[ Page 9175 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Sale of BCRIC assets. Mr. Barber –– 9175

Government publication on economic development. Mr. Howard –– 9175

Response of Education minister to BCSTA resolution. Mr. Lauk –– 9175

Tabling Documents

International Year of the Disabled, report and statement.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 9177

Ms. Brown –– 9177

Liquor control and licensing branch annual report.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9177

Travel Assurance Board report, March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9177

British Columbia Housing Management Commission annual report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 9177

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing report, January 1981 to March 1982.

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 9177

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

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9178

Mr. Levi –– 9180

Mr. Ritchie –– 9185

Mr. Stupich –– 9187

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 9191

Ms. Brown –– 9195

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9199

Appendix –– 9201

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

SALE OF BCRIC ASSETS

MR. BARBER: I have a question to the Minister of Finance regarding that creature of Social Credit called BCRIC. Three months ago BCRIC sold, for $52 million, certain assets and properties in the natural gas field on Sable Island in Nova Scotia to the government of Nova Scotia. Three months ago, these assets were sold in their entirety for $52 million; today they have been sold in part by the government of Nova Scotia for $105 million. Once again, someone outside British Columbia has benefited from the actions of BCRIC. Has the Minister of Finance caused inquiry to be made into the apparent loss, once again, to the shareholders of BCRIC in this particular transaction?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. first member for Victoria, without conferring accuracy on all of the preamble, the answer is no, I have not.

MR. BARBER: Has the minister decided to consult with his cabinet colleague, the Premier — who is, after all, personally responsible for BCRIC and this latest disaster — to cause an inquiry to be made through the Premier's office into the fact that BCRIC sold, for $52 million three months ago, something that has now been sold for $105 million today"

HON. MR. CURTIS: In the event that there is an appropriate comment I can make with respect to a company which is now, as the member knows, not controlled by government, then I will make that announcement.

MR. BARBER: When the minister consults with the Premier, if he chooses to do so, and if he cares about the fact that the shareholders have taken yet another beating — a S50 million bath, my colleague comments — could he confirm to this House and to the people that this latest deal continues the tradition established by BCRIC of benefiting everyone but its own shareholders in its many financial transactions?

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION
ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who laboured long and hard last night and this morning in conjunction with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development with respect to a coloured picture-book entitled The New Frontier, which was revealed today. Accompanying the announcement is a Social Credit picture-book featuring the faces of prominent Social Credit candidates. In view of the fact that there is not a single, solitary identifiable concrete proposal in this particular document about employment, can the minister confirm that the picture-book is being distributed as a Social Credit pre-election pamphlet, especially in northern tidings?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In endeavouring to answer the question from the negative member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I would like to say that maybe he might refer to the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development, whose main responsibility is to provide opportunities and jobs for all British Columbians, as a picture-book. That will have to rest on his conscience — if indeed he has one.

MR. HOWARD: With respect to that Cabinet Committee on Economic Development, oh, what a miserable failure it is. The only jobs it's created so far are those contemplated in Bill 80, before us right now. That's the sole accomplishment of that group. Can the minister advise the assembly how much it cost the taxpayers to produce, print and distribute this cliché-ridden blatantly political frippery that he gave out this morning?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm well aware that the member is not interested in the future of the area of the province that he represents, or of the neighbouring constituencies, but I would like to remind that member from the Skeena riding that we're not going up there to announce $80,000, as Bob Williams did a few years ago, getting the three cherries rolling in everybody's eves. We've done our homework, my friend. We've made a commitment to develop that area, and that's more than you've ever done. You did nothing for this province when you were government. You haven't had a single, solitary idea since you've been opposition. You're the worst opposition that this province has ever known.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We have limited time at our disposal in question period.

RESPONSE OF EDUCATION
MINISTER TO BCSTA RESOLUTION

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Minister of Education. Earlier this week the British Columbia School Trustees Association sent a resolution to the Minister of Education. It asked for assistance in dealing with the crisis created by the government and recommended that school boards express support for the BCSTA executive in its bid for the changes in legislation that they asked of the minister. The minister responded this morning in a very arrogant way. The last paragraph said: "If school boards adopt the BCSTA executive recommendations by not taking action on their submitted plans for budgetary change, school boards run the risk of endangering their autonomy, which we have respected in our request for local action." Does that thinly veiled threat of dictatorial action mean that the minister is planning to put those uncooperative school districts into centralized trusteeship?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: School boards throughout the province — the trustees — have been given a difficult task, but it is one that is certainly possible. It is one on which we sought their cooperation on behalf of all British Columbians. From the school boards generally there was not only support for restraint expressed by many initially, but they also wanted to be given the autonomy to make all decisions with respect to how these savings that were required of them might be made. I made it a point to immediately establish a good rapport with the school trustees. I have met with the BCSTA as often as three times in the last several weeks. At the last meeting we discussed a range of things. However, since the last meeting the BCSTA decided to send all school districts a

[ Page 9176 ]

letter, or a message, which begins with a "Whereas," and it states:

"... school boards have been seeking educationally sound solutions to restraint, the government appears to have been seeking political solutions. For example, one of the ways of achieving unplanned budget reductions is to close the schools for a number of days, but under present law, the school boards are powerless to implement these savings. The Minister of Education has consistently denied requests for the necessary legislative changes, not on educational grounds but on political grounds, that schools would not be performing their babysitting function for working parents and the government could get an undesirable public reaction."

That was the whereas by which they introduced their various resolutions for adoption by the school boards. Their whereas was based on a good meeting we held at which I stated that to deny our young people classroom time would not be popular with the people; further, there are a lot of working parents, and to simply cut back the school year now and a little more later would certainly create problems for working parents. They interpreted this to mean babysitting. They interpreted my comments with respect to it not being popular with the people of British Columbia to be political. The point is that the BCSTA has made the request that the savings be made by simply reducing the school year, and they've been urged on by the NDP to do this: to reduce the amount of instructional time for our young people. Our young people of British Columbia should not be used by school trustees, by us or them. They are deserving of education, and no opposition and no school boards should deny them that opportunity. I, for one, won't stand for that.

MR. LAUK: The minister has the unmitigated gall to say that kids are entitled to education, while they're cutting back programs across this province and dismantling the public education system. He has the nerve to say they're entitled to four or five days of babysitting, when he's cutting back on school programs across the province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is...?

MR. LAUK: The question is: is the minister intending to impose trusteeship on school trustees who have merely asked for legislation requesting flexibility? I quote: "Close schools as a short-term restraint method; lay off teachers and other employees for short periods; have greater management flexibility under restraint." What could be more reasonable and cooperative than that? And he threatens trusteeship on duly elected democratic trustees across the province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We have suggested right along that there certainly ought to be a good dialogue between teachers and school boards as to the possibility of taking back some of the increase received by the teachers. We recognize, as I'm sure everyone in British Columbia does, that teachers had a healthy increase of, on the average, 17.5 percent. They've also had, for the most part, an annual increment of 3 percent or more, plus many other benefits, so they're looking at an increase this year generally of well over 20 percent.

It didn't seem unreasonable that during a time of restraint there be some discussion about potentially taking some rollback as opposed to school boards laying people off. We've had a number of good responses from school boards who've addressed this very positively and responsibly. We are also hearing of school boards who may be coming back with the suggestion that there be layoffs. Unfortunately, again, all of these so-called concerned opposition members and some of those so-called school trustees, who say they're concerned but tell me that there's no opportunity but layoffs, are looking at the bottom and never at the top. No one has heard about administrators getting cutbacks or layoffs. It's always at the bottom.

However, the member of the opposition that criticizes us for this particular approach forgets to mention that school boards this year still, after all the restraint, have 18 percent more to spend in 1982 than they did in 1981. Maybe people in the private sector and others in the public sector would like that sort of increase. They're not getting it. I think school boards must act responsibly. I trust they will. I think the opposition should give them a chance.

MR. LAUK: You can't repeat a misrepresentation often enough to have it believed, even if you answer it whenever it's raised. The minister says 18 percent. That is primarily imposed costs on fixed costs: heat, light, rent, and all the rest of it. He knows it. His ministry knows. Everybody in this province knows. So he can't repeat that lie across the province.

I ask the minister this question: when he says "so-called concerned trustees...."

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the expression "to repeat that lie across the province" is one that calls for the Chair to ask the member to withdraw. I'm sure that upon reflection the member will have another choice of words that possibly would have been more appropriate. I ask the member, in the interest of parliamentary decorum, to withdraw that particular reference.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that, apologize to the House and say that obviously on that issue the minister is badly advised.

I ask the minister: when he says "so-called trustees," is he referring to the Delta School Board, which has just changed its stand and pleaded with the ministry to help them out of their dilemma and to avoid laying off and firing people who have 25 and 30 years of service? Is he calling those people in Delta, many of whom are on the Speaker's campaign committee, "so-called concerned trustees"?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I think Delta is certainly an example of what can be done, in that their costs generally are not only lower than what they might be or are in other districts throughout the province, but they're probably as much as 20 percent lower than what they are in immediately neighbouring school districts. I welcome the opportunity of meeting with Delta tomorrow, as I have done in the past — and I have met or talked to their various members in the past. I would commend Delta to the opposition as a school district they ought to consider when they're criticizing restraint.

[ Page 9177 ]

Furthermore, the member of the opposition from Vancouver Centre says that all of the 18 percent increase was somehow needed for Hydro charges, heat and light — he repeated this. He didn't mention that 80 percent of school district budgets are teachers' salaries or other salaries.

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE DISABLED

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to file a report and, as minister responsible for the International Year of the Disabled, make a short statement. I have the honour to file the report of the International Year of Disabled Persons, called "Challenges." This report reveals a program for the disabled community that spanned the year 1981, a program in which 277 projects throughout the province were supported by the government to the amount of $2.7 million — the most progressive and generous program for the disabled in the whole of Canada.

The program reached into a number of important areas: education and employment, access to facilities, attitudes, housing, transportation, sport and human rights. Many of the projects that were approved during that year were far-reaching and monumental. For instance, a chair for the school of physical medicine at University of British Columbia was established with Mr. Rick Hansen, who is an international disabled athletic champion, heading that up. Also, there were a number of other projects, which included the "Bus Buddy" program in Victoria, established by the Handicapped Action Committee, a very positive program which helps disabled people to use the bus transportation system.

There's also a major program in Vancouver for the stroke club, which provides recreational and therapeutic leadership to stroke victims. There's another grant to the B.C. Paraplegic Foundation for a scholarship program for disabled students. Those are just a few of the programs that are all outlined in this publication.

During that year a large committee of volunteer citizens worked on the program. There was very low level of bureaucracy involved. The two individuals who worked on this program to whom I wish to pay special tribute are Mr. Douglas Mowat, the executive director of the Canadian Paraplegic Association, who was the director of the whole program, and Marshall Smith, who was the administrator. Those gentlemen are well known to both sides of this House, as are the other members of this committee, which was a broad, nonpartisan reflection of people committed to the disabled community. It's with a great deal of honour that I file this report.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, it is customary that the Chair recognize a member of the opposition in response to a ministerial statement. When two members are standing, a great responsibility is placed on the Chair to recognize the official spokesman. It would greatly aid the Chair's obligation to recognize the official representative if only one were standing.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I clarify that the problems of the disabled affect more than just one ministry — the Ministries of Education and Human Resources. Although the Minister of Education was the chairperson of the committee, the person most responsible for the disabled in this province is the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). However, recognizing her inability to do the job properly, I guess the job was given to the Minister of Education instead.

In responding on behalf of the disabled I'd like to say that the three things they asked for during this year were not forthcoming. First, the disabled asked to be covered by the Human Rights Code. That wish was not granted by the government — and never will be granted by the government.

The second thing the disabled asked for was jobs. They made it absolutely clear that they did not want handouts or more welfare. What they wanted were jobs. As the major hiring force in this province, the government is a sorry example of not hiring disabled people into government service itself.

The third thing the disabled asked for was the right to be able to vote within their homes if they were too disabled to go to the polls. That too was refused them during this International Year of Disabled Persons, even though amendments to that effect were introduced by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson).

Speaking on behalf of the disabled citizens, I would like to say that this was a dismal year for them. Their needs were not met. Their requests were not honoured. The Minister of Human Resources as well as the Minister of Education should hang their heads in shame at the disgraceful way they have treated and are continuing to treat the disabled people of this province.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the sixtieth annual report of the liquor control and licensing branch and the report of the Travel Assurance Board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission for the calendar year 1981, and the annual report of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing for the 15-month period, January 1981 to March 1982, in order to bring it in line with the fiscal year.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 35 to move adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance — namely, the depression-level state of the economy, brought about by the Premier's endorsement of high interest rates, with a resulting 126 percent increase in unemployment in one year, bringing the number of officially recognized unemployed in British Columbia to 181,000 citizens, plus an additional hidden number of 85,000, for a total of 266,000 unemployed people in British Columbia. This is the highest number ever in the record of this province, thus giving us an 18.1 percent rate of unemployment as announced on Friday last, and a resulting 228 businesses driven to either receivership or bankruptcy in the past month alone.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking leave of the House that the rules be suspended and that the House proceed to this urgent public matter forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair recognizes a great deal of similarity between the motion presently before it and the one that was presented on Monday. Nonetheless, I will reserve decision on this.

[ Page 9178 ]

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking leave that the rules be suspended.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, notwithstanding the fact that the Leader of the Opposition asked for leave, the Chair is a little uncertain as to the method in which the floor was gained to present a motion that asks for leave, prior to the ruling in order or otherwise of the specific motion. I will therefore reserve decision on the context of the application under standing order 35, and I would have to further state that it is the opinion of the Chair that to stand in place on the basis of standing order 35 and then to ask for leave would not be in accordance with the rules of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for considering again the context. I understand and appreciate your previous ruling. The amendment I add to the normal motion of standing order 35 is, of course, the amendment that is in order at any time in asking for leave. I do not question the fairness in your response to an evaluation of the context in terms of your previous ruling. However, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the amendment to any motion, by asking leave that the rules be suspended and the matter dealt with forthwith, is in order. If there is a ruling against asking for leave, then the will of the House at any given moment on a sense of urgency that any member may raise may not be expressed, and as a result thwart the traditional manner of bringing appreciation to the House whether or not it wishes to change its rules for a temporary purpose. In this instance, Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that unemployment is a serious problem. All I'm asking the House to do is give leave to suspend the rules so that we can proceed with a debate on this matter forthwith. I think that is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in this particular instance, and without making a precedent-setting decision, on which I will subsequently return to the House, I will put the question, although I must admit it is a digression from our regular practice.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, the government will give consideration to the request of the opposition, but we'd like to consider it for a bit and report later today.

MR. LEA: I just don't believe that on procedural matters we can allow partisan politics to enter into it, and I'm sure Mr. Speaker agrees with that.

Mr. Speaker, you have just ruled that you will put the question. The government may not want to have the question, because they don't want to go on record as being against debating the economy. But that's politics.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We're on a point of order, and the Chair was about to put a question to the House. I appreciate the remarks.

Leave not granted.

MR. LEA: Is it not permissible to have a division on that vote?

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member.

