[ Page 9203 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act, (Subsidiaries Disclosure), (Bill

M206). Second reading. (Mr. Howard)

Mr. Howard –– 9203

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 9206

An Act To Establish An Institute Of Native Indian Languages For British Columbia (Bill

M207). Second reading. (Mr. Hanson)

Mr. Hanson –– 9206

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

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9208

Mr. Skelly –– 9212

Mr. Davis –– 9217

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: As today is private members' day, I take great pleasure in calling Bill M205, Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act (Voting Rights), in the hands of Mr. Barber.

MR. SPEAKER: Inasmuch as the member sponsoring the bill is not present, we simply pass over it and go to the next order of business. It is not dropped.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I therefore call second reading of Bill M206, in the name of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).

RESOURCE INVESTMENT CORPORATION
AMENDMENT ACT (SUBSIDIARIES DISCLOSURE)

MR. HOWARD: The purpose in moving second reading of this particular bill.... I should point out to Your Honour that someone has removed it from my file of bills here.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll have one for the member....

MR. HOWARD: That's just normal practice, Mr. Speaker. I don't know what the government is getting so disturbed and upset about. I now have 35 copies in my possession. It's normal practice at the close of the session, as happened last July, that the attendants remove everything from one's desk, and then when they start back again....It's normal. It's quite common. It's quite the way to do it. What's this sensitivity? What's this nonsense?

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the greatest hoax perpetrated on the people of this province by this government and by that Premier was the institution of BCRIC. This Premier, with us today for the first time, except for fleeting visits over the last week....

HON. MR. FRASER: Where's the Leader of the Opposition?

MR. HOWARD: I would advise the Minister of Transportation and Highways that the Leader of the Opposition is talking with the general public in anticipation of and preparation for that time when he'll replace this crowd of ginks on the other side of the House and become the Premier of this province again.

British Columbia Resources Investment Corp. was brought into existence by the Premier as his pet child. The Premier advised people all across this province to withdraw their life savings, cash in their insurance policies, or borrow money on them, go to the bank and borrow every penny they could up to the maximum allowed, and buy shares in BCRIC. A lot of people did that. A lot of people took the Premier at his word, and they thought he knew what he was talking about. They said: "This Premier is an honourable person, he knows the business world, he's a businessman and he understands what this is all about." When he, the Premier, with all the force, power and authority available to the Premier's office, advised the general public to cash in their life savings and invest that money in BCRIC, they took him at face value. It was a hoax. Regrettably, the Premier — not consciously or deliberately; he wouldn't do this deliberately — participated in a swindle. He wasn't really interested in what happened to the investors' money — the general public's money that they had to borrow from banks to buy BCRIC shares. His only interest was in seeing that BCRIC would become an advantageous political gimmick for him in the 1979 election.

He talks about risk capital. Let's see what has happened to BCRIC since the Premier spawned it in the Legislature a few years back and acted like a race-track tout running around telling everybody to bet money on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) knows all about that, I'm sure.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: That aside from the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations as he scuttled out the door indicates to me that he gets his advice from the alter end of the horse, in terms of policy of this government, and not for what he just advised the House.

The first thing the Premier did, in dealing with BCRIC, was to say: "Here, the public of British Columbia have a lot of assets. I believe the asset value was $151 million, something of that sort. The Premier took those assets, owned by the people of British Columbia, and gave them to BCRIC. He didn't sell them; he didn't receive any money in return for them, which is the normal practice in the business community, he gave them away. BCRIC said, "Oh, thank you very much," after the Premier had hand-picked the board of directors and got his cronies on that board. Incidentally, I understand one of them is an active, major president of Daon Development Corp., a company that's in terrible shape now. But the Premier had faith in John Poole and said he was a good guy to put on the board of BCRIC.

So he gave $151 million of assets owned by the people of the province of British Columbia to this private corporation called BCRIC. In return, the people of British Columbia received an IOU, a note from BCRIC saying: "I owe you, the government and the people of B.C., $151 million" — all paper, just like this piece of paper here. That's all it was: "I owe you $151 million." When BCRIC finally became organized, got its corporate structure settled and determined what its share capital was going to be — and it determined at that time that 100 million common shares would be issued — it wrote out some of those pieces of paper, share certificates, and gave them to the Premier. The Premier returned the IOU and said: "Okay, you don't owe us $151 million any longer. In return, we'll receive all these five-share certificates." More pieces of paper — worthless pieces of paper.

I suppose one could assume that each five-share certificate at the then net asset value of BCRIC, which was about $11, might be worth $55. But in reality, the Premier proceeded to play the old stock-manipulation game and drove the net asset value of BCRIC from its $11 level, where it in fact was, down to $6. He said: "We're going to give a discount rate here and knock it down to $6." Basically, then,

[ Page 9204 ]

the five-share certificates were worth $30 each — $6 per share times the five shares.

