentioned in his report that it was not his intention to make boundary changes, with that one noted exception in the Little Mountain riding. The members who have discussed this matter in the House, either in this debate or in previous debates by way of points of order, or other methods whereby they have obtained the floor, have made reference to the report as "sleazy," "corrupt, " and the member for Burnaby had some new phrases she tossed in. I ask the members to consider some of the recommendations made and to also consider who was making the comments with respect to this report, which they believe to be a great threat to democracy within our province.

The member for Victoria commented today about this report — how unacceptable it is and so on. It's worth noting that Victoria, with a population of 79,000 people, has two members in this assembly — 79,000 citizens in Victoria, with two members. That 79,000 comes close to the average within the metropolitan areas of Vancouver and Victoria; in Vancouver it's about 42,000 per member, and it's somewhat less, but similar, in Victoria. So here we have a member for Victoria complaining that we shouldn't add more members, but he didn't suggest Victoria should have fewer members with its 79,000 population. Two members for Victoria. Do we take into consideration the geography of Victoria — 11 square miles? So geography is apparently not a consideration the commissioner would have taken into consideration.

My constituency is Richmond. It is not a large constituency geographically; it's only 50 square miles. One member for Richmond, with a population of 96,000 people and growing very rapidly — 96,000 people in 1982. The population in my constituency of Richmond, with one member, exceeds the population of Vancouver East, Vancouver Centre, Vancouver South, Vancouver–Little Mountain and Victoria, all of which have two members. I would suggest that if members in this House are saying that this report, which they refer to as corrupt and sleazy and everything else.... If they're suggesting that the recommendation contained in that report that the constituency of Richmond, with 96,000 people, for some twisted socialist reason....

MR. COCKE: It was your commissioner that created that situation.

MR. KEMPF: Keep your mouth shut for a moment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) not to interrupt.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, if these socialists are suggesting that the 96,000 people in Richmond somehow do not deserve two representatives to serve their needs in this constituency in this assembly, but yet can support two representatives from their ridings of Vancouver East and Victoria, and if they somehow believe that the city of Vancouver requires all this representation and that's okay, I can't understand it. Nor can the people of Richmond including the NDP association in Richmond which recommended to the commissioner that there be two seats. In fact, all of the submissions from Richmond were almost the same — from all sides.

[ Page 9159 ]

Richmond, with 96,000 in population and growing, is certainly in line for two seats, as recommended by commissioner Warren.

Some of the members opposite who have been making so much noise.... If you look at the numbers, New Westminster, as an example, has a population of 38,000. That's about the average. New Westminster is not a large geographic area. Nelson-Creston, with one member, has 39,000. That's about average throughout the province.

Apparently Commissioner Warren and his mathematicians and statisticians and the rest of them decided to take two matters into consideration: population, population growth and geography. If you look at the list of population you'll find Surrey the largest with 161,000 people and growing. The commission provided an additional member. Richmond, with 96,000, gets an additional member. Vancouver East, Vancouver Centre, Vancouver South, Little Mountain and Victoria already have two. The next largest population centre was Okanagan South, with 78,000 people, and the commissioner recommended two seats in a 1,100-square-mile constituency — by interior standards, it's relatively small. Kamloops was the next one, with 77,000. That's almost as large in population as eleven- square-mile Victoria, but this opposition party would say the people in Kamloops should be denied a second member, even though they have 2,000 less than Victoria. But because Victoria is held by the NDP and has two seats, and Kamloops is not held by the NDP, it's a sleazy report and should not be adopted. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said it destroys democracy. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) says right on. The people in Kamloops and the people in Richmond, according to the opposition, the citizens, are unworthy of equitable representation in numbers in this House, according to them. They talk about manipulation and they talk about democracy and the rest of their jargon that's so easy to throw around. They think they invented democracy. That's why they changed the name of their party to the New Democratic Party — because somebody suddenly discovered what they believed to be democracy.

It's good enough to have 79,000 population in an 11-square-mile constituency of Victoria and have two members. That's okay, but it's wrong to have two members for 77,000 population in Kamloops with 8,000 square miles and several communities — not the nice little precincts in Victoria. Two members are okay in Victoria, but don't put two members in Kamloops. The growth areas of British Columbia at this time are represented by Social Credit members for a good reason: people who grow are people who are positive. Those areas of the province which are positive and are growing support the Social Credit Party.

The eleventh area of population in the provincial constituencies is Delta with 74,000 — same discussion, same argument. Delta's not that large geographically, with 73 square miles. What's the population? Seventy-four thousand. It's okay to have two members in Victoria, but it's wrong to have two members in Delta with 74,000 people and a somewhat larger geographic area. Delta happens to be represented by Social Credit, therefore it's wrong, it's undemocratic and it's sleazy, and it continues on. We find Cariboo, with 61,000 people, which is below these others of 77,000 and 75,000. But as I mentioned, the commissioner's report took geography into consideration in its balance and formula. Cariboo is 34,000 square miles and has many centres of population.

MR. COCKE: And 31,000 registered voters.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for New Westminster makes a very good point about registered voters. The member for New Westminster presumes, I presume, that a person who is not a registered voter is not a constituent. I presume that if you have young children in a constituency in a growth area, such Richmond or or Delta or Surrey, the MLA doesn't represent them because they're not registered voters; therefore they should not be represented. We go by population, people's needs — individuals, registered or not. The member can argue that all he wants. He can call it sleazy, and the rest of that group can call it sleazy. Believe me, I'm sure they are very familiar with that word.

The designated speaker from Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) read some newspaper articles. If there's one thing all of us in this chamber know, it's that newspapers always have all the answers after the fact. When Mr. Warren was holding his commission hearings throughout this province, I didn't see those newspapers produce their formula and their answer. Once something is printed, it's easy to take it apart. Any report is easy to take apart. The Vancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun have all the answers. Ever since John Fryer said, "Hey, we like your idea," they were anointed. They now have all the answers to all questions. Of course, the difference is that neither theVancouver Province nor the Vancouver Sun was asked to bring in a report. Commissioner Warren was asked to bring in a report — and he did.

It was suggested that Surrey, with a population of 161,000 people, have a third member; Richmond, with 96,000 people, have two members; Okanagan South, with 78,000 people, two members; Kamloops with 77,000 people and 8,000 square miles, two members; Delta, with 74,000 people and 73 square miles, two members; Cariboo, with 61,000 people and 34,000 square miles, and North Peace River, with 31,000 people and 62,000 square miles.... But because most of these areas are represented by the Social Credit Party, it's undemocratic. It's okay to have Vancouver East, with 89,000 people and nine square miles, have two members. It's okay to have Victoria, with 79,000 people and 11 square miles, have two members. Apparently that's not undemocratic; it's New Democratic. It's okay to have one member in Burnaby North for 51,000 people. Why shouldn't Richmond be equally pleased to have one member with 96,000 people? It's all right for Burnaby-Edmonds to have one at 40,000: that's about 47 percent of Richmond's population. Burnaby-Willingdon, with 43,000 — that's all right. That's about average for the metropolitan area. Richmond is not average. It has in excess of double the population, and the others are almost double. In Surrey, it's more than that.

So it's undemocratic to give equal or nearly equal representation to the people who live in Surrey, Richmond, Delta, Okanagan South and Kamloops just by population alone. It's undemocratic, according to the socialists. But it's not undemocratic to have similar ratios in constituencies that are held by the NDP. They come out with all this garbage about their being the bastions of democracy, the protectors of human rights and everything else that's nice and motherhood and pure and proper. They talk about manipulation. They offend a person who accepted a job as commissioner. They question whether that individual was manipulated, whether the government interfered. They brought in the Norris commission. It wasn't brought in, I should say; it was referred to by the member. It was due October 31, 1975. An order-in-

[ Page 9160 ]

council of October 30, 1975, extended the deadline to November 8, 1975. On November 3, they called an election. Therefore, we determine that the party of the day, the NDP, were unaware on October 30 that they were calling an election on November 3, and the extension of the receipt of this report did not occur to avoid this report being received, made public and acted upon. Coincidentally, the report was extended one week, and an election was called. The report was never acted upon, or Burnaby would have had four seats.

You wouldn't present the thing. You extended it, changed the terms of reference and modified the deadline. You brought the thing in and called an election before it could be tabled. You talk about wasting money. You hire a commissioner and staff, go around and spend months and months to gather this information, and you haven't got the guts to even accept it. You talk about wasting money. You wasted money calling an election five days before this report was returned to the government. What happens to the report? In the chute. Talk about wasting money!

You mean to tell me that you're going to go through all the trouble of hiring a commissioner and staff, holding public hearings all around this province, and then not even make it possible for them to present that report by changing the order-in-council and calling an election? What good is the report then? Talk about phony! It's reminiscent of their style.

They called the election for two reasons, among others. They didn't want to bring in a budget. This would indicate that they didn't want to bring in this report, so they extended it to a point in time where they really couldn't accept it because the Legislative Assembly was dissolved. They talk about sleazy and the waste of public money. The Norris report may have been a very good report, but it was too bad that it was rendered........

MRS. DAILLY: If it was so good, why did you get Eckardt?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I said it may have been good. Your government had it, commissioned it and threw it in the garbage. Order-in-council extended that deadline to November 8 to ensure that an election was called.... Unless they didn't know they were going to call an election and it came in a vision in the night.