Orders of the Day

MR. GARDOM: The opposition is awfully heated this afternoon. Perhaps if they didn't hear my remarks, they might read them in Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 80.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982
(continued debate)

HON. MR. HEWITT: I am pleased to rise again to debate Bill 80. I want to repeat the comments I made when I closed debate yesterday about the representation that British Columbia residents have in this House at the present time, as it relates to population, and compare that to other provinces.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

At the present time, we have 57 members. We have 2.7 million people in this province, which means a member on average represents approximately 48,000 people. Manitoba also has 57 members in its Legislative Assembly, and they have approximately one million population, which means the average population represented by a member is 18,000, some 30,000 less than in British Columbia. Saskatchewan has 968,000 population with 65 members, eight more than British Columbia has. The average population per member in Saskatchewan is 14,900. Alberta has 2.2 million people with 79 members in its House — some 22 members more than British Columbia — and they represent, on average, 28,000.

So there was need, Mr. Speaker, for this government to address the question of representation. The terms of reference stated to the commissioner were that he should look at numbers between 57 and 71. The commissioner, Mr. Derril Warren, was appointed and developed a formula. That formula, if the members took time to read it, is a fairly complex formula in an attempt to be fair with regard to population and area that the member represents within his constitutuency boundaries. He came forward with the number 64. It was his determination, taking into consideration that formula.

Mr. Warren has been accused in this House of a number of things. But it's fair to say that he is a professional man. He took on a task given to him by a person he competed against in the political arena in 1973.

MR. COCKE: The same person wrote the report, before he even got Warren to do it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It would almost appear, Mr. Speaker, that the member for New Westminster is identifying dirty tricks again.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you a little history. In 1975, the NDP was in government, and they appointed a commissioner, Judge Norris, to go out and look at electoral reform. He toured....

MR. COCKE: And Lawrie Wallace and Morton.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, for the record, Judge Norris headed a commission of three. It is irrelevant whether there was one, three or five, because I'm going to give you the history of a dirty trick.

[ Page 9179 ]

The commission did its job and, if I recall the report, recommended 62 seats for this House in 1975. If you compared average population, I'm sure you would find that the 62 seats would probably indicate a lesser number of people represented by an MLA. Be that as it may, the report was received by the then Provincial Secretary, the now second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), and was to be brought before the House. Now it seems strange — no, it doesn't seem strange. This is a little history of a dirty trick played on the people of this province. That's what it is.

The report was to come in on October 31, and it was extended to November 8. The then Provincial Secretary had the report, and I believe the extension was by order-in-council. It went before the cabinet of the day, but strangely enough — considering the content of the report, I suggest to you — the election writ was handed down on November 3, 1975. I would suggest that that party, as government at that time, denied the people of this province proper representation as set out by the commission which they themselves appointed. That's what they've done, and that, in my opinion, is a dirty trick on the people of this province. We appointed a commissioner who carried out his duties and filed his report, and we have taken that report, placed it before this house, looked at his recommendations and put those in the form of a bill to be debated in this House. We are accused of all the beautiful words that the opposition use from time to time, yet they seem to forget that on the record is their action, which denied the people of this province the right to deal with that report, and denied them proper representation.

That's history, Mr. Speaker, and it should be on the record. The people of this province should know that.

I want to turn now to the report itself and deal with page 19, "Demands upon a member of the Legislative Assembly." Mr. Warren, in carrying out his duties, attempted to indicate that there are a fair number of demands on a member of the Legislative Assembly. I'd like to turn that around, and point out that without reasonable representation the people of the province, the residents of the constituency, are denied the ability to meet with and talk to their elected representative. So I'm not too concerned about the demands on the members, because I figure when you're elected to public office you have to be prepared to serve. But if you don't have reasonable representation within a constituency, that's a disservice to the people of this province, and for that I say there is need for reform. Mr. Warren's formula indicates that need.

On page 20 of his report, Mr. Warren states: "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." The question has to be asked: why'

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not party offices.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think the reason is that many of them are located in Nanaimo, as opposed to being in their own constituency office.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask all members to come to order, including the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has taken his place in debate and will be allowed every opportunity to speak uninterrupted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The other comment I was going to make is that the reason the central office of the NDP didn't give their addresses is that they didn't know where they were. They couldn't locate them.

What appeared to happen, in my opinion, is that the NDP caucus refused to assist the commission. Maybe if I read the reports, I could even say that the executive of the NDP refused to assist the commission. But strange as it may seem, in a number of areas throughout the province, when Mr. Warren carried out his hearings, there were NDP representatives there. The lay people of the NDP went before Mr. Warren and presented their case in such locations as Kamloops and Richmond. In my riding, Boundary-Similkameen, they went before Mr. Warren and requested that the eastern part of my riding, the beautiful area of Sunshine Valley, Grand Forks and Christina Lake — a beautiful spot; I enjoy going there quite regularly — be cut off my riding. I could stand silent, and I guess I could support that, if I wanted to be political, because I just happened to lose the Grand Forks poll when we went to an election — not by much, but I happened to lose. Maybe this time, after the people of Grand Forks recognize what the NDP wanted to do.... They wanted to take this section of my riding — because they won that poll in 1975 and 1979 — and they wanted to tag it on, like a thumb, to the Trail riding, or they wanted to tag it onto Nelson-Creston. Maybe they wanted to put a big toe onto the riding of Nelson-Creston.

I represent all the people in my riding, whether or not they vote for me, and so does every other member on this side of the House. That's my role as an elected official. I win by a majority. Some people don't support me. But at the same time, when I am elected I represent all those people.

I'll move on from that statement and identify what Mr. Warren attempted to do, which was to relate population and distance. Let's look at some of the ridings. Vancouver East has nine square miles and two members. They could jog across that if they were fit, but they probably have to take a taxi to get from one side to the other. Vancouver Centre has eight square miles and two NDP members. And here I am in Boundary-Similkameen, tired, representing all my people, with 5,114 square miles in my riding. I'm not complaining. I'm just saying that when they talk about the use of distance they should probably be saying to us: "In Vancouver East we should only have one; we don't have too far to travel." We recognize that there are people involved as well, but distance has a meaning in this issue. For me to travel from Summerland to Christina Lake is an all-day trip.

MR. BARNES: What about Atlin?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, what about Atlin? That's quite true. Mr. Warren identified that, and the member for Vancouver Centre supports the concept. It has to be a formula that takes people and distance into consideration. That way you can give fair representation to the area. In the Cariboo, with 34,000 square miles, and in North Peace River, with 62,000 square miles.... The point I'm making is that if there's one cattleman at the end of the road in the Cariboo riding, then the MLA should be prepared to go down that road to serve that one cattleman. You don't just walk across the block in the Cariboo, like you do in Vancouver East.

I support Bill 80 and the additional representation, because it is an interim measure with regard to that additional

[ Page 9180 ]

representation at this time. The major aspect of Bill 80 is the establishment of an electoral commission. This government has identified that and has placed in the bill the establishment of an electoral commission.

Let's again touch on history. When that party was in power between 1972 and 1975 it did very little except to bring the province to its knees by mismanagement. They did very little positive.... They have always said, when we come up with our accomplishments: "We were going to do that, but.... We were going to do that, but we didn't have the time." That party did not bring in an auditor-general; this party did. That party did not bring in the ombudsman's office; this party did. That party did not bring in the Norris commission report or address the question of a permanent commission to be established. What I'm saying is that this government and party has recognized its responsibility to ensure that the people of the province get not only value for their tax dollar but also an administration and an audit of the expenditure of those tax dollars. That's why the auditor-general bill came in. The same thing with the ombudsman. It provides an avenue of appeal with regard to decisions of government. This party brought it in.

Now this bill provides a method of ensuring adequate representation for the people of the province in this Legislative Assembly by the establishment of a commission to deal with future changes to the numbers and members of the House.

Their argument is weak, Mr. Speaker. Had we selected Bob Williams to carry out this role as commissioner, I wonder what their argument would have been when he brought in his report. Regardless of how he calculated it, I'm sure it would be somewhat questionable in its result. I wonder what would have happened if the Warren formula was used and it determined that NDP ridings were warranted additional members according to that unbiased formula. I wonder what they would have said then.

They had the ability for input. They were requested to give information to the commission, and they refused. By refusing, they denied the people of this province a right, just as they did in 1975 when they denied people proper representation because they would not deal with the Norris report. Now they are attempting to do the same in 1982. We won't allow that to happen, because all members on this side of the House will support the passage of Bill 80, which will bring proper representation to this House and establish a permanent commission.

MR. LEVI: I must say that the minister is just a little bit of a caricature. I understand he collects caricatures.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I don't pay $500 as the labour union does.

MR. LEVI: I hope you're conforming with the guidelines which were brought in so there wouldn't be any petty pilfering of the public purse. I hope you are paying for them and the frames.

The cogency of the criticism in respect to this bill is, I think, best explained by the editorial in the Province this morning. It says: "It's almost as if he's treating" — they're talking about the Premier in respect to this bill — "British Columbia like a Latin American banana republic, except that we don't expect the tanks to be rolled out in front of those flower beds at the Legislature buildings." As an old tank man with some battle experience I'd like to bring my Churchill up, put it on the front lawn and blast the hell out of this bill.

I find it incredible that every time one of those members over there talks about democracy, I get an ashen taste in my mouth. They talk about the virtues of the one-man commission. Let's not attack the messenger; let's attack the process by which the government was thrown into the most incredible state of being discredited three years ago — so much so that one has to understand that even Commissioner Warren, on page 8 of his report, takes the trouble to say:

"I report with regret that there was a pronounced sense of distrust over the appointment of a single commissioner to make recommendations about electoral representation."

That's the commissioner speaking. He knew right from the beginning that he had a disability.

"While I felt I enjoyed the trust and confidence of the vast majority of those people who attended the public hearings, nevertheless I detected fundamental suspicion of the electoral reform procedure used by both the government of the Social Credit Party and the government of the New Democratic Party."

The interesting thing is that he is or was a single commissioner and Eckardt was a single commissioner, and the one done by the previous government was made up of three commissioners. Yet that is the difficulty that he had to labour under: that feeling of distrust. Now how can you go in to do what is the most profound single act of democracy in this province — and that is the question of arranging representation...? That is the kind of difficulty that he laboured under. So, Mr. Speaker, it's not a question.... A week ago I was back east on holiday, and I received a telephone call saying that the House was being called together. I asked why, and they said: "We think it's because the Premier wants to bring down an economic recovery program." When I arrive here, what are we talking about? Redistribution. This afternoon the government had an opportunity to debate the economy, and they wouldn't even grant leave. So we know, fairly clearly, that the only reason the Legislature was brought together was to set the stage for the Premier to call the election — if he can get the bill through. There is already an enormous feeling out there among people.... The editorial of the Province.... Of course you're treating this province like a banana republic.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) says there are 2.7 million people here and we need more representation. There were 2.7 million people in this province in January, February, March and April of this year, and we could have dealt with it then. But all of a sudden, there is this great haste. And what is the haste for? Because it's the only way that government is going to avoid exposure of the incredible deficit that they've created and the mess they've made of the economy, and avoid answering the fundamental question: where has all the money gone? Where is this $8 billion that we approved this year? All we've heard since two weeks after that is that they're in trouble. They're cutting back. All they want now is to fix the election. That's what it is; it's a big fix. It's got nothing to do with representation and democracy. It's got to do with the business of saving, when they're bent on power — they want to save it. That's what they're intending to do.

So they have created, not once in five years but twice, an incredible travesty, and each one of them gets up and talks about democracy. We had the Eckardt commission, and the

[ Page 9181 ]

present commissioner, I suppose, from the point of view of the government, has had the temerity — from my point of view, he's had the guts — to say: "You've got to redraw the Little Mountain boundaries and the Point Grey boundaries, because there was something wrong when it was done and it's got to be corrected." Nevertheless, the government is absolutely insisting that it's going to barrel through, just push this through. This is going to go through, they say. Well, there will have to be the normal debate. Gradually those people across the way are getting up and offering us a solution and a rationalization of what they're doing, by going back in history and talking about what they should be doing.

In terms of going back in history, I'd like to discuss the multiple riding. Probably nobody that sits in this House today has had the experience I've had in respect to the three possible ways that you can sit in this House and be a representative, You can be from a riding which is a multiple riding, in which one member of the riding can be a member of the government party and one of the opposition. That was the position that I was in when I was first elected in 1968. I shared that riding with a Social Credit member. When I was elected in 1972, I shared it with a member of the same party, my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). Today I represent a single-member riding, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, based on my experience, to have double ridings is really a waste and is not in fact the proper kind of representation that people need. Because of the size of government that we have — and this is the largest government that we've ever had in this province in terms of the size of the bureaucracy, the cost, and the number of ministries.... The major problem that MLAs have to confront today is helping their constituents through that maze of bureaucrats. It's far better if a member represents a single-member riding where people can go directly to that member and say, "This is my problem," and not be unsure which one to go to — even though they're from the same party.

People like to be able to identify with their member, and the member knows that he has a job to do in that riding. But the government is very large, and what they're doing is creating two-member ridings. Why? Because somebody made the political judgment — I think it was W.A.C. Bennett many years ago — that multiple ridings.... We did at one time in this province have one riding that sent six members; before 1932 Vancouver sent six members to this House. Then they created the two-member ridings, five of which still exist in Vancouver. Victoria sent three members. Point Grey sent three members. Why? Because it was the philosophy of the coat-tail. If you can get one in and there are two members, you can probably bring the second one in. If there are three members, you can bring them all in. It is interesting to view the results of all those elections. I cannot think of an example in a double-member riding or a triple-member riding where there was a mix of parties, other than in 1975 in Victoria when we had a Social Credit member and the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) was elected as well.

The trouble is that the government has learned nothing about the real principles of democracy, representation and what's really involved in being a member of the Legislature. The whole thing is political. We know that; that's the way it is. Someday, maybe 20 or 30 years down the road, we'll move away from the system that we have, but we have a system today where the underpinning is political. In everything you do you seek a political advantage. If you do that, that's fine, but don't come into the Legislature and mouth that this is democracy; this is why we do it. In this bill there is a failure to recognize, when you talk about having multiple members in tidings, that representation for individual constituents is not improved. It's time that we went to the single-member riding. It works very well in the House of Commons, and there is no reason why it shouldn't work here. One day we'll break away from the political underpinning of the decisions we make about the electoral redistribution.

Then, of course, we have a midnight repentance by the minister. I heard him on the radio this morning. He said: "Oh, but it's all temporary." We're going to have another go at it, I presume. You're not going to be able to have another go at it — you won't be there — but the point is that if we're going to have another go at this, then we'd better do it properly. It may have to take a year or 18 months, and we may have to spend some money. The minister said yesterday, when he opened up the debate, that you can't put a price on democracy. Well, you didn't put a price on it; you put a ransom on it. That's what you've done; you've come into this House and you're demanding seven more seats.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Don't keep saying it. My mouth is drying up from all the ashes I taste. It's ridiculous.