The citizens of Richmond have a message for the socialists. They do not appreciate being told that the 96,000 citizens living in Richmond are unworthy of equal representation by number in this Legislative Assembly. The people of Richmond live in the shadow of the big city of Vancouver, just as the people in Coquitlam, Burnaby, New Westminster and others do. The city of Vancouver for many years has had certain privileges afforded it by this Legislative Assembly, including their own act, and always including strong representation in this assembly — as it should be with the major city in the province.

But the communities around greater Vancouver no longer look upon Vancouver as the only act in town around the lower mainland. They demand equitable treatment. Richmond's population has been growing by leaps and bounds. When we had 15,000 people living in Richmond we shared with Delta, a constituency known as Delta. Later, when the population of Richmond reached such proportions it finally received its own seat, Richmond. As our population grew past 50,000, 60,000, 70,000 and 80,000 we were still sitting there watching Vancouver with a population 10 times ours but 10 or 12 times the members. We watched and watched, and as our population neared 100,000 we thought maybe it's about time we got some form of equitable representation by numbers. We are not arguing the point that Vancouver East has 89,000 or Vancouver Centre has 89,000, or Victoria has 79,000 and we have 96,000. We'll call it even. We'll take our two seats and they can have their two seats. The people of Richmond have every right to demand that they have the same number of members in this House as these other metropolitan areas.

They call it sleazy. They call it undemocratic. The people in Richmond who go to vote get half a vote each — if you want to use numbers. One member for 96,000 people; Victoria has two members for 79,000 people. They get two and a half votes. It's undemocratic to make that equitable. Surrey, Richmond, Kamloops, Okanagan South, Delta and so on — these people, I believe, are citizens who made their representation to the commission. They indicated that they would like to be treated fairly. They would like to have an equal voice in this assembly as these other areas now have. I don't think that's undemocratic. It may not be New Democratic, but we know their style.

Mr. Speaker, it doesn't offend members on this side of the House to hear that type of garbage argument, because we expect that. The people in the constituencies, however, are offended by the comments by their leader who just got sunstroke in California and finally got back. He decided it was sleazy and it was this and it was that. The people are offended for a number of reasons. First of all, to say this report is sleazy and should be thrown away and not acted upon.... People of my constituency of Richmond are saying: "Who do they think they are, telling us we're second-class citizens? Why should the 100,000 people in Richmond be represented by only one member in this House, when NDP ridings have two members and a smaller population and a smaller geographic base.

Second, and perhaps more important, for some reason these members who claim to believe in democracy, the system, the structure and all the rest of that identify constituencies and future members as belonging to a political party. They suggest that certain constituencies in the province belong to a political party. Seven new seats may be added. My understanding of our system is that those seven seats will be decided by the voters in the constituency, not by the party. If constituencies belong to a political party, as those people believe, then presumably the representation in this assembly would never change. Richmond at one time had an NDP member. Delta at one time had an NDP member. Some of Vancouver Centre at one time had Social Credit members. Kamloops had an NDP member. Now these people have decided they belong to Social Credit. Well, maybe the people will say that. I understood, at least, that it was the people's right to make that decision, not the socialists' right to determine that.

MR. MITCHELL: They will.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's correct. They will, Mr. Esquimalt, and this is exactly the point.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) not to interrupt.

[ Page 9161 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the members have suggested that this report was designed to give added representation for political purposes only. That's what they suggested, despite the numbers, the population and the equitable distribution of seats in this assembly. I think a person who reads the report and looks at those numbers may be persuaded that these constituencies deserve equitable representation in this chamber. Had the commissioner suggested that the Vancouver constituencies — Vancouver East, Centre, South and Little Mountain, all with populations under 90,000 — be reduced to one member, then I know the people of Richmond would say it was becoming more equitable. I know it's tough to drive around those eight-square-mile constituencies, but some of them managed to do it. The Leader of the Opposition from Vancouver East has got nine square miles, but he's got two members.

AN HON. MEMBER: He lives in Victoria.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's a longer trip to get there from Esquimalt, where he lives. But once he gets there it's only four and a half miles if they split it in half; so that's not too bad. The other member can go from Point Grey, where he lives, to Vancouver East. So they can visit it and it's really not too difficult to get around twice a year.

I really find the arguments coming across the floor from the NDP on this bill to be very self-serving. They tell us that it's undemocratic to give equal representation to a constituency. That, according to them, is undemocratic. It is undemocratic to allow the 96,000 persons in Richmond to have two members in this assembly, but it is not undemocratic to allow the 79,000 people in Victoria to have two members in this assembly, or two members from those Vancouver constituencies having two. Richmond's population exceeds that of every constituency in this province except Surrey, which has two members. So it's undemocratic to allow Richmond to have two, and Kamloops and the others. Undemocratic, according to them — they who think they invented the system.

The matter will not be resolved in this chamber. The legislation may be passed in this chamber, but the matter will not be resolved. The matter will be resolved at some time by the people of the province, by the people who live in those constituencies. When the next election is called in this province, one of the most interesting propositions on the hustings — and I look forward to it in Richmond — is to ask the NDP why they nominated a second member — to bring about the end of democracy, presumably. They're saying to us that it's undemocratic, that it's going to destroy democracy to bring seven more members into this chamber, yet they will be nominating people to get those jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope not.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Apparently they will. The NDP association in Richmond spoke to the Warren commission and they recommended two members. They hadn't got the official line. The leader was in California and they didn't know who to call. They weren't sure. They thought for a moment: is it asking too much to have two members when you have almost 100,000 population? I don't think so, they said; I think that's reasonable. That's what they asked for. But now apparently it's going to threaten democracy and probably curdle milk or something.

The bill before us is pretty straightforward in what it suggests and what it says. It talks about establishing a permanent three-member commission. I think that concept and idea has been put forward by every royal commission or commission of inquiry into electoral reforms since day one. We support the concept of a permanent commission. I just hope it doesn't get mired in endless bureaucracy, that they get to do a job. Elected members and others would offer them some very good thoughts and suggestions as to how the whole matter can be resolved at some time in the future.

We are looking at the facts as they are before us today. To repeat, members of the opposition have come up with terminology today, with respect to this bill and to the Warren commission, that it's sleazy, it's corrupt, it's going to destroy democracy. When you look at what the bill says.... The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), who was speaking before me, never really referred to the bill. She referred to the Province editorial, the Sun editorial and all these other references, but not to the bill itself, to what it says and what it does. No numbers were used because they would expose the truth. I'll go back over it for a moment, because maybe some of these members haven't had the opportunity of reading the report themselves.

It's undemocratic, according to the socialist NDP, to allow Richmond, with 96,000 people, to have two members. The same thing for Okanagan South with 78,000, Kamloops with 77,000 and 8,000 square miles, Delta with 75,000 people and 73 square miles, Cariboo with 61,000 and 34,000 square miles, North Peace with 34,000 and 62,000 square miles. They call that undemocratic. They apparently do not feel that Victoria, with two members at 79,000, is undemocratic, because they happen to have those seats. These are other areas. Vancouver Centre, whose member has just entered the chamber, has 89,000 population and two members. That's pretty reasonable representation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sometimes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, they have one and a half members. That's not undemocratic apparently. But to provide equitable representation to those growing areas of British Columbia is going to destroy what they consider to be democracy. That's a pretty sad comment. They talk about inconsistencies. They talk about the commission's not solving every problem in the world; but they don't refer to some of the other constituencies in the province.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said W.A.C. Bennett refused to accept a recommendation that Atlin no longer have a seat in this House, and I remember that. I remember W.A.C. said Atlin was a historic part of this province; it was one of the original areas and deserved a member. We have a member here from Atlin, and I'm sure that we will continue to have a member here from Atlin — not very big in population, but big in size. They have a member and they have had a member for many, many years.

I think the argument will find its way. The resolution will be reached when the people of the province, in those constituencies, tell the NDP what they think about denying them equal representation in this chamber. That's not a very complicated message for anyone to understand. The NDP suggested that it's undemocratic to bring about more equitable representation. I would suggest that their version of democracy is very self-serving and very restricted. The people of Richmond, Delta, Kamloops, Okanagan South and

[ Page 9162 ]

elsewhere will have the opportunity to speak to these people in no uncertain terms as to how they feel about being represented in an equitable way in this chamber. And who knows, that could occur in a couple of years.

MR. NICOLSON: Just having heard the Minister of Health, one recalls a speech that he made earlier when he was defeated as a Conservative candidate in a federal election. He said that the reason he had lost was that people want to be conned and cheated, and it looks as if perhaps he's learned his lesson, hearing him try to misstate what has been said so far in this debate by others.

MR. RITCHIE: Born a socialist....

MR. NICOLSON: No, a person doesn't get born a socialist. A person has to mature, grow and think and then become a socialist. And I'm not afraid to be called a socialist, and I hope that the members opposite won't be afraid to be called fascists, because that's what this particular piece of legislation is all about. It's a gradual erosion of the democratic process, which is exactly what happened to the Reichstag. It wasn't overthrown by violence. It wasn't a sudden attack of people coming in armed with weapons to overthrow democracy. It was a gradual erosion during the 1930s, year after year, of various democratic principles and people stepping aside. There was the very famous saying: "When they came to get the democratic socialists I didn't object. When they came to get the labour union leaders I didn't object, because I wasn't a union leader. When they came to get me there was no one else left to object."

It is rather interesting how inured people can become when you become a full-time politician. You can forget the kind of motivation that I'm sure members on both sides of this House have when they first come into this House; yet I'm sure the people on the other side have put themselves in a mindset where they can see no threat to democracy from this type of one-handed, arbitrary action.

Talk about a mathematical formula. I'm one person in this House that has a degree in mathematics, and I can tell you that there is a fundamental error before he even gets to the second line of his so-called mathematical formula. He actually changes the definition of what he's talking about, and I don't want to bog down in that stuff. What did they use all these mathematics for anyhow, using "sigma," the sum of the terms from one to I, and talking about the X of I term being, if there are N terms in a series etc., and this being a summation.... That was only put in there to distract and to try to put some kind of a frosting, an icing, a sweetener on what is a very rotten, unhealthy type of food underneath all of that nice frosting, that nice icing.

Oh, that lovely icing: the three-man permanent commission. If you look into that you find out that it's to be set up by a select standing committee. Where do we ever get fairness from the select standing committees? We have 26 members to 31 in this House, but we don't get anywhere near that kind of a balance on the committees that are selected by the select standing committee, which has a predominance of Social Credit members.

There's no democracy there, and there's no democracy in this bill. We're not against fair representation for Richmond; we're not against "rep by pop." But a formula like this where the terms of reference set out in the order-in-council absolutely limit and hamstring any commissioner that would take this job.... The greatest criticism of Mr. Warren is that he would even accept these terms of reference in the first place. Having accepted them, there was hardly much more that he could have done.

I recall sitting down with the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson) when these terms of reference were first announced. He told me about five of these ridings that were going to have a member added. If that doesn't sound like a stacked deck, what is a stacked deck? What he didn't tell me about was the ridings of Cariboo and North Peace River.

The member who just spoke referred to my riding, Nelson-Creston, and said it's an average riding, with quite an area and an average-size population. Yes, indeed, my riding has a larger population than one-half of the population of the Vancouver–Point Grey riding at this moment. If you take the Vancouver–Point Grey riding and take into account that there are two seats in that riding, you come up with each member really representing 37,768 people, whereas in the Nelson-Creston riding there are 39,053 people. But there is a little difference between them. One riding is about ten square miles — certainly you can go across in a pretty quick bus ride. My riding is about 6,000 square miles. It's not nearly as large as North Peace River, but I'll get to that. There are eight organized municipalities in Nelson-Creston. Vancouver–Point Grey is but part of the city of Vancouver and the University Endowment Lands, which are under a special kind of quasi-municipal entity. Nelson-Creston has eight organized municipalities — that means eight mayors, eight councils. There are three full school districts and part of a fourth school district there. Vancouver–Point Grey is but part of the Vancouver School District.

Yet that member says that we're only concerned about this very small type of change that's being made where the government took something that was predetermined, which was spoken about freely by the member for Delta when he wrote out which ridings would be added to, and surely enough, that was the case with the semi-urban ridings of Richmond, Surrey and Delta. The thing that was not mentioned by that member was the change in North Peace River and Cariboo. The Okanagan was known ahead of time.

Somewhere along the route they must have taken one of their Goldfarb polls and found out that they needed even a bigger fix than this to win the next election. Isn't that what we've been called down here for? You have the Premier saying that we've been called down here to bring about his recovery measures, and the first order of business — the symbolic first bill tabled in this session — is this fix for an election. It's as if the fix that we had back in 1978 with the Eckardt commission wasn't enough.

You have to wonder why we need this fix. What they want to do is ensure that probably even if the NDP gets 55 percent of the popular vote, the people of British Columbia are going to have to put up with another four or five years of Social Credit. They've wrecked the economy in the Kootenays, in the Alberni Valley and in many communities in the north. It's not enough that there's nobody working at Kootenay Forest Products in Nelson, there's nobody working at Louisiana-Pacific in Salmo, and there's not a single logger employed up in Nakusp, after they've dumped on to BCRIC what was once a very thriving and very productive timber enterprise, CanCel. Only one mill works in Creston — two of them are completely shut down. The minister allows logs to be hauled out of Creston to a mill many miles distant in Cranbrook. They want this redistribution so that this can go on for another

[ Page 9163 ]

four or five years. Well, I'll say that the Goldfarb poll might have shown that you mathematically had to fix a couple of ridings, that you couldn't just go for five, you had to go for seven, but it didn't tell you that when you brought this in this was going to be a wild card, that this was going to alter the very thing that you were trying to measure.

The people of British Columbia are fair-minded and they're not going to stand for this kind of unfair politics. This is going to affect you in all those marginal ridings that you hold where you didn't put in the fix. There are going to be some people overturned that nobody on either side of the House could have expected to be overturned in Social Credit seats, because people's sense of fair play is going to change the very thing that you thought you were measuring.

Yes, I have faith in people's ideas, in their sense of fair play and democracy. I know that people have been waiting for an election, and I know that the people of this province feel they have been cheated by this act before the next election takes place. For the past three years, the single most common question I have been asked by constituents, by people outside of my area, by anybody who knows I'm connected with politics, is: when is the next election? They want to send you a message. This act of yours is going to change your statistical base and your statistical measurements, so you had better go back to the drawing-boards.

Let's look at the ridings of Nelson-Creston and that very large area of North Peace River. North Peace River ranks 45 out of 50 ridings. Some of our 57 seats are in two-member ridings, so it presently ranks 45 out of 50 in population. Nelson-Creston is a little above it at 39. Somebody says it's about one-tenth the size and that's probably quite true. North Peace River has an area of 62,000 square miles, Nelson Creston only 6,299 square miles. But it was H.L. Mencken who said, "For every complex problem there's a solution which is simple, neat, plausible — and dead wrong."

I happen to be familiar with that North Peace riding. Indeed, one of the areas up there is named after my father-in-law, the late Frank Golata. There's a Golata Creek, a Golata Creek Hall. He pioneered up there before there was an Alaska Highway, many years ago. He first went into that country in 1912. I have a little bit of an understanding of the Alaska Highway and some of those communities up there. I've looked at the latest Census Canada figures for that riding, and I've looked at the major, population centres. The largest would be Fort St. John with a population of 13,891, as compared to Nelson, the largest centre in Nelson-Creston, with 9,143. Second largest is Fort Nelson with 3,724, then Hudson's Hope with 1,365, and Taylor with 966 — almost 1,000. That's 19,946, so almost 20,000 people of the 31,000 population, or 63 percent, live in those four urban centres.

In the eight Nelson-Creston urban centres that I previously mentioned — Creston, Kaslo, Nakusp, Nelson, New Denver, Silverton, Salmo and Slocan — there are 18,124. Only 46 percent of the Nelson-Creston riding is in the urban centres. The others live in unorganized rural areas.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I'll ask the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) not to walk around the Legislative Assembly and interrupt. The minister may take his place or leave the chamber.

MR. NICOLSON: The Nelson-Creston riding has far more rural people than it does urban. The very converse applies in North Peace, where only about 11,000, or 36 percent of that riding, are rural people. In Nelson-Creston, while about 21,000 people live in the rural areas, North Peace has only 11,000, or half as many rural residents.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll get to the interruption by the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). I can't remember his portfolio; he's been kicked out of so many. He's even a two-time loser in Agriculture.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) to please come to order. I'll ask the member to address the bill.

MR. NICOLSON: What are the real route miles to service these areas? Nelson-Creston is an H-shaped riding in which one can travel more or less southward from Nelson to Salmo, over to Creston, or to the Balfour area across the Kootenay Lake ferry, and southward through several little communities down to Creston, all of which demand a lot of attention.

It also requires a detour to another area — Riondel. Riondel has a grid system of streets and roads. It has several hundred people living in it; it has a community water system and a senior citizens' meeting hall; but it's not even counted as an organized municipality. It has all of the organization and all of the needs of an urban area without an urban government. It requires representation from MLAs and from regional district personnel in order to maintain services, because they really live in the form of a village without the encumbrance of a village council.

The same could be said for Ymer, which again has a grid system of streets and roads, most of them paved — again, a very highly organized community with a lot of the needs, but without a council to represent them.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: To the hon. member, it's certainly not a ghost town. It isn't 7,000 population as it once was. Indeed Ymir once was a constituency in the Legislative Assembly, back in 1912.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the route miles that are required to travel to Nakusp through New Denver, Silverton and Slocan, or having to travel to Kaslo, Meadow Creek, Argenta, or Johnsons Landing; looking at those areas, not going to the end of the riding; not going out to Goattell, or the Nelway border, which is not often necessary; but going to those places where they expect to see you regularly, including the main route miles between these centres which I have named, Nelson has about 538 kilometres.

If you look at the road system connecting Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope and Taylor, you're looking at not much more than that; you're looking at less than 600 kilometres, virtually the same distance — 597 kilometres to be exact. Although that is a huge geographical area, there are no constituents living up in the headwaters of the Muskwa River and the Prophet River. There are stone sheep up there, Mr. Speaker, which used to be in great abundance and are still in great numbers. There are also grizzly bears there. One does not find people resident out in some of the vast areas of muskeg that cannot be inhabited or farmed. Indeed, most of this rural riding is contained close to Fort St. John. If one

[ Page 9164 ]

were to look at North Peace River intelligently, rather than simply and coming up with a simple formula, one would see that it is indeed more of an urban riding than a rural riding. More of the people in North Peace River live within organized municipalities with their municipal governments to look after their needs than in Nelson-Creston. Indeed, its rural population is one-half of the rural population of Nelson-Creston.