If you're going to do it, do it properly. You have an enumeration and you take time to do it. You cleanse the lists. You look at the geography. You don't have some of the members over there who keep jumping up and telling us that in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta they have more seats in their House than we do. What you should look at is the history of the prairies and the fanning communities. We do not have farming communities in this province the way that they have in other provinces, and those were political decisions. The Fraser Valley is now close to the urban areas, and they've got representation. There's been an improvement in the representation from Chilliwack west. You can't compare the prairies to British Columbia. One of the most significant things about this province is the geography and the distances. Part of the continuing unhappiness that we have with a lot of people that live outside of the urban areas is the great distances that exist between them and services. We have never debated in this House how we should go about delivering services to people that don't live in urban areas. We've never given a great deal of thought to it. We've made some attempts to look at delivery systems and regionalization. You have to look at representation in the same way. There were times in this province when Cassiar used to send three members; the Cariboo used to send three members. There is a lot of population there, that's true. They were two of the largest centres in the province 50 or 60 years ago. If we're going to do it, we don't do it in haste. It's patently clear, Mr. Speaker, if you read the press, listen to the hotlines, talk to people out there, there is a great puzzlement going on as to what the government is doing with this redistribution when we are supposed to be addressing fundamental questions about the economy. Now what is it? What is the scenario that was enacted? There was a cabinet meeting about two months ago and there's this.... Somebody said: "My God, we're getting in bad shape, We've got to have an election because the financial situation is not good, and we can't bring in another budget." So they came up with the idea that they wanted to have a redistribution commission. As my colleague said yesterday, some of what they were going to do was telegraphed. I think it

[ Page 9182 ]

was prior to when the former member for Kamloops retired. There was talk even then about doubling up the membership in Kamloops and other places.

What we have before us is really an act of desperation. It has nothing to do with the democratic process, and that's what is so terrible about it. If we go into an election in the next few days, what are your members going to say over there — your candidates — and what are we going to say? The most pressing issue in this province is the economy, not redistribution. But out there, there is already that ashen feeling in the mouth about just what you're trying to do. After all, if you are going to treat us like a banana republic — because that's what you've done; you've brought in the bill, and presumably the scenario is to pass the bill and then go to an election — what's going to happen if you can't pass it in the time that you want? What are you going to do then" Are you going to do as they suggest, bring up the tanks in the form of a closure motion? Is that what you have in mind? Then we are going to see democracy in action, and you'll create another record. We've never had closure in this province. I guess you're all going through the dusty books to find out how you might get around to doing it. Oh, you've already talked to the Clerks?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Carl Liden used to do it from the chair as Chairman.

MR. LEVI: That was only to the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot), the irascible, intractable man that he was.

Is that the scenario? Yet every member over there who's got up wants to go back into history. You know, you've been government now for almost seven years, and you still persist in getting up and saying: "Well, you didn't do it." I can't even remember when I was in the last government; it's so long ago.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We haven't forgotten, nor have the people.

MR. LEVI: Well, we're going to see about that, Mr. Attorney-General, when the next election comes up. We're ready to go. Let's go. Don't play around with the redistribution bill.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They'll never forget when you were here, Norman.

MR. LEVI: They didn't forget in 1975, and they didn't forget in 1979. I'm still here.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: How are you going to explain a billion-dollar deficit? That's going to be a tough one.

Back to the bill, Mr. Speaker. All these interesting — more interesting sometimes — diversions that we have. I've made my comments about the question of multiple ridings. If we're going to use the democratic principle, I would like to see them done away with. I don't think it's something that we really want to be able to deal with. I'm not interested in arguing the mathematical formula, or the distance in miles along the road, or how many people there happen to be. That's just a rationalization. I doubt that the minister who presented the bill understands the formula yet. He would go up in my esteem if he got up and admitted that he didn't understand it; I don't understand it.

There has to be an underlying principle, and there isn't in this. The only principle that you have in this particular piece of legislation is that you want to maintain yourself in power. If you insist on doing that, then you have to take the criticism now and you'll have to take the criticism when the election comes. No doubt you'll remember, if we go to the hard line, the closure of debate, what happened to Louis St. Laurent in 1956.

But that's not the issue that we want to battle on the hustings. We want to know, Mr. Speaker, where the job creation is. We had the minister of economic development get up this afternoon, and he couldn't tell us of one job. We have the present minister, the one who introduced the bill, who for almost two and a half years was the Minister of Housing and didn't produce one house.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down, and I'll tell you about that too.

MR. LEVI: He's a feisty fellow today. I know what it is. He's been reading his own press clippings and listening to himself on the radio this morning — an incredible fellow. When you make a speech in this place, if you can't add some humour it's no good. You become too serious. That's the only criticism I have of my colleague from North Vancouver. Put a little salt and spice in it. It's much better that way. It's not a dirge. Some of the speeches that have been coming from that side of the House sound like dirges. It's too bad we don't have an organ upstairs.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps some relevancy.

MR. LEVI: It's as relevant as most of the things that have been said this afternoon, when people have insisted on going back over the history.

For me, apart from the things I've said about the heavy-handedness they want to use in forcing this legislation through, I find that to adapt and change to the same politically motivated innovations.... And they are politically motivated. Two-member ridings are not something we should have.

The Angus commission, which was a well-ordered three-person commission, made a submission. Sure, it's up to the government; in the final analysis the government makes the decision. But what did the Angus commission say about multiple ridings?

"The commission has, as it was instructed, given consideration to the provision of multiple ridings with two members each in metropolitan Vancouver and metropolitan Victoria. The commission recommends that there should be no multiple ridings in British Columbia. The arguments presented in support of multiple ridings were few and, in the opinion of the commission, weak. It was said that if a riding has two members it can be sure that someone would look after its interests. If one member is ill, then the other will act. If one member is asleep, then the other may be awake.

"It was said, with more plausibility, that two or even three members may help to preserve the unity of a riding, generally of a municipality as an entity. It was also said that by electing members of more than

[ Page 9183 ]

one party, an electoral district can play safe and maximize its chances of having a representative on the government side. It can also double or triple its chances of being represented by a minister of the Crown.

"The last two arguments appeared to the commission to be an abdication of political responsibility in favour of local causation. The opposing arguments are that a multiple riding may completely extinguish an important minority that could easily win in a portion of the riding, and may be suspected of having been designed to do so. That has been suggested in the past: that a weak candidate may get in on the merits of his party colleagues, and the sense of individual responsibility is weakened."

All of these arguments have been made before. It goes on:

"Not only the weight of numbers, but the cogency of argument was against multiple ridings. No MLA at present representing a multiple riding in the metropolitan areas spoke at the hearings or made a submission.

"It's worth noting that there exists, in many quarters, a strong emotional dislike of multiple ridings, and that there is no corresponding emotional dislike of single-member ridings. The commission's recommendation is therefore for single ridings. If its recommendation is not accepted, it is easy to erase some boundaries and so create multiple ridings."

For those who remember, in 1966 they did just that. They came up with 12 single ridings in Vancouver, and when the Premier of the day didn't accept it, they went to two-member ridings.

I mention this because what we really have to look at is why the bill is here, so that everybody understand it really has nothing to do with the democratic feelings of the government about people and representation. It's simply shortening the odds on defeat, from the point of view of the government, because they want more members.

It's a coincidence, I suppose, that all of the ridings being doubled are presently held by members of the government party. One can be cynical about this; and that's why there is a debate going on in the province. There's a great deal of cynicism, because if you're not able to maintain yourself in power this way, then you have to go to the hustings and fight on the boundaries you were elected on. It's often said by some political science experts or observers, why change the boundaries on which you were elected? The only reason in this case is that you want to be doubly sure to get re-elected.

Why to get re-elected? What is the great scare? If somehow you're not elected and the other party gets in, what's going to be found out? What we've been trying to do in this House for the last several months is to find out exactly what is going on in respect to the finances of the province and the policies of the government. None of that has taken place. We're here at the penultimate time when the economy is in worse shape than ever. The figures were given this afternoon in the motion for a special debate made by the leader of the New Democratic Party — the enormous unemployment. We've been trying to find out the enormous size of the deficit. We can't find that out. They won't tell us anything. Is it a million dollars? A billion dollars? A billion and a half? Nobody knows. So the scenario of that night when they met was: "Let's get a redistribution commission. Let's see if we can get some more seats. Then we can get back in again and nobody will really need to know just how bad things are."

Mr. Speaker, in respect to the legislation itself, one can argue — as the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) tried to argue in his opening remarks — that it's temporary; things will be different afterwards, But the question that I put to the Provincial Secretary is: why? Tell us why you're doing it when the key part of the bill is the establishment of a permanent electoral commission. That's what comes out of this. If this had been done six months ago, the electoral commission would have been appointed and all the work could have been done. Because it's not that difficult nowadays to do the work, Mr. Speaker. Most of the data is in the computer, They even draw maps with computers these days. So all of that is a very simple process. You just have to have the guidelines and the will to do it. So the urgency that is attached to this legislation that has been introduced is simply political and has nothing to do with democracy.

The Provincial Secretary shakes his head: he's getting a little punch-drunk from all of the criticism that has been levelled at him. When you're a minister it's difficult to actually say what you would like to say; cabinet solidarity prevents you from doing that. The minister knows in his heart of hearts, because he's a country boy from Columbia River.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's right.

MR. LEVI: And actually, in practice, it's a riding that shouldn't exist, because he's the one who argues the formula.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're against it.

MR. LEVI: The formula? I don't even understand it. But any formula that tells me that the member for Columbia River shouldn't exist — alleluia, I'm in favour of that! Not as an individual, but as a member.

All of this is a little uncouth the way you've done it. Yes, it's uncouth because you keep trying to smarten up your couthness by saying that it's democratic. We have the former Minister of Agriculture reading page after page of population differences between Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Well, Ontario is not a very good example. Ontario happens to have almost three times the population we have. Geographically, they are set up quite differently. Geographically, most of that province could be almost characterized as urban because of the large centres that are there. So you can't use the Ontario argument. Maybe the minister will get up when he closes debate and tell me how he's going to arrange this little palace we have here if you have all these seats. What are you going to do? Have members sit on one another? Are you going to go back to the old arrangement? They used to have an arrangement in this chamber where there were four lines of members all facing the Speaker, like in a classroom. That was about 1910 to 1920.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I wasn't around.

MR. LEVI: Well, I thought you were, actually, because you've been around as long as I've been around, and you were around even before I came. Endless. I thought when I first met him that he was Tom Uphill, but somebody said no, Tom's gone; that's not Tom Uphill.

When the minister closes the debate, perhaps he would enlarge on what is on hold and what is going to change.

[ Page 9184 ]

What's on hold in this province today, from what you said.... I heard him this morning; he made a statement over the radio: "It's temporary." Well then, democracy is on hold in this province. Whoever heard of doing temporary measures in the most fundamental democratic process that we have?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Interim.

MR. LEVI: A bad choice of words. How can you get a minister at 8 o'clock in the morning and expect him to make any sense whatsoever? Or was he really giving his deepest, most innermost thoughts? It's on hold. He made a game out of it. That's the tragedy of this whole process. Now that they're back in school, young people — if they're doing social studies, or looking at civics — and their teacher says, take a look at what's going on in Victoria.... The most fundamental democratic process, rep by pop.... Somebody takes a real good look at it, and they read some of the editorials — particularly the one I quoted from this morning. It's not a democratic process, Mr. Speaker. It's pure, blatant politics. It's politics of the worst kind, because it's based on cynicism: "If we can't get re-elected, that's bad, so we're going to go to any lengths we can." And this is going to some lengths to maintain yourselves in office. It doesn't leave a very good taste. It's not something that one should be very proud of.

You know, the whole essence of democracy is not the rhetoric; it's whether it's seemly or not. This process is not, in my opinion, seemly. It does not fit in with the traditions that have existed in this House. Over the years in this House we have had some very antagonistic debates on various issues, but they've been open and frank, and there were resolutions. This one is more difficult to swallow than any of them. It's as the editorial says. When debating this, you get the feeling that somehow there's an inevitability of the result. That's not our position. We have to fight this. We have to fight it in such a way that they will do it in what is in fact the democratic way — not by ramming it through, not by pondering the idea that, if necessary, they will enter closure, but rather that they'll see that what they're doing now is not correct.

Earlier in this session we had a similar exercise: in fact, two exercises. We had the exercise whereby democracy was again in question. It was in relation to representation by a ward system. That was a democratic principle. We found a mechanism to stop that. In the other debate, which related to another bill, the pressure came from the public in respect to the Islands Trust. That's where democracy won out that day. Yes, it did. The pressure was so great on the government that eventually they had to tell the former Minister of Municipal Affairs to take a walk. We've already had two examples of efforts made in the chamber and outside the chamber, examples of what the people are prepared to do to protect what they feel are their democratic rights. This issue is another one like that. It's the same kind of issue. The interesting thing is that all three pieces of legislation have been cut from the same cloth; yes, they have. They come from the same government, from ministers who have the same philosophy. One minister was involved in two of them: no ward system, one-man rule — that was his; on the Islands Trust, again, one-man rule. Now we have this minister, who shouldn't really exist electorally, making the argument that the formula....

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're against Columbia River, and I know it. I'll let the people know.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, the minister is threatening me. Fortunately, because of the size of the riding, I could spend three or four days up there and go through it and be able to let the people know, as the minister suggests.

This is the third piece of legislation that has tried to tinker with the democratic system and with people's democratic rights. They're all cut from the same cloth; they're all by the same cabinet.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Expanding their rights.

MR. LEVI: Expanding their rights, my foot! When you talked earlier, as some have talked about.... There's more to being in this House as a member of the Legislature than just being here. There's all of the things that other people have said. Who will intervene for the constituents when they can't get through the bureaucracy? Who will arrange meetings with the ministers, and all that kind of work? Who can they go to? That's what we were talking about; that's what this process is about. We haven't got the kind of society where the average citizen can work his way through the government system, because the government is too large; it's too overhearing. On top of that, the very people who are trying to get through the system pay for it. That has got to be the ultimate insult. Then we have this piece of legislation. The minister's rationalization is: "Well, people really need twice as much representation as they have in some ridings, so that's why we're doing it." Well, nobody believes them. They didn't believe them with the Islands Trust, they didn't believe them with the ward system, and they will not believe them with this. If those have to be the issues that the next election has to be fought on, then those are the issues we'll have to fight on.

We have to talk about the government that fails to address economic matters, but rather only addresses its own perpetuation in power. That's all. It wants to perpetuate itself in power; then it will put on the mantle of the great democrats on and try to tell everybody: "We're really doing what's best for you." Well, that was the attitude of the Minister of Municipal Affairs with the Islands Trust people: "I know what's best for you, and we'll do it that way." Well, it didn't happen. Again, we had the same thing with the ward system. We had the fatuous argument by a former mayor of Vancouver that the actual figure for a majority right is too low if it's 51 percent. It's amazing. The majority system has worked as long as the democratic system has worked in North America, but somehow some great democrat like the former mayor of Vancouver decided that that wasn't enough. Now we have the minister saying that people really need more representation. What people really need is less government, and you people have created the largest government this province has ever had. It's the most expensive and is the one that trundles along....

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: We're talking about ministers and representation. You need a map to come into this place. Every time you look over there, somebody is sitting in a different place. I've been a critic of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for six years, and I've had four ministers. There's a rat-hole in that department, and they're all disappearing down it. Somebody has got to put the plug in. It's ridiculous. Every time they

[ Page 9185 ]

come in there's a different person sitting somewhere else. Now, in order to make things nice and happy, they're going to enlarge this place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Three minutes, hon. member, and we are on Bill 80.