The member for Boundary-Similkameen interjected and said: "What about Boundary-Similkameen?" Yes, there's a large geographical area, and that's what we're saying on this side of the House: that boundary redistribution should first of all be set up by both parties. It should be a unanimous choice, the way we chose the auditor-general and the ombudsman. It should not be something set up by the cabinet, who have the greatest vested interest, under restrictive terms of reference that lead to only one conclusion, and that is that you're going to add to the five seats that were predicted to me by the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson) the day these terms of reference came down — and then to have the surprise of North Peace River and Cariboo ridings.

If we were to look into these terms of reference, it would not be the expedient, simple, political thing to do. But the proper thing to do under these terms of reference would have been to look at the whole of Vancouver Island. Having looked at that very quickly, I can assure you that you could justify putting in one more seat outside of Victoria and outside of Saanich — that is, from Cowichan to the north end of the Island. You add up the population in those ridings, and you can certainly see that another riding could be put in there.

There are all kinds of exceptions that could be made. It isn't only Richmond that might be underrepresented. We have to look at some kind of formula that is not oversimplified, one that recognizes the complexity of representing a rural area. If you take a whole bunch of people.... I don't care if you put them into 600,000 square miles and they all cluster into two small communities. If there are only 30,000 people there, then they only require one member. It's when you have very large geographical areas, such as the Atlin riding, where if you want to go into the community of Atlin you actually have to drive up out of the riding, through the Yukon and back down into Atlin.... Of course, that's always been recognized in this House by every electoral boundary commission. To compare the difficulty of representing that riding and to say that the riding adjoining it, which is approximately the same magnitude in area, deserves two members is stretching anybody's credulity. It requires the wilful suspension of disbelief not to see the evil, the danger, the threat inherent in this step toward eroding democracy. Democracy is not going to be....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: No, this is not a revolution. This is an erosion. You know that both of them will have the same effect in the long run if unchecked. So this is a gradual wearing away of something that has been built up in this riding. Certainly everyone in this province and in this House really knows in their heart of hearts that a lot could be done to improve the electoral representation.

The other thing is: look at the cost of this at this particular time. If you have come into this House and been here so long that you don't think that an additional $700,000 a year, which is the figure in the Warren report, is in the very poorest of taste at a time when we're talking at both the federal and provincial level of restraint, if you can't see that people care.... Whether the money spent is $700,000 or $700 million, people recognize the symbolic insincerity in making this move at this time. You can quote figures from other provinces. You could also look at Quebec and Ontario. We are the third-largest province behind them. We probably should fall somewhere in between.

If the purpose of this bill is fulfilled, it will be to perpetuate this government, which has no other motivating force than to perpetuate itself in power. They have wrecked the economy. They have dogmatically looked at anything that was good in this province, anything that had hope, anything that showed a pride and had the stamp of "made in British Columbia" on it, and have systematically dismantled all of these things. If this bill goes through and if it succeeds, and if my prediction is wrong — I trust it won't be — and if the intent of this bill succeeds, we will see a perpetuation of a government that likes to spend money on itself. Once it slides by this election, we will see more of the activities of.... It will be Broadway Bob II. We'll see more people sitting in cabinet benches who convince themselves that while they're on a vacation on some island in Hawaii really they're on government business because maybe they're the Minister of Highways and they drove down the highway. It might take them six or eight months to convince themselves that it was government business, but they'll get around to putting in a voucher and claiming that as being a government expense.

They'll probably be a little bit slicker in covering these things up. They'll probably learn how to bury things even a couple of plies deeper so it will escape the notice of somebody. Maybe it will escape the notice of researchers from the opposition who've been denied access to do a job on behalf of the people of British Columbia by scrutinizing government expenditures. In fact, maybe they'll destroy the public accounts committee, and say: "Now that we have an auditor-general we don't need one." Perhaps that will be the step. If this particular piece of legislation of creating seven new Socred seats succeeds, then maybe that's going to be one of the final results.

If this bid to create seven new Socred seats succeeds, maybe we will see a further multiplication of the housing cost of the Ministry of Forests, which went up from $3.5 million to over $19 million in just two years. Think what they can do in four or five more years, Mr. Speaker. Give that bunch four or five more years and it's going to cost $200 million just to house the Ministry of Forests if they keep up at the same rate.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

We can't afford to allow this bill to pass. We can't afford that chance. We can't afford what this bill will bring if its intent succeeds; and I pray that it doesn't. If the intent of this bill succeeds, we're going to have spending running out of control and we're going to see a continuation of things such as renting fishing boats at $800 a day for senior government civil servants in the deputy minister's office to go out fishing for a couple of hours. That's the kind of waste we're going to see at the taxpayers' expense. Only they won't be satisfied with an $800-a-day boat. It will probably be an $8,000-a-day boat that they'll be going for next time.

Interjection.

[ Page 9165 ]

MR. NICOLSON: I certainly checked it out.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: It certainly won't fly with the public. There are just so many things of government expenditure with this government; the public can only be expected to absorb so much of it.

When will we get the truth on northeast coal? We won't get it for another five years if the intent of this bill succeeds. We'll never see those contracts tabled. But we know now that Denison Mines can't even buy a truck without getting their orders from Japan.

It was ironic to hear the minister say how much the Japanese know about open-pit mining. I'll tell the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who knows something about open-pit mining, who has the leading technology in the world: Canadians. We show the Americans. We can show the Russians, Europeans, Australians or anybody about open-pit mining, because we developed the technology and machinery. It's something we should dam well be proud of.

MR. HOWARD: They don't trust Canadians.

MR. NICOLSON: No, they don't trust Canadians. They have to go outside of the province. If this bill succeeds in its intent to create seven more Socred seats, we're going to be living further with so-called leaders who tell us that we're nothing but hewers of wood and drawers of water. We are the creators of high technology in this province.

We've got a lot to be proud of in this province. If this bill fails in this House, or if the people of British Columbia see that this bill fails to buy the Socreds another five years in power, then we will start to see a province where the leaders can be proud of the people that they're trying to represent, and where the leaders will be appreciating and also trying to keep up with the people of British Columbia in the ways they want to go instead of trying to keep them down, ruin initiative and destroy, destroy, destroy.

If this bill succeeds we'll never see the reopening of what is just a 15-year-old plywood plant in the city of Nelson. We'll never see the reopening of a lot of the mills and a lot of the jobs that have made this the strongest economy, over the long haul of years, in Canada. If this bill fails to pass this House, if a few of these members haven't been in here so long that they are so blinded to the threat that's represented by this bill, or if ultimately the people of British Columbia react to it the way that I feel they're going to react — if they turn their back on this government, as has done the constituency secretary who served the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) for many years, and as have done other Social Credit members of conscience, people who remember some of the original beliefs and the philosophy of Social Credit when Social Credit had a philosophy, people who remember when Social Credit was not in bed with the Liberal Party....

Mr. Speaker, some of those people are going to turn their backs on Social Credit in this election. I believe in those people. I believe they will turn their backs on this government and that they will not give this group, this Liberal-dominated group, this group that will do anything to maintain itself in power.... I think that these people will say that this is not fair. They'll say, "This is something I will not close my eyes to," and they'll say, "Even if it means voting NDP," which I'm sure will be difficult for some of the people that I have in mind — very good friends of mine, but some people will find it very difficult. I know they'll find it impossible to vote for this government to keep it in power another four or five years, because of this act.

This act is so one-sided, so transparent, so shoddy and so cheap that very few people will be able to turn it aside and ignore it. This thing is going to be like a piece of masking tape that kind of sticks to your heel when you walk through somewhere, and you're going to have the damnedest time getting rid of it. This bill has surprised everybody. That Derril Warren would come in with the recommendations that he did bring in.... The real coup was the North Peace River decision. I want to say again that North Peace River is more urban than it is rural. Let's not try to con anybody here. Two thirds of the people in that riding live in organized municipalities; almost half of them live right in Fort St. John. A goodly number live just outside of the borders of Fort St. John, and if you were to include that area of greater Fort St. John, that would be over 50 percent of the population of that riding.

So it's fine when the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet), who used to stand back here as a backbencher and get up and make his little country speech.... He'd speak on behalf of rural folk. It's good theatre. But let's not kid anybody. You can't kid kidders, and that member represents two-thirds urban people and one third rural. I represent over 50 percent rural-living, rural dwelling people, and there's probably a lot of other ridings throughout this province that do as well.

What this area formula assumed.... It really must have been.... I don't know this particular mathematician. I don't know every mathematician in British Columbia, if indeed he is from British Columbia. Maybe they went beyond our borders, as they did for some other advice. They went to the Lakehead University to get some of the advice for this, Mr. Speaker, as if some of our British Columbia mathematicians and economists wouldn't be good enough. But of course maybe they wouldn't have come up with these kinds of results. What this thing has assumed is that what we've got here is a plum pudding, and somehow, if you put all the raisins into the cake and you stir it up, the raisins are going to be distributed evenly throughout the cake. This is not a plum-pudding model; this is more like magnetic filings. You've got a few magnetic poles: Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Hudson's Hope and Taylor. They're varying strengths.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly conclude his speech.