MR. LEVI: Yes, we are on Bill 80. We're talking about what the minister talked about — democracy. Yes, this is democracy in action.

What's going to happen to this bill is what happened to the Islands Trust and the ward system. We're going to fight you on this. We'll continue to fight you on it. Nobody wants it. All you want it for is to perpetuate your government. What are you hiding?

Then you'll tell us how democratic you are. You're not democratic. Early in the game when you first came in, we had a Premier who said: "We're going to have a bill of rights." He doesn't even know what it means. We've been waiting for the bill of rights for seven years. He's prepared to give the bundle away in the constitution talks. Bill of rights, indeed. This afternoon my colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) put it very cogently about your year of the handicapped in which you couldn't even get the rights of the handicapped under the Human Rights Code.

So what do you do? All of a sudden you've been converted to the idea that people have rights, and that's the basis on which to change the system. That's nonsense. The fact is that on these questions you're a bit of a stranger from the truth. That's exactly how it is.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Careful now.

MR. LEVI: That's okay. That's a good phrase. It's quite acceptable in the House of Commons. As a matter of fact, Winston Churchill once used it. Or was it Lloyd George? I can't remember.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It can't offend another member.

MR. LEVI: He's not offended. Come now, is he? If he was offended, he'd be under his desk.

From my discourse, I'm obviously very strongly opposed to this. None of the arguments this government has made stand up at all.

MR. RITCHIE: Normally I appreciate following the member who just spoke, because his talks are usually a little more constructive. But this time he did exactly what he accused one of our members of doing. He was very boring and repetitious, and drove most of my colleagues and his own out of the chamber, and many of our visitors in the gallery. Why don't you stay and listen?

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

It would seem to me from all the debate we've heard so far from the socialist members that we can only conclude that if you're not a socialist we can't trust you. You have to be a known socialist before we can believe or trust you. Their record says: "We don't want any change." Obviously they don't want any change. They themselves ordered a report brought in to give some fair representation throughout the province. They had the Norris report brought in. As has already been mentioned, they asked that that report be brought in by October 31, 1975. Then, behind closed doors, they changed that to, I believe, November 8, 1975. In the meantime, it's understood that their member at that time.... Bob Williams called the election, and the report was never used. Then, of course, there was the Eckardt report, which they also objected to. Now they're objecting to the Warren report.

The last speaker on his feet talked about an act of desperation in respect to this bill. I can't think of anything more desperate than a government which would call for a report and then mess around with the dates so that they could hide from that report because it wasn't going to give them the things that they thought they should have. As one sits here and listens to their debate, one can't help but believe also that once you have a constituency won over you own it, which I guess is a socialist philosophy. Therefore any changes that should take place should be opposed because those constituencies are never going to be given an opportunity to select their own representative. "Once we get you we're going to keep you."

Mr. Speaker, I'm one of the newer members in this chamber, in my first term. and I can't help but think back to 1975, when I heard that there was going to be a new constituency created in the lower mainland. That new constituency would be known as Central Fraser Valley. That, Mr. Speaker, was the constituency that I was most anxious to represent, but I was greatly disappointed when I found out that they called the election before they brought in the report that recommended that that new constituency be established. Therefore it can only be concluded — the evidence is there — that that report also was against their ambition to socialize this province and eventually, as their Waffle Manifesto says, socialize Canada from coast to coast, using any vehicle that you can use, whether it be schools, labour unions, etc.

Then, of course, we have to conclude, Mr. Speaker, that no matter what they say, what they really mean is, "Don't do as we do, do as we say." They talk about gerrymandering, they talk about dirty tricks, and they talk about waste of tax dollars. I would like to know how many dollars were spent on the Norris report. I would like to know what was a waste then. I'm sure that when I have the time to do that, I will find out, and I will tell the people in the country exactly how much money was wasted on that report that you people were afraid to bring in.

Then, of course, you talk about dirty tricks. What is a dirtier trick, Mr. Speaker, than spending all of that money on the report, establishing a date for its receipt, changing it, and making sure that an election would be called before they would have to bring it forward? To me, that's a terrible dirty trick. Here was a report where the commission that was carrying out that study clearly stated that there was a great deal of need throughout our province for fairer representation in this chamber. They said: "No, we can't have that, because if we have fair representation in this province, then we are going to lose out."

They talk about gerrymandering. I would like to recall the 1975 election, when their leader was defeated. This is democracy that they are talking about. There is a difference. I want you to understand the difference between a democrat and a New Democrat. Their style of democracy is to go to another area and tell those people: "We don't care whether you selected that candidate or not — this is the one that you're going to get." So what do they do? They parachute their

[ Page 9186 ]

leader, whom the people said they didn't want representing them, into another area. But what is more devastating, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that there was a bundle of money involved in this transaction, and the figure that we hear is $80,000. What a price for democracy, they say. So $80,000 changes hands in the process of telling people: "You're not going to have the representation you selected, but rather you're going to get the one that we have invested in." When the Warren commission started out, they were invited to provide some input into the study. They refused to do that. Public meetings were held all over the province. They were asked the question: "Would you please supply me with the addresses of your offices?" They refused to do that. I wonder why.

AN HON. MEMBER: Garbage!

MR. RITCHIE: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) says "garbage." Again, I will be most anxious to hear his remarks in this debate, because obviously he has not read the report. The report says that the New Democratic Party head office was asked: "Where are your constituency offices?" And they refused to provide the information.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I'd appreciate it if you could get that member under control. Why don't you go back to your little cubby-hole and read the report, and then you'll be able to make some wise statements in this House.

The reason they were unable to get the information they required from the NDP headquarters was that they contacted the wrong office. Had they contacted the office of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, they would have got all the information they needed, with the exception of four. Because all but four of the New Democratic Party members of the Legislature are contributing one way or another to this company, which is involved in land development, commercial construction. It is a company controlled by the NDP. They know where it is, because they handle hundreds of thousands of dollars every year on behalf of these constituencies. It's disgusting, disgraceful and, in my opinion, totally dishonest and unfair to the constituents they're supposed to represent.

When we're talking about representation, it means more than sitting on your butt in this chamber. It means being out there in the constituency and working. It means making sure that every dollar that is assigned to the representation of that constituency goes to that constituency and not to some commercial development company that is involved in the building of hotels, or attempting to build hotels.

I don't know what happens to it, and I'm not going to make any guess here. But the time will come when I will have the proper opportunity to find out exactly what is happening to these hundreds of thousands of dollars that are intended to service the constituents represented by those NDP members who are sitting in this chamber. I intend to do that. When this question came up here earlier, Mr. Speaker, we had one member across the floor say: "Oh, I don't do that." Well, he was wrong, because the records show that in 1980-81 his office had some sort of financial transaction of in excess of $1,300.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: I don't know what you do with it. I went up there to Nanaimo to find out what you're doing with it. All I could find was a big hole in the ground where you had attempted to build a hotel. You are out there building commercial buildings, attempting to build hotels, and you come in here and talk and complain and whine and cry about not having fair representation. You don't know what fairness in democracy is. As far as I am concerned, it is just another perfect example of how they are cheating their constituents.

One member here had an opportunity over the past few months to sit in this chamber every day that we sat and to make his contribution, give suggestions, be constructive, represent his people. What is he doing? He's off on a tour for five weeks, I believe it was — on pay.

Of course, we know that person couldn't possibly be left to represent his constituents, because his constituents were mad at him for his irresponsible statement here concerning the banking institutions of this province. They were mad at him because of the way he hurt senior citizens and many other people who were dealing with the bank that he named. Is that representation? I think it's absolutely disgusting. Five weeks overseas, on full pay, just to get him out of town, while his partner, the second member for that constituency (Mr. Barnes), is on his back in hospital, unable to properly serve his constituents. Democracy. Don't tell me anything about democracy — socialist democracy!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I draw to your attention that it would be advisable to come back to the Warren report. I've allowed a great deal of latitude. I know you're quite satisfied with your debate, but the Chair would appreciate it if you would come back to the Warren report, and stay on it, please.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm debating Bill 80, not the Warren report. It's the opposition that's debating the Warren report. Why they're doing it, I don't know. It's his report, not ours; it's an independent report. I'm debating Bill 80.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

As I said in my opening remarks, "Unless you're a socialist, we can't trust you." Had we appointed Bob Williams to do the study and come in with a report, I guess there would have been eight seats in Vancouver East. Vancouver Centre would have been amended to have a strata title, and everything over the fourth floor would have gone to the second member. The three bottom floors and everything underground would have gone to Lauk. He's used to the underground stuff.

Back to Bill 80 and to democracy and fair representation in this chamber, I believe very strongly that the people of Richmond, Surrey, Delta, Okanagan South, Kamloops, Cariboo and North Peace River are every bit as entitled to fair representation as other people throughout this province and, I could suggest, as the people in Vancouver East and Vancouver Centre. And what of Victoria with two members? Where are they? Where is the representation as we debate this Bill 80? When this study was going on and the Warren commission was working in the field, when he was welcoming assistance and advice, where was their leader? I understand he was checking out his landholdings down in California. Can you tell me where he was?

[ Page 9187 ]

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) not to interrupt, and I'll advise the member for Central Fraser Valley to please remain within the principle of the bill, the relevant debate in second reading.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe I've got away from the bill. But having listened to the debates of the socialists, all we've heard them whine and cry about is democracy and fair representation, and that's what I'm doing. I'm talking about the lack of interest in this chamber now. What have we got? Seven members of the opposition in here. They're not interested. They have one thing in mind, and that is not to allow those people out there to get the fair representation they want. They think they own them, so they don't have to be here.

They talk about democracy and fair representation. Their responsibility, and the responsibility of their leader, was to be in this province and provide the Warren commission with any information they requested, or thought would be helpful to them. But no, not at all; they're not interested in that whatsoever. They are interested in one thing only, and that is power.

My recommendation to the opposition — most of them, I believe, don't normally live in their constituencies — is to move back into the constituencies and work for their people, not act like a bunch of paratroopers. I represent a very fine constituency, basically an agricultural area. In my constituency we have a tremendous amount of work that goes on as far as my office is concerned. I can tell you that if those members put in half as much work in theirs, who knows, maybe they would have a greater number in their constituency and would qualify for additional representation. But it's not so. It doesn't happen with them.

How can you build up a constituency and make your community a good place to live in if you won't even live in it yourself? Most likely they were asked not to live in it. How can you build it up? Then you say: "We don't think that those people should get any more representation. We don't think Surrey, which has a population of around 160,000, should get any more representation. We don't think they should get as much representation as Victoria, which has 79,000." How disgusting!

I would say that to ignore this independent report, as the socialists did with the report they ordered, or even to amend this report in any way at all, could attract justifiable criticism, because then you could say that we are playing politics. Finally, any constituency is entitled to decide who their representative will be. That's their choice, not your choice. You're not entitled to sit in this House or anywhere else and tell the people in Delta, Surrey or anywhere just what representation they're entitled to. The numbers are there.

In closing, I would say that if that party had not degenerated the way they have since 1972, they would have been supporting this bill, because I believe they held a number of the seats that have been recommended for additional representation. The only reason they're not supporting it is that they're a degenerated party that has lost ground. They lost those seats, and now they're saying: "If you give them fair representation, you'll weaken us further." That's how socialism works. We know that. My friends, putting "new" in front of "democratic" doesn't hide the red underwear that's already been indicated by one of my colleagues.

Their decision should not be to cry and whine, but rather to start to pull together as a party. Pull and work together, as a group, for your constituents. Your slogan says: "Let's get to work." Mind you, it's badly faded. Some of them are so ashamed of it that the stickers have disappeared from the cars. The recommendation I make to them is to start pulling together. Get your members working. Get them back into the constituencies. Get your leader on the job. Get out of land development and the construction of hotels, and get back into where you belong, representing the people who have elected you. That's what it's all about.

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: I have a lot against hotels whenever we find that a socialist party which is crying about not having fair representation gets involved in the construction of them, especially when I see money intended for representation somehow getting involved in that whole thing. Then I become a little bit concerned. We'll look into that later.

The recommendation is: get back home, get to work, represent your people and earn it. Don't whine for it. It doesn't belong to you. You ain't going to get it unless you work for it.

MR. STUPICH: I usually pay no more attention to the drivel from the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley than it's worth, and that's absolutely nothing. After all, I recall that he is the member who offered to get some land out of the Land Commission in exchange for a nomination....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, what I should have said was "accused" of doing that.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm going to challenge you to say something outside, Mr. Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps after these pleasantries we could return to Bill 80,

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I do have something to say in response to that member, and I'm going to say it. He said at the time that the only thing that saved his political career was the interference of the Attorney-General. But he went beyond that today. He said that funds paid to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society for constituency purposes were used for other purposes, and I challenge him to say that outside the safety of this chamber.

He talked about dirty tricks. Another dirty trick was played upon the members of this House and upon the people of this province on Thursday, September 9, when a telegram went out to each one of us. I'm not going to read the whole telegram — we're all familiar with it. I haven't seen it, but I have had the telephone telegram: "After consultation with the government, I am satisfied that the public requires that the House shall meet."

Well, Mr. Speaker, we're here meeting, and we're dealing with Bill 80. I do believe that the public requires us to meet at

[ Page 9188 ]

this particular time in the history of British Columbia. It doesn't require us to meet for the purpose of creating seven more Socred MLAs, but it does require us to meet for other problems that are facing the people of this province today. It requires us to meet to deal with the problems that are facing education, rather than creating seven more Social Credit MLAs. Educational services in this province are threatened with serious cutbacks. Educational services are threatened with the loss of library services, the loss of counselling, the loss of art and music programs, and in particular the loss of special needs.

We're here today talking about the advisability of creating seven more safe Socred seats. That's not what the public wants us to meet and discuss today. The public would rather we met and talked about the problems in education. We're here talking about creating seven more Socred seats. The public needs are not met by talking about and dealing with this question of creating seven more Socred seats. The public needs would be better met if we talked about the crisis in health care in this province, or if we talked about the operating rooms that are being shut down and the denial of service to people who need operations and are put on longer and longer waiting lists. Instead of that, we're talking about taking.... The figure that has been used is $650,000; we all know that it will be closer to a million dollars. Instead of taking that million dollars to create seven more Socred seats, Mr. Speaker, the public needs would be better met if we talked about the crisis in health care and about how that money could be put to better use to serve the people of this province.

That would be serving the public need. That's what we were told we were called here for: to serve the public need. We're not dealing with the public needs; we're dealing with the needs of a political party, the Social Credit Party, rather than the needs of the people of the province. It was a dirty trick to bring us here ostensibly to debate public needs, when in fact all we're talking about are the needs of the Social Credit Party.

The crisis in unemployment, the crisis in forestry, the work that should be done in forestry.... The million dollars could be far better spent in reforestation, in silviculture, in creating employment opportunities for people in the logging camps rather than employment opportunities for seven more Socred MLAs.

We were brought here to satisfy and deal with the problems of public needs. All we're talking about is creating job opportunities for seven more Social Crediters. Mr. Speaker, that's not serving the public needs. It's not good enough to invite us here to meet and discuss the public needs when all we're talking about is creating jobs for seven more people at a cost of a million dollars, rather than creating jobs for the 280,000 people who are unemployed.

We're not serving the public needs by talking about the bill that is before us today. I recognize that that is what is before us and that is what we have to talk about, but I'm saying that it is another Social Credit dirty trick to tell us that we were coming here to talk about public needs, when instead of that all we're talking about is the needs of the Social Credit Party.

We were led to believe that when we came we would be hearing about programs for economic recovery. We were led to believe that we would be dealing with programs to satisfy those who were worried about losing their houses. Instead of mortgages, instead of that, we're dealing with the needs of the Social Credit Party to have seven more members, so that they will be re-elected. We're not dealing with these other problems. We're hearing about these other problems.

The Premier was here for a little while on the first day; he left, and then we heard that a housing program was announced in Vancouver. That's dealing with the public's needs — or it could be if it's a good problem. Instead of being here, talking to us about the program and giving us an opportunity to raise questions and discuss the program and vote on something, he's left us here to debate his need for seven more Socred seats so that he can be — he thinks; he hopes — reassured of re-election as Premier of this province. We're not dealing with the public's needs; he's over there dealing with them.

The next day he's announcing a program in Burnaby, rather than here in the House, where he can be questioned about this tremendous housing development. Is it needed? I saw it on TV, Mr. Speaker; perhaps you did. Every notable politician in the area was invited, with the exception of the MLA for that area. The MLA for the area is supposed to be over here, talking about the public's needs — that is, the need for the Social Credit Party to have seven more safe seats, so that it can be re-elected as government. That's the only public need that we've been dealing with. We've now been here for three days, and there's no indication that the government intends for us to deal with anything other than the need of the Social Credit Party to have seven more safe seats.

What's being announced today? This is the third day. Whatever is being announced today that has anything to do with the public's needs, apart from the needs of the Social Credit Party, is announced somewhere else. The Premier is not here. We don't know who else is missing; we haven't kept track. Obviously whoever is running the show on the government side of the House is not terribly concerned about the needs of the public, with the exception of that one need, the need that we're talking about in Bill 80: the need for the Social Credit government, if it's going to be re-elected, to have seven more seats on that side of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has allowed quite a bit of latitude both to the member now on his feet and to the previous member, who was censured by the Chair for straying from the principle of the bill. I would commend all members who are taking their place in debate on Bill 80 to please relate their remarks to the principle of Bill 80, the Constitution Amendment Act.

MR. STUPICH: I'm certainly doing my best to relate everything I say to Bill 80, the bill that is creating seven more Social Credit seats. I keep mentioning that over and over, tying my remarks in with the bill to the best of my ability. I'll certainly try to follow your advice. I'd appreciate it if you'll remind me from time to time if you feet I'm straying too far from the bill, which is to create seven more safe Socred seats. That's what we were brought here for. The public need requires us to be here. While the Premier is out politicking and making announcements, we have to be here to deal with this question of creating seven more Socred seats, because the Premier wants to be re-elected. So he's out doing the things that he thinks will get him re-elected, while we're here doing the things that will help him, by getting seven more safe Socred seats for him.

It's not the first example of gerrymandering in the province of British Columbia — far from it. I can go back to

[ Page 9189 ]

even before the election of the present government. In those days they didn't call themselves Social Crediters; they called themselves Liberals, Conservatives, and eventually they called themselves coalitionists, and now they call themselves Social Crediters. But it's the Liberals and Conservatives all mixed up in one bag. Shake them and you see what comes out.

MS. BROWN: Sleaze comes out.

MR. STUPICH: I'm getting some help from my colleagues — "sleaze" and "cheat" and words like that. It's certainly appropriate to some of the actions of this government.

Going back to redistribution in 1938, it did a curious thing to the riding I represent, the riding of Nanaimo. The day that redistribution was being discussed by a committee in the House, the commissioner was there to explain and defend what he had done. He said there were three considerations that a responsible commissioner would take into account in coming up with riding boundaries. One, of course, is representation by population; another one is the historic and economic boundaries; the other is to give some recognition to the fact that some ridings are in very large, scattered communities, and that it has to be possible for the member to service the needs of those ridings, and that in those cases you can't strictly follow the rule of representation by population. Nevertheless, it was the first one mentioned as the most important one. That was in 1938.

When it came to the proposed boundaries — which were in fact implemented — for the Nanaimo riding, the MLA for Comox of that day, Colin Cameron, asked how these criteria were taken into account in coming up with the boundaries for Nanaimo. Mr. Speaker, I don't expect you to be familiar with the boundaries in Nanaimo, but the boundaries proposed then were a very tight ring around the city of Nanaimo, barely beyond the city boundaries, and then a ring of islands — Nanaimo and the Islands. It started with Gabriola Island, just outside Nanaimo, and came clear down to all the Gulf Islands, right to Resthaven, which is just a few miles out of Victoria. The riding made no sense at all in the context of those three criteria. The commissioner of the day said something that every commissioner since then might have said if he were asked, and if he were honest — and certainly Warren would be no exception. If he were asked today what criteria he would use, he would have to use this one as well in light of the report he brought in. That is: sometimes there are other considerations. There is no question in that day that the political consideration was to make the seat safe for the sitting cabinet minister representing Nanaimo. Everyone realized that. It was a joke. It was a redistribution. It was a gerrymandering. It was done to make that seat safe for the sitting member. That's why those islands were included all the way down to Resthaven. Every commissioner since then, with the possible exception of the one whose report was never implemented, has had that consideration primary in his mind — the political consideration: the political advice and instructions he has taken from the Premier of the day. There is no question about that one if you look at the boundaries that were proposed.

The 1979 commission. Everyone realizes what kind of a report that was, Mr. Speaker, and the things that were done in that report. I don't have to talk about Gracie's Finger, as so much as been said about that. The only one who found nothing wrong with that was the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). Everyone admits that the boundaries were deliberately drawn in order to make the seat safe for the sitting Socred members. There can be no question about that. The commissioner of the day did try to offer some explanation. He was asked about other changes he had made. He tried to offer some rationale, some explanation for every one of them — some excuse for doing what he had done.

When he came to one, in Nanaimo again, he didn't even try to answer it. Prior to that redistribution Nanaimo was a reasonably-sized seat and extended both north and south of the town to a reasonable distance, and there were a reasonable number of voters compared to other ridings on the Island. From the report it was obvious that it was added as an afterthought that there should be a substantial change in that riding. The area to the north that voted Social Credit was transferred to Comox riding. The area to the south — Ladysmith — was added to Nanaimo. For the first time in the history of the province Ladysmith and Nanaimo were in the same riding. What about the figures? After that redistribution Nanaimo had 40,001 registered voters. Cowichan-Malahat to the south had 25,000 registered voters. That's a difference of 15,000 voters created by taking Ladysmith away from Cowichan-Malahat and adding it to Nanaimo. Comox to the north had some 27,000 registered voters — Nanaimo in the middle with over 40,000. There can be no explanation for that other than that the commissioner, with political instructions, was trying to concentrate NDP votes in one riding in the hope that the Social Credit Party could win the other two — stacking the deck in favour of the Social Credit Party, an attempt that the voters of the day foiled by electing NDP members from all three ridings. But that wasn't the commissioner's fault. He did his best to make sure that there would be two Socreds and one NDP MLA from that area rather than three NDP members. His best was not good enough.

Now we come to the 1982 redistribution. The commissioner started by saying that, number one, he was invited by the executive director of the Social Credit Party, who approached Derril Warren and asked him whether or not he would do this favour for the Social Credit Party. Of course, Derril Warren was only too happy to do a favour for the Social Credit Party. He accepted it. Later on he was officially appointed by the government, after he had been approached and after he had accepted the invitation from the executive director of the Social Credit Party. That alone would make one wonder just how.... I've heard the members opposite use the word "fair" over and over, and they did it without smiling. They're very good actors. In any case, Mr. Warren said when he officially accepted — I'm not talking now about the original, quiet, private acceptance — that he did not believe in multi-member ridings, but that he had been asked to do it, so he was going to do it. He had been asked to create seven more seats, because that was the number that the government of the day felt they needed, so he was going to create seven more. Then he invited people around the province to come and tell him what he should do. Having apparently received the instructions from the Premier to create seven more seats, and to create them by doubling up on the representation in certain ridings, he then goes through the motions, the façade of going around the province and listening to people.

Mr. Speaker, I find it awfully hard not to believe that that report was written before he was even officially appointed. I think he was told at the time he was appointed what kind of report he was going to bring in. From the point of view of the

[ Page 9190 ]

Social Crediters, that's what they call fair. That's the way I think it was. I agree that that's a shameful way for the government to act in appointing a commissioner, and a shameful way for the commissioner to act in delivering his report. But that's on his head and on the government's head.

The government talks about the need to be fair. The Provincial Secretary, in presenting the legislation, used the word "fair" over and over again. He referred to the three prairie provinces, and pointed out that the average number of voters per MLA is much lower in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba than it is in the province of British Columbia.

There's an old story that Tommy Douglas uses often, and others have used, I suppose, that this word "average" means little. If your head is on an ice block and your feet are in the oven, your average temperature may be just about right, but it's not very comfortable. To say that the average is such and such in various provinces does not indicate in the slightest that there's any fairness. Of course, the Provincial Secretary when using the word "fair" uses it from a Social Credit point of view. That's not fair as other people see it.

It is true that in the province of Alberta the average number of voters per MLA is less than it is in the province of British Columbia. But it's also true that the difference in multiples is just over three times the difference between the riding with the highest number of voters and the riding with the lowest number — 3.3 times, to be right. In the province of Saskatchewan there's the same thing. There's a much lower number of voters per MLA, but the difference between the riding with the largest number of voters and the riding with the lowest number is just 3.3. In the province of Manitoba the difference is even less. The riding with the highest number of voters has 2.8 times as many registered voters as the riding with the lowest number.

What's the situation here in the province of British Columbia? It's quite different. In 1966, after the redistribution done then, there was one riding that had 22,212 registered voters. There were five ridings where the difference between the lowest and the highest was several times greater than the greatest difference in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. That redistribution did nothing to create fairness. It wasn't intended to. Forty-two out of 53 members — there were 55 members in total — had more voters per electoral district than did the ridings of North and South Peace combined. Almost every MLA in the province represented more voters than did the members for the ridings of North and South Peace River combined. The only different riding was Atlin.

If we go a little further and include the riding represented by the Provincial Secretary, 22 of the ridings were represented by MLAs who represented more voters than the members for the ridings of North Peace, South Peace and Columbia River all put together. Is that fairness? The Provincial Secretary has the nerve to talk about fairness.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm going back to 1966 now. Let's bring it a little more up to date. I appreciate that, and I'll bring it more up to date. Let's look at 1979, and see what the situation was then.

Richmond has been mentioned as an example of unfair representation. There's no question about it. In 1979 Richmond had the highest number of registered voters per MLA — over 53,000. But even then, if we used the same proportion as existed in Alberta, the lowest would have had 15,800; but there were six ridings that had fewer than that. So the proportion in B.C. is far worse than it is in any of the other three western provinces. In 1979, 37 MLAs represented more voters than did the members for the ridings of North and South Peace River combined. This was after the 1979 redistribution. Eleven MLAs represented more voters than did the members for the ridings of North Peace, South Peace and Columbia River combined. That wasn't fair. But today, in 1982, we're going to make it fair.

We look at the ridings again. Richmond is still on top with 55,310 registered voters. Again, if we take Alberta and say that it is a reasonable proportion, when the highest is 3.3 times that of the lowest, we find there are still six tidings with fewer voters per MLA than that proportion in Alberta. Even with the report that is supposed to be fair, the one before us today, we find that after implementation, there will still be 23 MLAs representing more voters than the ridings of North and Peace River combined. Out of 64 members, 23 people in this House will represent more voters each than the three MLAs representing North and Peace River. There will still be three MLAs in this House representing more voters each than the total number of voters in the ridings of South Peace, North Peace and Columbia, which are represented by four MLAS. Three MLAs will each be representing more voters in total than the total voting population in those areas that are represented by four MLAs. That's fair?

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

The government tells us it's fair because we don't know that any of these ridings will vote one way or another. That's true. We've been fooled in the past. The government has been fooled in the past, and it may well be fooled this time. But may I just recall five ridings that are being talked about these days: Cariboo, Columbia River, North Peace, Okanagan South and South Peace; five ridings that are being discussed in the context of being fair. Since the advent of the Social Credit in 1952, not one of them has failed to return Social Credit representatives to this House. They might change, but in the last 30 years they have consistently sent Social Crediters to the House.

Let's look at the other ridings: Delta, Kamloops, Richmond, Surrey. In only one general election in the last 30 years have they failed to return Social Credit representatives to this House. So they can pretend that it's fair; they can pretend that nobody knows how the people in these ridings are going to vote, and I agree with them. Nobody knows. But on the record, the first five ridings have never failed to support the party in power today, regardless of what they've done, regardless of the dirty tricks, regardless of the way in which they have abandoned the economy, regardless of the way in which unemployment has grown under their administration. Regardless of all these things, those five ridings have always followed slavishly the party line. In the other four ridings, only once have they strayed. So in saying that the government is stacking the deck in favour of its re-election in this method, the odds are that that is exactly what they're doing and exactly what they had in mind when they told the commissioner the kind of report they wanted him to bring in.

In light of these figures, no one can honestly stand up and say that this is a fair report before us. No one can say that representation was fair before this report came in. No one can say that representation in the province of British Columbia has been fair in the last 30 years, and the party in power today

[ Page 9191 ]

has been in office for 27 of those 30 years. For 27 years, we've put up with unfair representation, and perhaps before that as well. I haven't gone back any further today. For 27 years we've had unfair representation. I ask you, whose fault is that? We were in office for three years; they've been in office for 27 years. Representation in British Columbia is unfair, and the unfairness is going to continue under the Warren commission report. In some instances, it is going to be even worse. To say that North Peace should have two members so that capped natural gas wells will have representation in the House — not people, but acres of land, or whatever....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I don't know if there are grizzly bears in North Peace, but that's the kind of fair representation that they talk about. To take the second smallest riding in the province in terms of population — third smallest: South Peace has even less than North Peace — and say that it should have two members simply because its record of voting favours the government in power in no way describes a report that is fair. That's not being fair.

It's not fair to us, as I said earlier, to call us here, to invite us here by sending us a telegram which says that the public interest requires us to be here. And the only example of public interest that they've brought out so far is to talk about a redistribution that will create what they hope will be seven more Social Credit seats, while the Premier and one cabinet minister after another are out in other parts of the province; they're not even here in Victoria. They don't even have the decency to tell us in the House what's going on. Talking to the people, the rest of the people, telling them the great things that he's going to do someday — if — while we here in the House are deciding whether he should have seven more safe Social Credit seats supporting him when he deigns to return to the House and ask for support for something or other.

Mr. Speaker, it's not fair to the voters of British Columbia to say that it should take five votes in Nanaimo to have the equivalent representation of one vote in Columbia, North Peace River or South Peace River. It is not fair to the voters of Nanaimo, the voters of Boundary-Similkameen and the voters of Saanich to say that five votes in those areas are as good as only one vote in North Peace River, South Peace River or Columbia. It was never intended to be fair to the voters of British Columbia. It's only intended to re-elect the Social Credit government.