MR. NICOLSON: They are poles of varying strengths. People are attracted toward those poles, and they are not scattered all over those 60,000 square miles.

This whole thing is a fraud and a sham, and I'm sure that the people of British Columbia will see through this if the members on that side can't.

MR. REE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to compliment you upon your election to the Chair and for the opportunity of speaking to you at this time. I trust you will convey the comments to the appropriate individuals, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker.

[ Page 9166 ]

The debate we're receiving from the opposition today is most ludicrous. They are indicating that they are against this report, any redistribution and any change in representation for the people of this province. In other words, it's a democratic argument we're into today. We're talking democracy and the results of democracy. We're talking about people representation and their form of government.

The Warren commission was appointed some time ago. Commissioner Warren went to every member of this House. He went to the political parties and asked for their input. I would like to read the comments of Commissioner Warren as they relate to the input from the New Democratic Party. On page 20 of his report, Mr. Warren says: "I must report that initially the New Democratic Party central office in Vancouver, B.C. refused to supply me with the addresses of the constituency offices for each opposition member of the Legislative Assembly." Somehow the constituency addresses must be secret. They refuse to give them out. The people of this province are not entitled to receive notice of where constituency offices for the NDP are located — maybe because they don't want to represent the people or do anything with the people. Why they are secret I don't know; but maybe that is it.

He went further to say: "I am also now informed that, after my sending the letters to each opposition member of the Legislative Assembly, the caucus of the New Democratic Party has decided not to respond to my letter." They did not put forward propositions, submissions, suggestions or anything else to Commissioner Warren in order for him to consider the mandate with respect to distribution. They were silent. Commissioner Warren sought public information. He advertised in the newspapers. He was on public talk shows. The opposition had all the opportunity to put forth their suggestions at that time. I understand that there was the odd one in Delta from the NDP who supported Mr. Warren's eventual findings — he accepted the recommendation. He appears to be about the only one. Other than that, the NDP remained silent. They did not wish to contribute to democracy and proper representation of the people in this province. They had no interest in putting forth any suggestions for proper and responsible representation for the people of this province. And they say they are democratic.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't use the word in this Legislature, because I know it would not be acceptable as to what their democracy is.

AN HON. MEMBER: What word would you use?

MR. REE: It has the initials of b.s. They are not democratic.

They will use the term "fascist." I believe the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) used the term "fascist." I stand to be corrected, but I believe the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) used the same term. It was used by another member of the opposition in the House yesterday. In fact, one of them even called out the term "Nazi." I don't know whether it was attributed to the member for Skeena (Mt. Howard). I understand that he was on his feet, but I can't directly say that he did that.

"Fascism" and "Nazi" seem to be degrading words for what were National Socialists. I would not suggest that they are National Socialists. After all, they do not support the philosophy of their national party in Ottawa. So how could they be National Socialists? They don't support the crow rate or the uranium philosophy of the socialists in Saskatchewan. So how could they be National Socialists? I would deny that they are National Socialists.

But National Socialists would be people who would prevent representation in a democratically elected legislature. They would be a government of National Socialists that would not allow the public to be represented. I wouldn't say they're National Socialists, even if they look like it. Even if they act like fascists and Nazis, they're not that, Mr. Speaker. They may follow the same philosophies. I don't know, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't call them that. If they look like it and sound like it, what could they be? But they could not be that.

No, what we're hearing in the arguments from the other side is really quite ludicrous. They have not put forward any arguments to the commissioner to assist him in drawing up his report. They are accusing us of gerrymandering. There have been population changes in the communities. The people in these communities where there has been an increase in population are entitled to representation in this House. That is what Mr. Warren is recommending — that they have representation in this House. And we are accused of gerrymandering? Giving these people representation here? No, I suggest that the New un-Democratic Party are gerrymandering in their arguments. They're the gerrymanderers. They do not wish to give these people representation. They wish to keep it at the status quo. They're the gerrymanderers, not us in accepting this report. They will even use the argument of three-quarters of a million dollars as being not worth it and too expensive for this representation. What price democracy? Democratic people are prepared to pay a large price for democracy. Democratic people paid a great price during 1914 and 1918 and between 1939 and 1945 for democracy. But the people in the opposition across the floor here, Mr. Speaker, are not prepared for three-quarters of a million dollars for democracy. There's no price that we can pay that's too high to maintain our democracy of this country. I cannot accept any argument of restrictions and costs to support a restriction on representation.

We have not had any discussion from the members opposite as to the commission to be appointed in this bill. This bill has recommended a three-member commission be appointed for each parliament and that the commission should delve into, look at and make recommendations with respect to boundaries and representations throughout the province. I think this is a point that should be commended and be brought to the attention of this House. It is a recommendation from Mr. Warren in his report and I commend it. The opposition haven't suggested that. They are suggesting that we don't adopt any of this bill, including the portion with respect to the provision of a commission. They are suggesting that this bill be deleted in toto. If we get into an election now, then maybe for the next four or five years there is no representation on for the increased population. We are at least saying that if there is an election, these additional people should be represented and if we have a report from the commission with respect to any boundary changes, they should not be disfranchised in the meantime.

I found it again quite ludicrous to listen to the member for Burnaby North talking about colours of reports having something to do.... The Social Credit are the blue. I've always been partial to blue. I'm really quite pleased to follow the blue line, particularly when I found a blue cover on the Norris report. I like that colour. It has the same blue, the same tone, the same texture — maybe it was a sky blue — that the

[ Page 9167 ]

Eckardt report had and the Warren report had. But again, they didn't do anything with the Norris report. They didn't adopt any of it. They didn't even file it until after they had an election.

AN HON. MEMBER: Play fair!

MR. REE: Play fair? Mr. Speaker, we've got a gentleman over there — excuse the looseness of the term "gentleman" — and he's saying "play fair." Their fairness is to have no changes in the democratic representation. Let's not do it now. We didn't do the Norris ones. At the time when they were in government, did they change the double-member ridings? No, they did not. Have they in the past, up until today, ever made any comments about their members being elected in double-member ridings? No, they did not. Have they, in the past up until today, ever made any comments about their members being elected in double-member ridings, including the leader of the party? No, they have not. The only things they are complaining about are new double-member ridings. They are quite happy with the double-member ridings they have at the moment that have a smaller population than some of the new ones. They don't want to provide representation for the people of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not "rep by pop"?

MR. REE: The member over there talks about fairness. No, they won't provide fairness. We didn't get fairness from Nazis or fascists. You're not suggesting any. I'm not saying you're a Nazi or a fascist, but you're acting the same way.

The member for Nelson-Creston was saying that if it costs three-quarters of a million dollars or $7 million, what's the difference? There's a lot of difference when you're dealing with the public's money, Mr. Member. You're spending the public's money. Maybe you on that side of the House don't know the difference. It's the same as the member for Burnaby North talking about the $2 million cost of the Warren report. I'll stack odds with the member for Burnaby North that it's a lot closer to $100,000 than it is to $2 million. They don't recognize money. They didn't during 1972 to 1975; they spent it and shovelled it out of the back of a truck, and they would do it again if they were elected. That's $750,000 as opposed to $7 million, Mr. Member for Nelson Creston. Referring to Bobway Brown, if they're talking about those kinds of figures, they'll own all of Broadway. They'll be shipping it out here for themselves.

MR. LAUK: That's Bobway Broad!

MR. REE: Thank you. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)........

AN HON. MEMBER: The financial wizard.

MR. REE: No, the commerce critic for the NDP. The first member for Vancouver Centre has been on his feet in this House. I think he's to be commended. Since yesterday he's been on his feet probably more than anybody else. For the last three weeks of this House in July he wasn't on his feet in this House; he was waltzing around Vienna. Now he's standing up here, and he's a member from a double-member riding.

AN HON. MEMBER: How big is it?

MR. REE: Oh, it has about 76,000 people, I believe.

MR. LAUK: I just lost 13,000 members of my riding.

MR. REE: Oh? I can get it from the report, if you wish. The Warren report says its 89,000.

MR. KEMPF: And eight square miles.

MR. REE: The member for Omineca says "eight square miles." Mr. Speaker, I've got 64,000 square miles in my constituency, and I've got approximately 50,000 people in that constituency. I'm probably going to go home this weekend, and my people will say: "Hey, I need an extra member. After all, in Vancouver Centre the commerce critic for the NDP has two members. We're entitled to it here because we've got five times the area.

I'm going to be supporting this bill. I support the proposition of an independent commission being appointed. Above all, I support the need for additional representation in this province for the areas that have been growing and for the people who should have a voice here. Mr. Speaker, what price democracy? I think we have to pay that price in restraint times or in good times. It's a price that the people are entitled to. It cannot be frustrated by any undemocratic action by the opposition.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I see the Deputy Speaker is now in the chair. I commend you on your appointment. I know you will exercise wisdom and humour in your deliberations.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, congratulations. Beyond my congratulations I'm not going to extend any to the government of this province.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that what we are talking about now is one of the most amazing coincidences that has occurred in this jurisdiction, and this jurisdiction is noted for its amazing coincidences. Let me take you back — and that dear Premier of ours who has now got back from another living announcement — to December 27, 1981. The Premier thought that because it was between Christmas and New Year's, his musings would not be reported. It was December 27 when he made the statement, which was reported in the Province on December 28 and reported in the other two newspapers on the 27th. What did he say that would lead us to consider that this report, this amazing coincidence, was in the making even then? "Premier Bill Bennett says that Richmond, Delta, Kamloops, South Okanagan and some northern ridings are vastly underrepresented." Holy smokes! And Warren got the idea — I wonder where from?