Other governments have tried that. I recall the Thatcher government in Saskatchewan trying that in 1971. The redistribution they brought in then was supposed to be so bad that it was guaranteed to re-elect the Liberal government forever, as long as that redistribution remained in effect. The voters of the province were so horrified, shocked and annoyed with the way in which the government of the day was using them and abusing them, and destroying any vestige of fairness, that they turfed that government out of office. Perhaps the voters of British Columbia will have an opportunity, soon, to say to this government that they don't like anybody trying to cheat his way into office.

It was not fair to the people of British Columbia to bring us here — at what cost — simply to create seven more Social Credit seats, when there are problems facing the delivery of educational services in the province, problems facing the delivery of health-care services, problems of unemployment, problems facing the construction industry and the economics of the province in total. Almost every province in Canada, with the exception of Newfoundland, is doing better than B.C. These problems are being talked about in the province, but not here in the House. They're being talked about by the Premier in Vancouver. Burnaby and, today, in Kitimat. He's travelling around the province talking about these problems, while he's leaving us here to provide for him seven more Social Credit seats. That's not fair to the people of the province, Mr. Speaker. It was not fair to the people of the province, and not fair to us, to invite us here to talk about redistribution when we should be talking about the real problems in the province of British Columbia.

The opposition have made two attempts to try to get us talking about those problems. The Leader of the Opposition moved a motion which was ruled out of order. Apparently it wasn't urgent enough, it wasn't important enough to talk about economics today. I'm not reflecting on a decision of the House; I'm simply saying that's what happened. The Leader of the Opposition then asked for leave, that everyone would agree that we should be talking about this rather than talking about more Social Crediters coming into the house. Again, leave was denied. Mr. Speaker, the government doesn't want to talk about the kinds of things that we should be talking about, the things that we were told we were being invited here to talk about. The government simply wants to talk about political survival for the Social Credit Party. If that's what we're going to talk about in the interests of the people, then let's go where we should be talking about those problems. That isn't here in this chamber; that's on the hustings. That?s where we should be talking about the problems of the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. FRASER: I was going to congratulate the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker on their exalted appointments, but they've already flown the coop. However, in their absence, I congratulate them on their election to the high office of Speaker and the high office of Deputy Speaker. I wish them a long tenure in office, and a satisfactory one.

We're here to debate Bill 80. I am honoured to follow the member for Nanaimo. It's very difficult to follow him; that is, to understand what he had to say.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: He's all mixed up.

HON. MR. FRASER: He's all mixed up. It's obvious to me he hasn't read the Warren report.

I would like to make a few remarks about the Warren report. I want to get it on record that I fully support the report. A lot of things have been said about Mr. Warren, and I'd just like to put it on the record who he is.

Derril Warren, leader of the British Columbia Progressive Conservative Party from 1971 to 1973, is a partner in the Kelowna law firm of Warren, Ladner, Berge and Co. Mr. Warren, 43, has a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of British Columbia and a Bachelor of Law degree from Dalhousie University, and earned his Master of Laws degree at Harvard University. He is a member of both the B.C. and Alberta law societies. Before moving to Kelowna, where he lives with his wife Diane and their three children, Mr. Warren was a partner in the Vancouver law firm of Owen, Bird and Co.

[ Page 9192 ]

I would also say to the members on the other side that he never has been and is not known now as a Social Crediter. As a matter of fact, he did his best to defeat the Social Credit twice by running himself. What does disturb me is when I hear the Leader of the Opposition calling this outstanding citizen "sleazy" and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) calling him a "hack." If I were Derril Warren I'd sue them for libel.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: I challenge them. They won't say it outside.

They're good at character assassination on that side when they want to be. I don't think they should be allowed to get away with it in the case of this person. I'm proud to be a member of the government that appointed this outstanding person to do this job.

In the province of British Columbia in the immediate past we've had three royal commissions. I won't go beyond those. We had the Norris commission in July 1975. The three who served on that commission were outstanding citizens of the province. The Norris report was received by the then NDP government that appointed them. It recommended in November 1975 that the B.C. Legislature go from 55 to 62 seats. However, the then NDP government extended his time to report, and in the interval of the extension of time they called an election so the report would never see the light of day. They talk about denying democracy. I don't know of a more blatant effort to do it than that one, because their own commission appointed recommended 62 seats, and they buried it.

The next electoral reform commissioner was Judge Eckardt, who those people on the other side and a few others in British Columbia like to vilify and put to shame because it makes good headlines. Again, it's character assassination. Judge Eckardt is a good Canadian.

MR. LEA: He's not a judge.

HON. MR. FRASER: He was a judge.

His report recommended that the B.C. Legislature go from 55 to 57 members. I'll say on behalf of this government that they accepted his report and moved from 55 to 57 members. We didn't bury and hide it from the people of British Columbia.

One of the outstanding persons the press use as a very reliable voice in matters like this — one of the great critics of the Eckardt report — was Bruce Eriksen. The press use him as a critic, and so do the other side. I don't accept anything Bruce Eriksen says.

The next is the Warren report that we're dealing with here today. It's the policy of this government to try to keep up with the ever-growing population of this province. The Warren report that we're dealing with today is the third report. In spite of the socialists we have in this province, we keep on advancing very fast — in every respect, including population.

All the figures that I'll be talking about today — and I know they're very confusing — are based on the 1981 census count. I'm not talking about voters' lists or anything else. The 1981 census count for the province of British Columbia showed that there were 2,700,000-odd people in our province. It's the largest population ever in the history of our province. When you get down to timing of redistribution, I suggest that some people should consider these facts. This government had those facts of the 1981 census. We didn't take that. The government of Canada takes this census every five years. And, in the opinion of the government, we had to do something about the increased population. Therefore Mr. Warren was commissioned to bring in the Warren report, and that's what we're talking about here today. He recommends the B.C. Legislature increase from 57 to 64 MLAs.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I might add that it's our government policy not to hide reports like this, or burn them as the NDP government did when they got the only report they had. That's why this report is here today to be discussed in the B.C. Legislature. I understand from the debate coming from the other side that they're really saying that they want to deny democracy in the areas talked about in this report. This is an interim report of Mr. Warren's. It says in the Warren report that they recommend for the long term that we create a full-time, three-member electoral commission. That wasn't taken out of the Warren report brought into this Legislature. That's government policy that will flow from the Warren report. But why deny democracy to where the heavy increase has taken place while that transpires? As you know, when you set up a commission, if you don't.... My experience has been that it takes a year to get them set up, and it takes them three more years to report. So what are we looking at then? Four or five years before any action, and that is not fair to the citizens of this province. In the meantime, we are saying that we'll accept what the Warren report brings in.

There's another matter I'd like to bring to rest. The opponents — and I'm always glad there are a few — the socialists and the great experts in the lower mainland daily news media are talking about the seven new seats as safe Socred seats. What a bunch of blabber. They presume a lot when they tell people how they're going to vote. Who do they think they are? How do they know they're going to be safe Socred seats? I get a kick out of the socialist opposition over there assuming that they're safe Social Credit seats. I thought they were better fighters than to give up before it starts. That's what they're doing. What are they nervous about anyway? They're really twitchy about something. I'd make this point, Mr. Speaker, to the media that know so much about politics and really nothing — and to the opposition. Everybody has equal opportunity to win them if these seats are created and there's an election called. Don't forget that one little bit. I want to add that I'll do all in my power to make sure that none of them who get elected are socialists. Every party has equal opportunity to get these seven — plus the other 57 seats that will be up.

To the opposition on the other side: your leader and your party had their opportunity and muffed it. You have to admit that you were the worst government in the history of British Columbia. And don't try to argue with me: I was here and watched it all happen.

MR. LEA: I didn't think you'd remember.

HON. MR. FRASER: Oh, yes, I remember. And because of your record, you'll never be back. The people of this province have no confidence in you or your party, and they never will again. They'll keep on electing you as a rump group.

[ Page 9193 ]

As a matter of fact, in the 1975 election even the Premier of the day, Dave Barrett, lost his seat. I don't think that had ever happened before in the province of British Columbia. That was a first, too. Then he bought his way back in 1976. He paid off the member who was elected in 1975 to resign his seat, and it cost $80,000. So he made his way back.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Your Honour, yesterday the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) made that same slanderous, scurrilous accusation, and he was asked to withdraw and apologize. I think the Minister of Highways should be asked to do the same thing. I think the Minister of Highways should obey the rules, just the same as anybody else. I know he doesn't like to, but he should be required to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. Before the member for Skeena rose on a point of order, which was quite correct, the Chair was about to caution the Minister of Transportation and Highways that he was straying from the principle of Bill 80. I think the record will show that.

However, with respect to the hon. member for Skeena's point of order, the Chair did not hear any unparliamentary language. The Chair heard irrelevant debate, but not unparliamentary language.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) suggested that another member of this House purchased his seat. Not only is that totally unparliamentary to suggest, but it is a criminal offence to do. To suggest that one member of this House is guilty of committing a criminal offence — to wit, purchasing a seat, a Criminal Code offence in Canada — is grossly unparliamentary and totally false and must be withdrawn immediately and without reservation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order as articulated by the first member for Victoria is well taken, and I will ask the hon. minister, if there was any imputation of improper motive, to withdraw that statement. Will the minister please withdraw.

HON. MR. FRASER: There was none whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. In no way would I imply anything like that.

I would like to say that the present first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) spends more time holidaying in California than he does in Vancouver East — or here. As a matter of fact, I spend more time in the Vancouver East riding than the first and second members do. I understand that the previous MLA is going to run as an independent. I predict that he'll probably win one of the two seats in Vancouver East whenever the election is called. I refer to the former member, Bob Williams.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: You should watch, mister second member for Vancouver East. I've told you time and again to watch your back. You had better watch currently, because I understand he's running.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll once again caution the minister about straying past the principle of the bill. We are debating Bill 80.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, okay.

Now to some of the details in the Warren report. It recommended seven new seats to bring proper representation to these ridings: Surrey, from two to three seats; Richmond, one to two; Okanagan South, one to two; Kamloops, one to two; Delta, one to two; Cariboo, one to two; and North Peace River, one to two. I think at this point we should deal with some facts from the 1981 census regarding these ridings. I know the urban MLAs, particularly those on that side, don't know where they are, let alone anything about them, and I'd like to give them some of the facts of life that happened.

In the case of Surrey, the population of Surrey is the largest in the province, with 161,012. It has been represented by two, and is recommended to go to three. That great bellwether central riding of Kamloops has a population of 77,278; in Delta it's 74,769. They're concerned about Cariboo, where the population is 61,774, — it's a huge area with 34,000 square miles. At one time it didn't have too many people, but it now has as many, or more, than a lot of urban ridings. Then there's the riding of Vancouver East, which, like so many other ridings, is really a postage-stamp riding, compared to Cariboo, as far as size is concerned — they're great people and all that — with 34,000 square miles, a population of 89,794 and the huge area of 9 square miles.

In the debate yesterday the very informed member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) — I doubt that he's informed about that riding; he doesn't know anything else about B.C. — was comparing Cariboo to Shuswap-Revelstoke. I was very interested. This is what he said: Cariboo, with 61,744 citizens and 34,443 square miles, was equal to.... Shuswap-Revelstoke had bigger problems. What a pile of....

Here are the facts on Shuswap-Revelstoke, comparing the same data I just used for Cariboo: Shuswap-Revelstoke has 49,492 citizens and 9,765 square miles. Just to show that that member doesn't know what he's talking about, Shuswap-Revelstoke has one-quarter of the area and a third fewer citizens than the Cariboo riding. I realize he doesn't understand that, but I want to get it on the record.

Now I want to do a justification for the great historical riding of Cariboo having two members. I want you to listen to me, because I really need a little sympathy. I'd like the urban members to listen to this carefully: in the riding of Cariboo there are four municipal councils, three school districts, two regional districts, three hospital boards and many other organizations, such as the chamber of commerce, church associations and so on, that need to be communicated with, as far as the provincial government is concerned.

The population of the historical riding of Cariboo.... It was one of the original ridings in the Cariboo, with three members in 1871. In those days they said that Vancouver would never amount to anything because it was too far from Barkerville. Well, things have changed a little.

The population of Cariboo is mainly on Highway 97, from south of Clinton to north of Quesnel. These communities are 60 miles apart. I might say that there are 10,000 miles of public roads in the Cariboo, mostly gravel — but the MLA is working to try to change that. For example, from Loon Lake, in the south, to the northern boundary, it is 250 miles; from the western end of the riding, in Tweedsmuir Park, to the far eastern part of the riding at Mahood Lake, is

[ Page 9194 ]

365 miles. While the population is dense on Highway 97, it has increased dramatically in all areas other than Highway 97: Horsefly, Likely, Forest Grove, Canim Lake, Lone Butte, Green Lake, Alexis Creek, Tatla Lake, Anahim Lake, Bushy Lake, Red Bluff, Wells and the famous Barkerville.

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Nimpo?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, Nimpo too. Williams Lake is the central part of the riding. From Williams Lake the Cariboo riding extends west 250 miles to the foothills of the Coast Range.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: And it's all paved.

HON. MR. FRASER: It's not all paved. As a matter of fact, Highway 20 extends from Williams Lake to Bella Coola. I shouldn't tell my colleagues on this side, but a small sliver of that area is in the Mackenzie riding, 50 miles of it, and it's all paved, and then there's 200 miles of gravel.

Anyway, it's 250 miles from Williams Lake through the Chilcotin plateau, over the coast range to the Bella Coola Valley, and that's where the riding joins the Mackenzie riding. I'm pleased that the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) is here. I'm really getting tired of answering the mail from the people of Bella Coola. They all come to me for help. They can't find their own MLA, and now they want Bella Coola in the Cariboo riding, Mr. Speaker. Derril Warren didn't pick that up; I don't know why. They're fed up entirely with the member they have for Bella Coola, and they want to become part of the Cariboo riding. I might say, they're sure welcome, but I can't do very much about that at this time.

MS. SANFORD: Then you'd get three seats.

HON. MR. FRASER: The member for Comox says we'd get three seats. I'll buy that idea. This is a decent-size riding, not a postage-stamp riding like Comox where you go around in a little circle.

There's no question, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Warren's recommendations are correct in the case of Cariboo. Because of its size and population Cariboo deserves increased representation. The economy of the Cariboo is very diversified: a large cattle-raising country on the agricultural side, mining of all types, a large forest industry, large sawmills and pulp mills as well as a large tourist industry. Because of diversification of the economy of the Cariboo, many subjects connected with the economy are brought to the attention of the MLA. Many and varied forest subjects are brought to the attention of the MLA. I'd like to compare this to Vancouver East, where they have two members and have had for a long time. They don't have many forest problems in Vancouver East. The agricultural subjects: we have all types in the Cariboo, and they are diversified. Again, comparing with Vancouver East, where they have two members, the only agricultural activity they've got in that riding is the PNE and the horse races. I want to say here that I support both of those agricultural events in Vancouver East.

Mining subjects in the Cariboo are varied. That's where the gold rush started and caused Vancouver and the lower mainland to be created. In Barkerville in the historic part of the riding, the mining is still going on. There are not too many mining problems in Vancouver East.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They're all shut down in your riding.

HON. MR. FRASER: No, they're not all shut down. If you want to get into that, Mr. Member, I want to pay tribute to the mining and forest industry in the Cariboo. They're operating at 75 percent. Why don't you go and find out why your forest industry is running at 20 percent? Why don't you ask those questions instead of sitting here and hollering?

Something else regarding the Warren report, Mr. Speaker, is that this gang over there — the opposition — refused to appear before the Warren commission. I think that's a public disgrace. I want to know what they have done since this House adjourned on July 29. I know the Leader of the Opposition was getting a suntan in California. But all the rest of them must have been out of the country too. I think it's an absolute disgrace that you didn't appear before this public body and do your public duty. Hang your head in shame, you opinionated NDPers.

I just want to give a little lesson to the news media of the lower mainland. I know that it falls on deaf ears. But the lower mainland news media have never understood the importance of the interior and the north of this great province. If I ever saw it in spades, I've seen it in — well, I should be polite — the writings regarding the Warren report. Mr. Speaker, it's the interior and the north of this province that create the wealth and jobs for all British Columbians. It is sad when the news media of the lower mainland do not understand this. I don't say this is any change. They've been that way since we have been a province. They'll never see it.

They sure don't like to see any little extra bit going to the interior or the north, regardless of party affiliation. They want to hang on and be bosses. Those little editorial writers — not the reporters — haven't been beyond Burnaby in their lives and they write and say: "The interior and the north, where's that? A bunch of rock and gravel." I'm insulted by them. I'm going to tell everybody in the interior and the north not to buy their papers. As a matter of fact, very few of them do. They buy the good local papers up there and get the straight goods.

MR. HANSON: Tell us all about the tunnel under Chilko Lake.

HON. MR. FRASER: To that second member from the postage-stamp riding of Victoria, I'll first of all have to tell you where Chilko Lake is, because you haven't got a clue.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: You do? Good for you. You must have looked at a map while you worked for the lands branch. By the way, they're going to have you back at the lands branch shortly, too.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: If there was ever any time for reservations about anything, you have to sit and think about it, and I've had lots of time to think about the Warren report

[ Page 9195 ]

— almost four days. But if I ever had any doubt, I don't any more, with all those socialists opposed to it. That's good enough for me. I think it's great, and the faster we get on with it and implement it the better it will be.

One other thing, Mr. Speaker. This party that is the government can win with 57 seats, 67 seats, 77 seats or 87 seats.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: I hear their wiffle-waffling in the lower mainland press that we should be talking about the economy. Sure, we'll talk about the economy. That's very important. But we've already done something about that. Mr. Speaker, I want to spell out a few things. Northeast coal — they're all opposed to that. People are going to be asked shortly: "If you vote for them are you going to shut that down — 20,000 jobs?"

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we seem to be straying slightly from the bill before us at this time, which is the Constitution Amendment Act, 1982, Bill 80.

HON. MR. FRASER: I was only taking advantage of straying because that side have all done that as well.

I'd like to name a few other things — and it will only take me a minute. B.C. Place. They're against that, and that's creating jobs now. The mortgage assistance program. That's out, and they're against that too. The Annacis Ridge. They're against that too. Boy, we've got a great story. Discussing about Premier Bennett not in the House. What a crock! The Premier of this province was in this House on Monday, Tuesday and, if we're lucky, he'll still show up today. Look at the Leader of the Opposition's record in the last sitting of the Legislature. He was here about 50 percent of the time. And where is he today?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, again, Bill 80 and the principle thereof.

HON. MR. FRASER: You bet. We're ready to go anytime, and the quicker the better. It's very doubtful that will happen, you know, but time will tell.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) were very upset because they weren't invited to the great announcement made yesterday by the Premier of this province and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) — going to do something about redevelopment of the Oakalla lands. I don't know how they were overlooked, but I can imagine what they've got to say about that progressive measure. It will just be all Negative Nelly stuff.

I'm delighted with the Warren report. It's long overdue, and it brings representation to another part of British Columbia which has been forgotten for a long time.

MS. BROWN: We just heard from that bellicose member for Cariboo — all sound and fury, signifying nothing. The member told us that Cariboo needs to have two members. Saanich, which is exactly the same size, seems to be able to make do with one. Nanaimo, which has the same number of voters and residents....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: More. Saanich, with 68,000, makes do with one. Nanaimo, with 66,000, makes do with one. But Cariboo, with 61,000, needs two. I agree with that, because the present member is so incompetent, so inept and so lazy that they have to have at least one more member to have any kind of representation for the people of Cariboo. I'm not going to quarrel with Warren over appointing, over another member in Cariboo. God knows, Cariboo needs a member. It doesn't have one now.

Then he talks about the member for Burnaby North and Willingdon and Edmonds being upset because they're not invited to hear this government once again promise to phase out Oakalla. Who believes that? Before every single election this government promises to phase out Oakalla. The date for phasing, Mr. Speaker, floats and changes, depending on when the election is called. There goes that song again. Every time the Social Credit government stands up and says, "We're going to phase out Oakalla," everyone in Burnaby knows that an election is coming down. That's all it means. That Attorney-General thinks that he can buy the votes of the members of Burnaby by promising to phase out Oakalla. It didn't happen when the promise was made in 1969. It didn't happen when the promise was made in 1972. It didn't happen when the promise was made in 1975. It didn't happen when the promise was made in 1976. And it ain't going to happen in 1982 either.

You may as well try and come up with some new promises, because the people in Burnaby are too clever to fall for that kind of hacking.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was checked when I was talking about the Warren report. This member is doing the same thing and I'd like you to bring her to order.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, I suggest that the member for Cariboo has given Mr. Speaker the wrong information. We are discussing Bill 80. Why do they keep insisting on calling it the Warren report?

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Hon. members are well aware that some latitude in debate has been allowed. But now, hon. members, we are discussing Bill 80. The member continues.

MS. BROWN: One of the things that the bellicose member for Cariboo did in discussing this bill was to give us a curriculum vitae of Mr. Warren. I don't know why he did that, since we're not discussing the Warren report, but I think it's not fair that he should give an incomplete curriculum vitae. I think he should have added that Mr. Warren is also the lawyer to Denison Mines. I just want to say that I find it really interesting that a company the size of Denison has to go all the way to Kelowna to find itself a lawyer. That is something that I'm interested in, and I'm sure a number of other people are interested in it also.

A person who steals is called a thief, is known as a thief and, indeed, is a thief. If that person is caught, that person is dealt with through the law of the land. The problem that we face in this province is that when the thievery has been conducted by the government, which is supposed to introduce the law and protect the law, then the people of the province are left with no legal recourse. The only good thing I can say about the government's action in introducing this

[ Page 9196 ]

particular bill, which has in it reprehensible, dishonest and corrupt recommendations, is that in the final analysis it is the people of British Columbia who are going to deal with that act of thievery.

The previous speaker wondered why the members of the opposition were being so twitchy. The members of the opposition are not twitchy; they are angry. There's a difference between being twitchy and angry. I'll tell you why the members of the opposition are angry. First of all, they are angry because they were called into session under false pretences. I will read to you the letter I received asking me to show up for work, which came under the signature of the then Deputy Speaker: "After consultation with the government of the province of British Columbia, I am satisfied that the public interest requires that the House shall meet."

I accepted the directive to show up here at 2 o'clock on Monday, September 13, for the reconvening of the Legislature to deal with matters of public interest. However, what matter is this House dealing with now, and what was the first order of business? The introduction of Bill 80, a piece of legislation to redesign the electoral boundaries of this province in such a way as to subvert the right of the people of British Columbia to fair electoral representation. I am optimistic, because I know that the first opportunity the people of British Columbia have to respond to this piece of legislation, they will use it to turf out a government which is so dishonest and so reprehensible that it will abuse the power given to it so as to ensure its own perpetuation — into infinity, as a member once said, if not longer.

As a matter of fact, the people have already started to speak about it, have already started to deliver their verdict. I want to read into the record a couple of the comments which have been made. I'll start with columnist Mike Tytherleigh in this morning's Province, who referred to this particular bill as "an arrogant and cynical abuse of power that complies with Acton's most quoted phrase: 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'" That's what we're witnessing here.

HON. MR. FRASER: Is that all the research you've done on it? Clips out of the daily Province?

MS. BROWN: Don't worry about the research. The minister from Cariboo stands there and flails at the media, attacking them at every opportunity because they dare to tell the truth about his incompetence, ineptitude and laziness. He can flail at them because they do that; but there are people in this province who read what they say and know precisely what this government is up to.

The editorial in this afternoon's Sun, September 15, states:

"The haste with which the Social Credit government has embraced their Warren report on electoral representation is positively indecent. It is distasteful enough that the government should brazenly adopt a redistribution formula so clearly stacked in its favour, but quite sickening that it should be given first priority at a session of the Legislature that was ostensibly called to deal with major initiatives for economic recovery. Even the people of the province feel cheated. Such an act of political cynicism requires more than mere chutzpah. It requires contempt: contempt for the House, contempt for the electoral process and for the intelligence of the voters as well. It also indicates Premier Bill Bennett is afraid of losing an election fought fairly and squarely."

The editorial in the Province this morning went even further than that.

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand that in this Legislature you can't have newspapers. That member has all kinds of them. I think it's contrary to the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the rule is that while it is not parliamentary to read newspapers personally, certainly the quoting of excerpts from newspapers is in order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why that member is so twitchy.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: If I decided to run in Cariboo, he would be in serious trouble indeed.

I continue quoting from the Province:

"It is almost as if he" — the Premier — "is treating British Columbia like a Latin American banana republic, except that we don't expect the tanks to be rolled out in front of those flower beds at the legislative buildings. Unless we are to regard the so-called seat redistribution based on the Warren report as the moral equivalent of the tanks. In Latin America the tanks are there to see that the government remains in power. You could say almost the same thing about a redistribution that virtually guarantees the Socreds six new seats even before an election is held."

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The Province newspaper has confidence in you. I have confidence in the people of British Columbia, and I know you're not going to win those six new seats.

MR. RITCHIE: Then don't worry.

MS. BROWN: I'm not worried about your winning those six new seats, because I know that the people of British Columbia respect, appreciate and honour honesty and integrity, and when they recognize that those are not present in that government they are going to turf you out.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite keep asking me what I'm worried about. Do I look worried?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MS. BROWN: No, I don't. This is the way my face is set. I'm not worried. I'm just trying to bring to your attention the anger and disapproval of the residents of British Columbia over two things, and my own anger that I was brought back here prepared to debate issues such as the increasing unemployment, the direct result of some of the policies of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), and the growing number of people being forced onto social assistance and unemployment insurance as a

[ Page 9197 ]

direct result of the policies of that government. I was presumably brought back here to discuss the continued attack on the health-care system and the erosion of the educational system by that government over there. And what do we find, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, again we're straying to quite a degree from the principle of Bill 80, which is presently before us.

MS. BROWN: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, your interruption came just as I was about to point out to the House, and to you in particular, that I came back here to discuss these things, and instead I find myself debating the redrawing of electoral boundaries to ensure the re-election of this corrupt and reprehensible government. That, I say, is an act which makes me, the members of the opposition and the people of British Columbia angry.

All of the government members, when they rise to their feet, start to quote figures and give statistics. But every one of them has been strangely silent on the matter of North Peace. Well, I'm going to give statistics too. The interesting thing about statistics is how you use them. However, let's see what happens when one quite honestly and in a straightforward way looks at these statistics.

I want to compare North Peace River with Burnaby-Edmonds. North Peace River has 9,648 fewer residents, 9,657 fewer voters, and 10,267 fewer people who voted in the last election than Burnaby-Edmonds. Nonetheless, under this piece of legislation, Bill 80, we find that North Peace River is going to be given two MLAs and the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds is going to be given one. That says two things. First of all, it says that this government, as outlined in this bill, is debasing the value of the vote of the residents of Burnaby-Edmonds; in other words, with nearly twice as many people they're going to have half as much representation, because this government does not place the value on the votes of the residents of Burnaby-Edmonds that it places on the votes of the people of North Peace River.

The other thing the legislation does, of course, as I mentioned earlier, is deprive the voters.... In fact, what it does to the voters of Burnaby-Edmonds is to subvert their right of having fair representation and of having an honest ability or access to voting for the representation of their choice. We could do the same thing, and my colleague from Nanaimo did the same thing when he compared the fact that it takes five votes in Nanaimo to be the equivalent of one vote in North Peace River.

Nobody's arguing that if in fact the representation was based, as the Warren report said it was supposed to be based, on the number of residents, there are some ridings that need to be better represented. There is no question about that. What not one single member on the government side has been able to do today is to justify two seats for North Peace River, because there is no justification for it. It's straight gerrymandering. It's a straight manipulation of the vote. It's a straight desperate attempt on the part of this government to hang on to power, and it's going to fail. Because although it may be possible to get two Social Credit seats in North Peace River, Mr. Speaker, it is not going to be possible to get a majority of Social Credit seats in the rest of the province. As I stated earlier, the people of British Columbia are not going to be bought, and they're not going to be cheated into returning this corrupt government to power.

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier, the members of the opposition came here, called back by you to discuss what in your letter you referred to as "matters in the public interest." We are learning that in order to elect seven Social Credit members this government is prepared to pay $640,000 or $650,000. That's the figure. At the same time, the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Williams') ministry is introducing cutbacks in the legal aid system of this province, a system designed to help the disadvantaged, a system designed to help the poor, a system designed to help those people who cannot afford to hire legal counsel to have fair representation in the justice system. We are told by Mr. Brian Ralph that $665,000 is going to be cut from the legal aid budget, but $640,000 is being spent to put seven more members in this House. What the government is saying is that they would rather take money from the poor in order to shore up their crumbling government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How much did Barrett's seat cost?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I wish that minister would repeat, for the benefit of this House, exactly what he means by that statement, because as my colleague from Victoria pointed out, to buy a seat is an illegal act. If the Attorney-General knew that a seat was bought and did nothing about it, that makes him an accomplice. The Attorney-General of this province is an accomplice in that crime if that's the case.

It costs $640,000 to buy seven new MLAs, but there's no money for legal aid to this province. What are we finding? First of all, we are finding that the people who are most in need of legal services — the people filing bankruptcies and foreclosures, the people going through the divorce courts, the people involved in violence-in-the-family cases and people in receipt of income assistance — are going to have a user fee. A user fee is going to be introduced. People on income assistance are going to have to pay a $10 user fee before they can get legal services. It's the people on welfare and the poor people who are paying for those seven new seats that this corrupt government is introducing through this piece of legislation to shore up their crumbling regime. That's what that's all about.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, the hon. member has now, on two occasions, referred to the government as a "corrupt government." That's an unparliamentary expression. I know, having heard the hon. member speak in this House on many occasions before, that she has a larger vocabulary than would make it necessary to accept such a word, even from her.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in regard to the point of order raised by the Attorney General, the term "corrupt, " used about any hon. member in this chamber, is certainly unparliamentary. Unfortunately, or otherwise, when that same terminology is used towards "the government," the unparliamentary aspect of the remark does not fall within the same category as when it is used towards a specific hon. member. Again, I would caution all members that our vocabulary in this chamber does have some limitations, and I would ask members to be guided by that.