AN HON. MEMBER: ESP.

MR. COCKE: Extrasensory perception. That famous Premier of ours, who wants to take us to the polls on a new gerrymander, that's on top of the old gerrymander that we had in this province — that was only a year before that statement was made....

If there was a need for all these new members, why was that need not seen by Mr. Eckardt? All that Mr. Eckardt could see at the time was an election approaching and how best to get rid of three NDP MLAs.

[ Page 9168 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Great idea.

MR. COCKE: "Great idea," he says. In other words, they're taking the responsibility that I suggest they do, and that is that they take the responsibility for the gerrymanders that have happened.

Vancouver Burrard, where is it now? Gone. Revelstoke, brought into Shuswap — another NDP MLA. Cowichan-Malahat. Listen to this one: that was the most amazing aspect of the whole thing that I saw at that time, and it rarely got reported. Cowichan-Malahat and Nanaimo had virtually the same population and roughly the same kind of service to be rendered. They cut Cowichan-Malahat in half practically by taking Ladysmith out, because it was a strong NDP area, and moving it into Nanaimo, where they knew we would win anyway. So they threw all the NDPers into one area and made Cowichan-Malahat vulnerable. It didn't work, nor will this rotten gerrymander work, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you upset about then?

MR. COCKE: I'm upset because it's necessary that the people in this province have an understanding of the historical situation that we are confronting right now. Two gerrymanders in a row.

Mr. Speaker, North Peace River, one of the smallest ridings in the province, a riding in which 8,900 people voted in the last election now is now suddenly going to have two members along that ribbon of highway. Isn't it an amazing coincidence that Mr. Bennett said in 1980, just a few short months after the original Eckardt gerrymander, that "Richmond, Delta, Kamloops, South Okanagan and some northern ridings are vastly underrepresented." Well, well, well. Let me talk to you about that "vastly underrepresented." North Peace River now has 14,130 registered voters — that is, people who have been registered in this last registration. Last election they had 8,679 people voting. They have a total population of 31,336, and they're adding one to that riding. Is there anybody across the floor who has enough conscience to stand up and say: "At least we shouldn't do that, nor should we do the Cariboo situation." Certainly there's every reason to put another member in Richmond. There was that same reason in 1979, but they didn't do it because they felt we might win it in 1979. The criterion of this government is to decide how best to defeat the NDP, not how to serve the people's needs in this province — perpetuate themselves at all costs. How can you people hold your heads up? How is it that you don't have enough conscience to see what you're doing? How is it that this totally unfair group...?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I've been elected four times, and each time I get an increased majority. Can you say the same? Wait. You've been two times and you're going to be a three-time loser.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He'll lay me odds. I have a message for the people in Boundary-Similkameen: if they re-elect the member they now have, they will do themselves a great disservice.

MS. BROWN: They won't, because he's lazy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) to come to order, and would remind the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) that personal reflections on a member's ability to be in the House, or just on the member, are unparliamentary.

MR. COCKE: We know there was a tremendous amount of government influence on the Eckardt report, and we know it because only NDP MLAs lost their seats as a result of that report. We know the Eckardt report also suggested that the "Gracie's Finger" aberration be a part of electoral reform. Suddenly a little bit of conscience, and so they say they'll eliminate "Gracie's Finger" in order to give some credibility to this new one. But when that report was being done in 1978-79, why did they not then, because they had lots of time, bring in fair distribution? We shouldn't facing redistribution every two or three years. And isn't it a coincidence that we face it just before an election? We're going to the polls. They know we're going to the polls. They don't dare wait a moment longer, because they're in such disarray. They've taken this province right down the tube. That's why we're standing here today fighting this bill.

If we had before us now a fair distribution, what would this party be doing on this side of the House? We would be saying: "Fair enough. Let's get out there and go our best licks; let's have our election on a fair basis." But no, we have to wait and be gerrymandered again. The thought is seeping into the general public in this province that they will gerrymander before every election in the future if they get away with it. If they get away with it this time, they will continue to gerrymander every election that we have. We must be the laughingstock of North America, of every free, western country. Good heavens, what we're seeing before us is old-time politics. This is Huey Long brought back to life. This is Tammany Hall. This is all of those things that people say politicians really are: something else again. This is what creates that thought, that concept.

They ask why we didn't bring in the Norris report when we were government.

HON. MR. FRASER: You hid it.

MR. COCKE: Hid it, nothing! It wasn't even ready when the election was called.

HON. MR. FRASER: You denied democracy.

MR. COCKE: Now just a minute. I'm going to tell you a few stories about the Norris report. In the first place, it was a report put together by three commissioners. Who were they? First, a highly respected judge in our province, Judge Norris. He was a Conservative, but I'll forgive him that. The second was the former Deputy Premier under this government, Lawrie Wallace. A highly respected public servant was the third commissioner. Who was Mr. Morton? A public servant. He was the registrar of voters for B.C.

If anybody can tell me that there can be any criticism of that commission in terms of its integrity or any other question, I would like them to come forward.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you use it?

[ Page 9169 ]

MR. COCKE: Because the report wasn't ready yet. The report would not very likely have been used in any event, because it's important that you make your report so that it's the next campaign that you work it on. Imagine bringing in a report on September 7 and enacting it on September 14.

I want to tell you another couple of things about this report. That very highly respected barrister from North Vancouver who just sat down talked about the fact that we would not make a contribution to that questionnaire that was asked of us going on toward the end of August. As caucus chairman I got a letter, and he said that we didn't even reply. Listen to this. I've even got a reply from Derril Warren to my letter telling him exactly why we wouldn't reply: what a Mickey Mouse bunch of questions that meant absolutely zero, particularly in view of the fact that they were obviously an adjunct to the report that had already been written. You couldn't possibly include our answers in this report. There's no possible way.

We're entitled to an opinion. Let me quote to you some of the questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: The questionnaire was a fraud.

MR. COCKE: Absolute stupidity.

"How many telephone calls are received asking for assistance that the MLA staff can answer for a personal conversation with an MLA?" What earthly difference does that make? If you want to do a study of what MLAs do, have people out there in MLAs' offices. Have people interview MLAs, and watch what MLAs do here. What a lot of nonsense, to ask 57 MLAs....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. There's an awful lot of chatter going on. The member for New Westminster does have the floor and will speak uninterrupted. I'll also caution the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) about certain expressions which are quite unparliamentary.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we were asked a number of questions that any thinking person would not answer, because it's impossible to answer these questions definitively and come up with any kind of conclusion. For instance, it asks: "How many phone calls does a constituency office get in a day?" One phone call might be an hour; one phone call might be ten seconds. What possible good does all that do? The only way you can study what MLAs do and find out what the workload is is to be with them. This is nonsense.

Then, of all things, the commissioner said: "I must report initially that the New Democratic central party office in B.C. refused to supply me with the addresses of the constituency offices for each opposition member in the assembly." Where should he go for that information? He could go to the Legislature, the Speaker of the House or to this building for that information. What a lot of nonsense to put members of our party to work telling them where our offices are.

Secondly, he said that he also got nothing from us. "Given the refusal of the New Democratic Party to assist me, I had no other course of action but to use the data submitted to me." That data is one page in this that draws absolutely no conclusion whatsoever. That's precisely why we didn't do it. What did I write to him on August 26? I said:

"We are in receipt of your letter re Royal Commission on Electoral Representation forwarded to all MLAs, and we're taking this opportunity to respond on behalf of all the New Democratic Party MLAs. Let us point out to you a number of concerns expressed by our NDP colleagues as a result of your correspondence.

"First, to ask elected politicians to determine the question of electoral representation is not the way to approach the problem."

Even Warren himself admits that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's democracy.

MR. COCKE: Good God! That member says that's democracy. A government with a majority uses their majority to push the people in this province around, and that's democracy?

"Further, a range of both professionals and non-professionals should be the proper avenue of consultation in this case."

Who can argue with that?

"Certainly an inadequate and simplistic questionnaire, as is the one forwarded to our offices, cannot answer the problems experienced by the electorate."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Did you appear at the hearings?

MR. COCKE: Of course I didn't.

"To ask the MLAs, both urban and rural, to respond to the same questionnaire is to not understand the very diverse and complicated problems faced by those of us elected to represent the population of British Columbia. To compare the workload and issues faced by even two urban ridings or two rural ridings is a misunderstanding of the complexity of each constituency. Demands on MLAs' offices are directly dependent on a number of variables apart from geographical locations, such as the availability of other sources of help and information, the nature of the problem, the economic times we live in, and the effectiveness of each particular office.

"The New Democratic Party has consistently recommended the establishment of a non-partisan, three person permanent commission to review and make recommendations on an ongoing basis on redistribution matters and matters dealing with electoral reform. Only with a commission such as this do we feel the question of electoral reform will be adequately dealt with. With all due respect, answering the questionnaire which was forwarded to all MLAs would only be a disservice to the people of British Columbia."

Mr. Speaker, I ask you: why is that letter not in this report? It's because the man who wrote this is obviously a hack, and I'll tell you why. I go back to what the Premier said in 1980. He said that Richmond, Delta, Kamloops, Okanagan South, and some northern ridings are not properly represented.

MS. BROWN: In 1990 the report was made.

[ Page 9170 ]

MR. COCKE: Yes, that was only 18 months after the Eckardt report. Boy, does that ever beg a question or two around here. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that that report that we are looking at now — the conclusions in that report — was written long before the commissioner was ever appointed. It was in 1980, and that report came down on September 7, 1982.

Let's take a look at what that gerrymandering has done. Let me tell you how we could get away from all this gerrymandering. We could get away from it by doing a full, proper, thorough redrawing of all the maps in this province. It's the only way you could do it. You can't build on a rotten foundation. You can't do it. We've got a rotten foundation. It first started in 1966, and then in 1979 it was added to, and now we are adding to it again. You would never think, Mr. Speaker, of building a house on a rotten foundation, and what they're trying to do is build this House on a rotten foundation. It doesn't work. I pray that the public understands once and for all that we're faced with a government that will do anything, say anything and steal anything in order to get their own way and to be government in this province.

Mr. Speaker, they're worried about Saanich right now. Let's go over a few pieces here — Saanich, with a population of 43,896 registered voters. Guess how many people are registered in Kamloops, where they get an extra member? There are 43,989. Holy doodle! What a coincidence! How do they stand up and get themselves out of that one? Cariboo — that very tough riding to serve; Cariboo — that riding with all the far-flung reaches. Cariboo is a ribbon riding, just the same as North Peace River with a little bit down in the Chilcotin.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I know your riding. Let's take Cariboo with a registered population of 31,501. Shuswap-Revelstoke, which is 50 times as hard to serve — you're all over the countryside in Shuswap-Revelstoke.... You know it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You're going to lose him this time, too.

MR. COCKE: Yeah, we'll lose him in a pig's eye. There's no way we're going to lose any marginal riding this time, because you guys have gerrymandered. You've shown yourselves to be a bunch of crooks, and the public will know what you are.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, there have been an awful lot of expressions thrown around this afternoon. It is an offence to the Chair. The Chair is offended by the term "a bunch of crooks." Would the hon. member for New Westminster please withdraw. The statement offends the Chair.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, if it offends the Chair, I'll withdraw the statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Prince Rupert rises on a point of order.

MR. LEA: I can understand that you have certain obligations to carry out as the Speaker, and parliamentary language is one of them. But when the New Westminster member called them a bunch of crooks.... I'm not saying they're a bunch of crooks. I'm saying it's easy to understand how he came to that conclusion: Social Credit has had the only cabinet minister in the history of the British parliamentary system to be kicked out for stealing.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the member to take his place. The hon. member for New Westminster withdrew the comment because the Chair found it unparliamentary. Nothing more need be said. I will caution all members to refrain from arguments or from making any accusations against another hon. member of this House. I presume the Chair is understood.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LAUK: Am I to understand the Speaker to have ruled that we can't make accusations against the government or any member thereof? It certainly is an extraordinary ruling from the Chair, and I'm sure you didn't mean to say that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ruling from the Chair dealt with parliamentary language which the Chair found offensive. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) withdrew in good parliamentary tradition, and that is essentially what the Chair has said. This is not a new ruling; in fact, it is a parliamentary process that we follow. I'm sure all hon. members are aware of that.

MR. LAUK: Thank you for clarifying that, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) continues on Bill 80.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, let us get back to Cariboo, a relatively easy area to serve. It's a nice long road, but relatively easy compared to Shuswap-Revelstoke, where you have to go all over the countryside. You see, it's like a wheel, all going out from one particular area. It's not one long string. I'll show you a map in a moment or two. Cariboo, with 31,501 voters and Shuswap-Revelstoke with 30,286 voters — isn't it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that in between those two there are Burnaby North, West Vancouver, North Vancouver Capilano, Central Fraser Valley, and Oak Bay. But, Mr. Speaker, Shuswap-Revelstoke is as big as Cariboo and tougher to serve. I know the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is inadequate, but that's no reason to add another MLA.

There's the map, and look at North Peace River. I want to show you the highway. The only place where people live along that highway is around Fort St. John, with a few in Fort Nelson and some in Taylor. Eighty-nine hundred people voted there last time, and we're getting two members from North Peace River. The only reason we're getting two members from North Peace River is because the Premier said, in 1980, on December 27, that those areas are underrepresented. Then he went out and found a commissioner who would do the job for him. Holy doodle! It took him a year and a half to find somebody who would do it.

MR. LEVI: You mean Ed Smith is coming back?

[ Page 9171 ]

MR. COCKE: It could be that Ed Smith is coming back. Wouldn't that be Tweedledum and Tweedledee!

The Minister of Health pointed his finger at us and said: "How is it that we don't have the right in Kamloops and Richmond and so on and so forth to have more members?" We say sure, if you do it fairly. That Minister of Health isn't prepared to put money into health care, but he's prepared to put another million dollars into representatives in this chamber, without a proper redistribution. If there was a proper redistribution, if there was a fair redistribution, we might very easily get along just fine with 57 MLAs. But oh, no, no, they've got to add a bunch of what they consider to be Socred-safe MLAs.

I hope that the people in this province see them for what they are. As far as I'm concerned, this is one of the greatest disturbances to this province that I've ever seen.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Here we are discussing the first order of business, the only real order of business, and what are we discussing? Redistribution. What should we be discussing? Those hundreds of thousands of people who are out of work in this province. We should be discussing those waiting lists at public hospitals that are extending every month for people in pain. No, we're discussing a phony piece of gerrymandering instead. I think it's absolutely shameful that here we are in this House, in a province that's hurting so badly, in a province that's smarting, that's bruised — people out there are suffering — for crying out loud, here we are in a heated debate over adding seven more safe seats for the Socreds.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, I have displeased the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). I have displeased him, and I always thought he loved me. What a shame!

The member for North Peace River was one of those served by this statement made by the Premier in 1980, December 27, when he mused: "We need members in Richmond, Delta, Kamloops, South Okanagan and in some northern ridings." Mr. Warren either had one of the finest abilities to accept mental telepathy, or he was told directly. What would we, as people who are fairly well versed in such things, think? Which of those two events occurred? I suspect the latter.

In this statement in this report, the royal commissioner says we didn't reply to his letter. He not only knew that we replied, but replied to my letter of reply. He says: "Dear Sir, I acknowledge your letter of August 26, and note with regret the position taken by you and your colleagues." That's from the royal commission on electoral representation.

I note with regret that this government has decided once again to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of this province. I note with regret that this government is once again, second time out, bringing in a gerrymander. Has that ever occurred in the history of this province? Each time they have gone to the polls — they've only gone in 1979, and now again in 1982 — they have not been happy with the boundaries or the representation, and each time they've brought in electoral reform. That's a record. What other jurisdiction has had to have two electoral reform commissions? What other jurisdiction has ever been faced with that?

I know of one other. I want to remind this group that a real gerrymander was done, very similar to this one, in Saskatchewan in 1970-71. Thatcher did it. Do you know what Thatcher created for himself? A hive of hornets like you wouldn't believe. People were angry, and the NDP, as a result, got 55 percent of the vote in the whole province. People will not put up with this. People will not put up with the kind of deception that leads us to a new commissioner every time we go to the polls.

I warn the people in this province that as long as that group is in power, every time they face an election there will be another gerrymander. Can I prove it any better than to bring you back to 1979, when we lost Burrard, when we lost a member in Revelstoke? What better evidence? Now they're desperate. Having taken the province down the drain economically, having ruined this province economically, now they know they're really in tough shape and so they're trying to add another seven safe seats.

There just happens to be one other little coincidence. We understand that downstairs there's a bunch of new desks and chairs.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a lie.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) to withdraw the remark he has made.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I must draw to Your Honour's attention that earlier this session, Your Honour said the next time somebody called somebody else a liar, or said, "That's a lie, " so long as you held that office, whether in the chair as Speaker or Deputy Speaker, or in Committee of the Whole or whatever, you would not tolerate it, even with a withdrawal, and that you would order that member out of the House. By your own prescription, I think you must ask the Provincial Secretary to leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Skeena is partially correct in that the Chair indicated it would not be sufficient simply to withdraw. I thank the member for bringing that to my attention. The first thing I will now do is ask that the Provincial Secretary, in addition to withdrawing, also apologize to the House for the use of that word. I thank the member for reminding the Chair of that. I now ask the Provincial Secretary to apologize to the House for the use of that expression.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes. I apologize profusely for having used that term. I became indignant when the member made an erroneous statement, and therefore it came spontaneously, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair did not ask for any kind of statement other than an apology.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Now on to other matters.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has the floor.

Hon. members, while we are on the subject — and I thank the member for Skeena for bringing that matter to the attention of the Chair — I would caution all members that the

[ Page 9172 ]

growing use of that expression in this chamber must not be tolerated. The Chair has very little option at its disposal other than to take very strong measures on the future use of such an expression. The withdrawal and apology to the House are but one step. There is but one other step left to the Chair. I would commend that to all members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is your ruling restricted to the word "lie" or does it apply to words such as "crooks, " "bandits, " "Nazis, " "hoods" and whatever?