On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

[ Page 9198 ]

MR. LAUK: On the same point, Mr. Speaker said "unfortunately or otherwise." I just wanted to explain my understanding of why it is, and to limit....

MR. SPEAKER: On what basis does the member now seek the floor?

MR. LAUK: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The matter having been resolved previously, the member is now engaging in some sort of discussion, the reason for which escapes the Chair.

MR. LAUK: Well, because Mr. Speaker indicated something that is rather puzzling and not consistent with the practice, as outlined in the authorities which we follow in this House. The reason that governments are not regarded as being offended by unparliamentary language at all is because the rule of unparliamentary language is there to protect individual members, period. That's why the rule is there — not governments or institutions....

MR. SPEAKER: I think that if the hon. member had listened, that, I hope is what the Chair put forward in its explanation, ruling that the point of order was not appropriate in that specific case and then asking the member to continue, without asking for a withdrawal.

MR. LAUK: I thank you, sir, for the clarification.

MS. BROWN: I appreciate the interruption by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), because it shows he's listening. I hope he is also taking note of the comments I'm making about the $665,000 which is being lopped from his ministry's budget, in terms of providing legal services to the disadvantaged in this office, whereas $650,000 is the figure which the Provincial Secretary is saying is going to be spent under Bill 80 to pay for the additional seats which are going to be necessary to keep this crumbling regime in power — which they think will keep this crumbling regime in power. The funding for a number of people services administered by the Attorney-General's ministry — the John Howard Society, which plays a very valuable role in getting offenders back into the mainstream of society; the Vancouver Status of Women, which acts as an advocacy group and also gives counsel to women who come up before the justice system; the Native Courtworkers, the Indian-Metis Association; The Elizabeth Fry Society; and other legal societies all under the jurisdiction of this particular minister, the Attorney-General — are having their budgets slashed and their funding cut at the same time that the Provincial Secretary is being given $650,000 to pay for seven seats to ensure that this crumbling regime maintains its hold on this province. I hope that when the Attorney-General stands up to speak, rather than trying to move points of order and definitions as to the correct word to describe his government's action, he will stand in his place and say that he is disappointed that his own government has chosen to spend money on the creation of seven new seats to uphold its crumbling regime rather than ensure that the services which his ministry administers on behalf of the disadvantaged of this province will continue. I hope that that's what I'll hear from the Attorney-General the next time he rises in his place.

But, he's not the only culprit — not by any means. We have the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), for example. When you think of the ways in which that $650,000 could have been spent on behalf of the delivery of good health care in this province, it makes you want to weep.

I want to quote from the Sun of September 2 — and I know that's going to upset the minister from Cariboo, who has a vendetta against the Sun. In an article talking about the fact that the clinic, the Pine Street clinic, and the Downtown Community Health clinic are going to be closed because that they have a $16,000 deficit....

HON. MR. GARDOM: What section of the bill is this under?

MS. BROWN: Under Bill 80, the government is going to find $650,000 to create seven new seats to uphold its crumbling regime, but the Pine Free Clinic, the Reach clinic and the Downtown Community Health Clinic, all of which administer to the disadvantaged of this province, are going to close for the lack of $16,000.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, again I'm sure that upon reflection the member will agree that the argument at this stage is far beyond the scope of Bill 80. Simply using the method of expenditure to relate to other items does not qualify as being in order in this debate.

MS. BROWN: Would the Speaker cite his authority on that ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: The traditions and practices of this House are well known — or should be — to all hon. members who have been here. I'm sure the member recognizes those as much as anyone else.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) on a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go make a deposit!

MR. LAUK: I won't respond to the hecklers who evidently want to get into bed not only with Trudeau but with the banks now. That's their choice.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with respect to the debate on a bill and narrowing it to the principle of the bill, it has been the practice — I think supported by the authorities — that it is permissible, when canvassing the impost upon the Crown that may be imposed by the legislation being debated, that there be alternative uses for that funding. As long as great detail delaying the House is not entered into, it's usually been permitted by the House as a necessary adjunct to the debate on the principle of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I challenge the point of order brought up by the member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I, in fact, was simply suggesting to the government that the $650,000 which they have earmarked for the creation of those seven seats would be....

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true!

[ Page 9199 ]

MS. BROWN: The Provincial Secretary used the figure of $650,000. I accept that this figure may not be true. The Provincial Secretary admitted that he has not yet read the Warren report and does not understand the bill he is introducing at this time, so it is quite possible that his figure is incorrect. I accept that. Nonetheless, I am suggesting that that $650,000 would have been better spent meeting the needs of some of the people of this province, either through the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Human Resources, than to create seven seats to bolster, to hold up, to prop up, to ensure the continuation of a reprehensible, crumbling government.

MR. BRUMMET: Are you conceding?

MS. BROWN: I am not conceding. This is the problem we have with the member for North Peace (Mr. Brummet) and the reason you need another representation.

I just want to respond to the member for North Peace and repeat what I said earlier: that is, I am convinced the Social Credit government is not going to benefit from this act of gerrymandering. The people of the province are going to recognize the chicanery for what it is and, because of their commitment to honesty and integrity, they're going to turf this government out. I said that earlier, and I am repeating it.

I am not making any bones about the fact that I'm angry. I'm very angry that I was called back here to discuss the introduction of seven seats, when I would rather talk about the fact that the welfare rolls of this province are larger than they have ever been in the history of this province. Five hundred people a month are going on welfare as a direct result of the misguided policies of that particular government over there. An overrun of $90 million is admitted by the Deputy Minister of Welfare as a direct result of the incompetence and ineptitude and policies of that government over there. That's what I came back here to discuss, not seven new seats to try to bolster up a corrupt, reprehensible, incompetent and crumbling government.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a full-time MLA.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I am a full-time MLA, and that is why I am here: stating on behalf of Burnaby-Edmonds that we were brought back here under false pretences.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were called back from your holidays to go to work.

MS. BROWN: We were called back under false pretences. We were brought back to bring another member to assist that lazy member for Cariboo, that inarticulate member for North Peace, to take care of the riding and bolster that government which is going down to defeat faster than a shooting star hits the surface of the earth. We're on Bill 80, talking about creating seven new seats to fall between this government and defeat, and it ain't going to work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ain't? Oh, terrible language.

MS. BROWN: Well, what can you expect, living in this province where the Minister of Education is who he is?

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll never let you back into Madame Runge's with that kind of language.

MS. BROWN: You don't expect me to be able to read good or speak good, do you, with the Minister of Education that we have? What do you expect?

This government, as a result of the cuts in the education budget, is doing a disservice to the children of this province. It's seen cutbacks in programs, like the Douglas College program that dealt with re-entry counselling and training for women who want to get back into the labour force. Even this government, in the report that it tabled this morning on economic development, pointed out the hardships women face in the employment market. As a direct result of its cutbacks, these programs are being cut, yet somehow this government finds $650,000 to create seven new seats.

I am opposed to this piece of legislation. I am opposed to Bill 80; I am disgusted by it. I endorse the comments of the editorial in this afternoon's Sun. I endorse the comments of the editorial in this morning's Province. I endorse the comments of columnist Mike Tytherleigh, who refers to it as "cynical" and, if I can get his other title correct, "arrogant." I am depending — and I know I will not be disappointed in this — upon the people to teach this government a lesson once and for all; that is, that the residents of British Columbia are not going to vote for dishonesty and chicanery.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, just before we reach 6 o'clock I would like to very briefly say that in respect of Bill 80, which we will be addressing in the next sittings, it's quite clear that the people of the province of British Columbia have already taught the NDP a great lesson. That will be repeated at the next election and subsequently.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, at the conclusion of oral question period today the hon. Leader of the Opposition obtained the floor under standing order 35, and in concluding his statement sought leave to move a motion without previous notice having been given, presumably pursuant to standing order 49, which reads as follows: "A motion may be made by unanimous consent of the House without previous notice having been given under standing order 48."

The substantive matter stated by the hon. Leader of the Opposition would not qualify under the provisions of standing order 35, for the same reasons which were given to the House yesterday in response to a similar application made on the previous day. I further note that it is not in order, after obtaining the floor pursuant to standing order 35, to seek to invoke standing order 49: namely, to seek leave to move a motion without previous notice as required by standing orders of the House.

Mr. Speaker, on April 29 last, ruled on the effect of standing order 49 and the practice of the House to be followed when leave is sought to move a motion or to read the content of an intended motion of which the House has no previous knowledge. On a subsequent occasion an hon. member again sought to ask leave to move a motion, with respect to which the Journals disclose that on May 27 last: "Mr. Speaker ruled that the business of motions and adjourned debates on motions was not now before the House....and further ruled

[ Page 9200 ]

that a member was not entitled to gain the floor under standing order 49 at this point in the proceedings of the House.

"Mr. Speaker further ruled that gaining the floor on a point of order does not entitle a member to ask leave of the House to proceed to a matter not appointed by the House for its consideration."

In accordance with those rulings it is clear that a member who has obtained the floor under standing order 35 cannot invoke standing order 49. I therefore again draw to the attention of all hon. members that the Chair, except under the special circumstances set forth in Mr. Speaker's ruling of April 29, 1982 — such as agreement between the House Leaders or arising from the function of the government House Leader — cannot submit to the House the question of whether or not leave is granted to move a motion without previous notice, unless the House is then embarked upon the business of motions and adjourned debate on motions standing on the order paper. To attempt to proceed otherwise would obviously frustrate the orderly conduct of the business of the House.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder tabled answers to questions standing under his name on the order paper.

MR. LAUK: I just want to give notice to Mr. Speaker verbally that as the usual motion for adjournment is given I wish to speak on that matter to the Speaker. In other words, when the House Leader rises to adjourn the House, I wish to raise a point of order under standing order 45.

MR. SPEAKER: Could the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre member restate his point? There seems to be some....

MR. LAUK: The usual course of events is that.... What has been happening is that the government House Leader has not moved a time to which the House shall adjourn, but has moved that the House do now adjourn, without naming the time and relying implicitly upon, and incorporated therewith, a resolution by this House at the beginning of this session. I wish to make a point under standing order 45, subparagraph (1)(k), with respect to the debate or non-debate of that motion before the vote is put on the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there is no debate on the adjournment. If the member has a point of order to make, the proper course would be to make it at this time. Otherwise there is no debate on the adjournment motion.

MR. LAUK: I rose initially just to give notice so that the Speaker would not put the vote — so I could raise the point of order if and when I'm guessing that at this stage the House Leader is going to put that motion; he always does. It's just to notify the Speaker not to put the vote, so I could raise my point of order, so I don't try to shout over the vote.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that would be most unusual, to say the least. It's doubtful if a point of order could be raised before a matter takes place. If the member has a point of order, now is the time to make it. Otherwise there would be no time....

MR. LAUK: The question is the debatability of the motion to adjourn. Certainly subparagraph (2) of standing order 45 indicates that all other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided without debate or amendment. Paragraph (k) of subparagraph (1) indicates that the following motions are debatable: every motion under paragraph (k). Paragraph (k) includes the fixing of sitting days or the times of meeting or adjournment. My submission to the Speaker and the House is this: by motion this House adopted fixed times for adjournment, and therefore felt that the single motion by the House Leader "that the House do now adjourn" is a simple adjournment motion and non-debatable, like adjourning the debate and adjourning the House. I put to the House that that is not the intent of standing order 45. Clearly the intention of paragraph (k) is that the times of its meeting or adjournment are always debatable. Simply because we've adopted....

Well, winking to the House Leader doesn't help me either, and won't help you, Mr. Speaker. I think that perhaps....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I would caution the member....

MR. LAUK: Well, I would caution Mr. Speaker. I do not take threats lightly either.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I can appreciate the comment of the member. Had he been correct, he would have had ample justification for his remarks. In this case, he was not correct — not at all.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LAUK: I apologize to the Speaker; there must have been something wrong with the lighting.

The intention of standing order 45(1) is clearly that, whether or not we have subsequently by resolution decided generally upon fixed times to which we shall adjourn, those times should be debatable, because they are implicit in the motion to now adjourn. Therefore the motion to now adjourn attached to the original resolution is a motion to a fixed time already previously decided by the House, but debatable because it is an adjournment to that time. One cannot argue that it's simply a motion to adjourn.

The reason for these standing orders, I submit, is this: the one motion to fix the time of adjournment is debatable. Originally, the standing order not to allow debate on the motion which followed, to now adjourn to that time, was a repetition of debate, and it was felt that it should not be debatable. What has been done through inadvertent legerdemain is to avoid the permissibility of debating the adjournment time by having a general resolution at the beginning of the session, and then moving a simple motion to adjourn.

AN HON. MEMBER: You voted for it.

MR. LAUK: This House also voted to go into the First World War. But sometimes those resolutions become outdated, and intervening events occur that require this House to reconsider, from time to time, the times to which we should adjourn sittings. I therefore submit that the simple motion,

[ Page 9201 ]

whenever put, that this House do now adjourn, if it by implication includes fixed times made in a previous resolution, becomes debatable.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On the same point of order, I would suggest that the entire argument put forward by the first member for Vancouver Centre was anticipatory, because he was anticipating something that is not yet before the House. Under the same provision, I would like to serve notice that I will draw the House's attention to a point of order on Monday next, just in case one happens.

MR. SPEAKER: The proposition put forward by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is indeed a novel one. Nonetheless, the Chair cannot concur with his particular proposition, particularly in light of the longstanding traditions and practices of this House, and in that case the point fails.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:11 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

78       Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Food the following questions:

1. How many regular positions were there at Colony Farms for each of the following fiscal years ended March 31, 1980, 1981 and 1982?

2. How many auxiliary positions were there at Colony Farms for each of the following fiscal years ended March 31, 1980, 1981 and 1982?

3. How many of these positions were filled during each of the above years?

4. What is the present staff complement of (a) regular employees, (b) auxiliary employees and (c) student employees?

5. As a result of fire damage at Colony Farms, (a) what is the present status of repairs to the damage, (b) how much of the work was undertaken by staff at Colony Farms, (c) how much of the work by outside contract and at what cost and (d) how much, if any, is included in the current budget for these repairs?

The Hon. H. W. Schroeder replied as follows:

"1. Regular positions for fiscal year ended March 31, 1980, 50; March 31, 1981, 44; and March 31, 1982, 38.

"2. Auxiliary positions for fiscal year ended March 31, 1980, Nil; March 31, 1981, 2; and March 31, 1982, 6.

"3. All positions were filled in each of the three years. The total number of established positions on Colony Farm for each of the three years was 50, thus, the number of vacant positions for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1980, Nil; March 31, 1981, 4; and March 31, 1982, 6.

"4. The present staff complement at Colony Farm as of August 6, 1982: (a) regular employees, 37; (b) auxiliary employees (includes student employees), Nil; and (c) vacant positions, 9.

"5. (a) Completed except for replacement of barn, (b) approximately 100 man-hours on cleanup of debris and repair work to fences and shops; (c) cleanup and removal of debris from fire area, $4,482; BCBC contractor to rewire silos, $17,000, and replaster blistered silo walls, $7,800; replaced and purchased by BCBC, replacement of silo dome and chute, $23,800, and tarps to cover stored hay, $1,800; (d) all above costs were included in current budget as the Ministry is required to pick up the cost and expenditures of repairs and replacement necessitated by damage incurred from the fire."