MR. SPEAKER: The first matter to be discussed is that of the decision that the Chair brought down earlier this year, which was quite properly pointed out by the member for Skeena. Insofar as the other words are concerned, those will be dealt with as they are brought to the attention of the Chair, or as the Chair hears them uttered. Certainly the word in question that we were just dealing with is one that can no longer be tolerated by the Chair or, I respectfully submit, by hon. members of this assembly, one to the other.

MR. MUSSALLEM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I, of course, received your ruling as from the one in charge. But as the hon. Provincial Secretary stated, the word was spontaneous. In parliament, when tempers are flaring and tensions are high, I do not think a member should be punished by being removed from this chamber for a spontaneous action. I think you did right in asking for an apology, which he quickly gave. If I may be so bold as to suggest it, I think it would be more proper that you use your judgment and not make a prima facie case that the word causes ejection. I do not think that would be fair. I bring it to you for your consideration.

MR. LEGGATT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the dictionary usually defines something that is spontaneous as "being done immediately and without thought." If we were to follow the logic of my colleague from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and we were not to be punished for remarks that were spontaneous.... Most of the remarks in the House are spontaneous and most of the bills that this minister has introduced are without thought.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member for New Westminster's (Mr. Cocke's) time has expired.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe there are about 45 seconds remaining.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it's fair that the points of orders don't normally cut into a speaker's time. I recognize the fact that I do have a very limited time to say it, but I want to say to this government that when you go out on the hustings and you have to face those people with little children who are trying to get a bed in the Children's Hospital and can't, when you face those older people who are trying to get health care and can't, when you face those unemployed people in this province who are trying to get jobs and can't, and you're doing nothing about it, I suggest they're not going to be very happy to see you spending a million bucks on another seven members for this legislative chamber, particularly when it's spent on a gerrymander.

It's their tax money that we're spending. It's those people that we're here to serve, and we're not serving those people, Mr. Speaker. We're providing them with one of the worst disservices this province has ever seen — an absolutely reprehensible move on the part of this government in the face of the plight that the people in this province are facing. I'm ashamed of that government; I'm ashamed of its supporters. I will go anywhere in this province and tell the story that's necessary to the people in this province about the way the people are being treated as a result of this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Hon. members, I advise you that unfortunately our green and red light seem to be malfunctioning, along with the bells. I will endeavour to help members wherever possible in giving them an idea of how much time is left.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I rise in support of Bill 80, the Constitution Amendment Act, 1982.

The member for New Westminster, in making his comments, ignored one very important part of the report. He talks about numbers of voters. MLAs represent all residents in their ridings — man, woman and child — not just the number of voters. I just wanted to correct the record with regard to the comments made by the member for New Westminster.

In the report that Commissioner Warren brought down, on page 46, he makes one final comment in the last paragraph, which says: "As a result, my recommendations dealing with increased representation should be viewed as interim only, pending the creation of a permanent electoral commission." This government brought forward a bill, the bill we're debating at the present time, that says in the explanatory notes, section 2, that we add sections 19(l) to 19(5) to establish an electoral commission. This government has accepted that recommendation, although the arguments for the past several hours of debate and in some of the harangue that we went through yesterday all dealt with the Warren report. They talk about gerrymandering and this government using this report to perpetuate itself, and yet in the very bill that they are arguing against is a move by this government and this party to establish an independent commission to deal with electoral reform in the future. We've accepted that recommendation.

The members opposite, of course, neglect to mention the fact that this government accepted the recommendation. They neglect to mention the fact that they were government once too — unfortunately — and I didn't see anything done at that time. However, they often have said in the past: "We were going to do it. We just didn't get around to it."

As I said, they were government once between 1972 and 1975, and appointed Judge Norris to carry out a review of electoral representation. The report was brought in. It was never enacted. I'd suggest that the one reason it was never enacted was because the Premier of the day, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), would have had to, in effect, get back into the House. After the election of 1975 he had to buy his way, I guess you could say, back into the House. The reason that report by a judge appointed by the NDP government was never adopted was because the Premier of the day called an election in a total panic.

[ Page 9173 ]

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to raise with Your Honour the use of the language of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who has just said that the Leader of the Opposition had to buy his way back into the House. I think, Your Honour, upon reflection you'll find that the most offensive declaration that an hon. member can make in this House about another hon. member. I'm sure Your Honour will, in proper course, ask the minister to obey the rules that he so stoutly defends.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair, upon reflection as well, must concur that the terminology "buying into office" would hardly qualify as a parliamentary expression. As a matter of fact, if one reflects on what happened in the province of Ontario some short time ago, I think you will see that again it does not qualify as a parliamentary remark. I would therefore ask the member to withdraw that remark.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, at your request I withdraw.

If I could, I would make the comment then by saying that the former Premier of the province was re-elected to this House in a by-election in Vancouver East, where the standing member gave up his seat — whether or not for compensation is beyond me — to allow the former Premier to come back into this House. That's what I really meant.

I just want to again point out something from the report, because it is important that it is on the record and that people are aware of what the commissioner said regarding increased representation.

"I could not refrain from advancing a recommendation about increased representation. To have done so would have been to 'opt out,' and I have already stated my repugnance to such an admission. In addition, I realize that if my recommendation about a permanent electoral commission is accepted, it will take a considerable period of time to establish an operative commission. The creation of the office and the selection of the ombudsman took nearly four years. Such a period of time would deny equitable and effective representation to those areas I've identified."

So in defence — if I can use that word — of the commissioner, who took on his task and did a very commendable job in determining what was fair representation for the men, women and children of this province, recognizing the factors with regard to population growth in this province, the geography of this province, he said that as an interim measure he was recommending additional seats, based on a very detailed formula which he had put into place. That was as an interim measure; his long-term view was to appoint an electoral commission. From that point on the commission would deal with such matters.

The opposition, particularly the latest member to speak, the member from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), commented about a previous commissioner, a judge, who carried out a report and a study in 1979. He attacks this commissioner, who was a lawyer and a former leader of not the Social Credit Party, but of the Conservative Party. As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me right, this gentleman ran against the Premier of this province in an election. I don't know how far we have to go in an attempt to find an independent view. Possibly we could ask the former member for Vancouver East, the man who stepped aside for the Premier, to carry out a report. I could tell you the kind of report we'd get if we had him carry out a study.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: As we said in 1975, never again. I hope it works out that way.

In the few moments that I have before adjournment, I want to point out some of the facts that are in the report.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just want to point out one more fact then from the report. British Columbia has one MLA, if you look at the total population, for approximately every 48,000 persons. If you look at the figures for other provinces, you will find, for example, that Manitoba has 57, the same present number as ourselves, with an average population per member of 18,000. Saskatchewan has 65 members with an average population per member of approximately 15,000. Alberta has 79 members with an average population per member of 28,000. Mr. Speaker, this province is not leading the way in having representation, but is really trying to put into place fair representation for the people of this province. With those comments. I would adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on September 13 the leader of the official opposition sought to move, pursuant to standing order 35, that the House adjourn to consider a matter of urgent public importance, namely the economic situation, the high rates of interest and unemployment. An application under the standing order, if appropriate, obviates the need for two days' notice, which by standing order 48 applies to motions, and has the effect of suspending or setting aside consideration of the business set for the day's sitting.

In 1974 a similar application was made by the then Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker Dowding dealt with the matter at some length and I quote in part:

"Hon. members, I have given urgent consideration to the proposal by the hon. Leader of the Opposition for emergency debate under standing order 35. I point out that the 17th edition of May, which is the one that sets out all the rules with regard to such debate, very clearly states, with many examples, on pages 364 to 367 that the matter must be definite — that is, not a generalized matter but a specific matter that can be isolated into an emergency, a very important situation, but it must be debated now. And those instances, as you will note in looking through the authorities, are very few."

I will just recite what May says in general on the matter at page 364:

"It must be a single, specific matter. It must not be couched in general terms or covering a great number of cases. It is not offered when facts are in dispute or before they are available, and it must not import an argument."

In other words, it must be something on which everyone can agree right away, instantly, that there is urgency of debate. Now there are many instances in all the authorities, as I have found in the House of Commons in Ottawa and at

[ Page 9174 ]

Westminster, where cases of unemployment and matters of a general nature which are an economic situation have been dealt with. Indeed, in our own jurisdiction Speakers have dealt with this matter on numerous occasions. I can do no better than refer hon. members to volume 2 of Speakers' Decisions.

Mr. Speaker Pauline on page 69 ruled out the matter of unemployment for urgency debate, and stated that it must be done upon notice. He repeated that decision in the same year again on the ground that I quoted from May — because it was an emergency situation in the general economy. He stated that the unemployment situation had reached the most acute stage, and had become of great urgency and public interest.

But nonetheless, because we are bound by these rules respecting generality of such a debate, it was not an appropriate one according to May for an emergency debate. Again, in 1923, this was ruled out of order on the same question of unemployment, and also on a matter dealing with labour. All of these decisions are found in volume 2 of Speaker's Decisions.

In Ottawa the question of the effect on the footwear industry, which laid off thousands of employees, became of such urgent consideration that the same motion was sought for an emergency debate. There again, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux rejected it. I can give you various examples of that — for instance, on June 20, 1970, in the House of Commons records — and all of them lead to the same result. I note that the question of high rates of unemployment has been raised on four previous occasions during this session by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). On all four occasions the matter was found to be of an ongoing nature, and therefore not within the strict rule of the standing order.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.