As an election gimmick and an election program, the Premier then embarked across this province and told everybody what a good deal it was: "Put your money in BCRIC. In addition to this five-share certificate that I, the Premier, personally am going to give you" — through the banks, of course, and there's another story about how much that cost the taxpayers of this province — "all you have to do in return is cash in your life savings and buy some more at $6 per share, and of course vote for dear old Social Credit. We're going to teach you folks in British Columbia a lesson in the stock market. We're going to tell you what the stock market's all about. For those of you who have never been involved in the stock market, we're going to show you how it works. You draw your money out of the bank and you put it in common shares of BCRIC. It's a sure thing. A profit will be made by all and everybody will live happily ever after."

That's the lesson the Premier gave this province in free enterprise. He neglected — and I submit, Mr. Speaker, deliberately and consciously neglected — to tell the people of this province, and thereby doing that deliberately and consciously he misled the people of this province into believing something was going to occur, when he knew probably it would not occur.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sure the member can recall how we canvassed the word "misled."

MR. HOWARD: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: However, I would caution the member that his preamble involving "deliberate" would somehow fail to meet the test that we have. I ask the member, in view of his preamble to the statement, if he would withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I was using that in the context of the Premier's relating something to the general public, and not to this House. I thought there was a distinction in that regard. But if Your Honour says that I should not use the words "conscious" and "deliberate" in terms of the activity of misleading, whether the general public or in this House, then of course I abide by that.

But the Premier did go out to the people of British Columbia, and in his sales pitch to them to buy BCRIC shares he neglected to tell them one fundamental thing; that fundamental thing is now coming to pass. He neglected to tell the people of British Columbia that the decision.... He talked about dividends and told the people: "You're going to get the five shares free," even though he knew there was no free lunch. "You put your other life savings into more BCRIC shares and you're going to earn dividends. You'll get a return on your investment in the form of dividends from the profitable operation of this thing called BCRIC."

But what he did not tell the general public is that, as Your Honour knows full well, probably better than anybody in this chamber, a stock broker or investment dealer — and in this regard the Premier was an investment dealer in that he was selling stock; he was advertising and suggesting that people buy stock — is required to tell you all the facts. The Premier did not tell all the facts. He did not tell the people of this province that dividends are payable only if there's a profit. He didn't tell them that. He didn't tell the people of this province that dividends are payable only if the board of directors of the corporation declares them payable. They're not automatic, even if there is a profit. There are corporations in this country that make profits and don't pay dividends.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, a lot of people know that here. That's what I said. Some people in this House would know that better than others. They make a profit and they don't pay.

The Premier didn't tell the people that. The Premier also did not tell the people that a company, BCRIC being one, could, if it so desired, pursuant to the laws of this land and this province, create a class of stock called preferred shares. BCRIC is in the process of doing that. The Premier didn't tell the people of the province that when he advised them to invest their money in this sure thing.

Everyone with any sort of understanding of what goes on with corporations knows that in the issuance of preferred shares they usually have a fixed dividend of a fixed amount of money, or a percentage of the par value of the share, or something of that sort. Because there are certain restrictions with respect to the holders of preferred shares such as that you can't vote at the annual meetings of the company unless it's in default of common share dividends or whatever, holders of preferred shares get first crack at the dividends when they're declared. That's what's happening now. BCRIC has decided to issue some preferred shares. If any dividends ever come out of that mismanaged corporation, that politically oriented corporation, that political offspring of the Premier in his unholy marriage with his desire of anything for power, for authority, the common shareholders' possibility of receiving dividends on those shares is practically nil — nonexistent.

The Premier also, in creating BCRIC, in telling everybody in the province what a good deal it was, reached his hand — I am only speaking figuratively now, Mr. Speaker, not actually — into the pocketbooks, purses and bank accounts of the people of this province, and took about $25 million for the share distribution. The people of this province paid something in the neighbourhood of $25 million in tax money as commissions to banks and brokers, and as advertising gimmicks about the BCRIC shares. The Premier did that, rubbing his hands in glee, saying: "This is a lesson in free enterprise, folks. Vote for me and everything is going to be rosy."

Well, he did that. And it was a lesson in free enterprise. I know a number of people in my own constituency who rue the day that they listened to that stock-promoter Bennett. I don't use that name in the sense of the person who is in this chamber as the Premier. They rue the day that they listened to the idea and the advocacy of getting involved in the stock market through the Premier's enticement. They took the Premier at his word and they lost money. Many of them lost money that they could ill afford. Many of them would just love to have that money available to them today. Many of those people are unemployed. Many are facing the loss of their homes; many may well have lost their homes. Many of those people took money out of their savings accounts in 1979. They borrowed money on their houses, maybe. They borrowed money on their insurance policies. They borrowed money at the bank, perhaps on their name, or perhaps on collateral. They lost that money, because they were enticed by the Premier through a gimmick approach to try to gain office.

Now the Premier has embarked upon other gimmicks of an electoral nature hoping, once again, to confuse the general

[ Page 9205 ]

public into believing that he knows what he's doing — whether it's in the marketplace, in this chamber or in running of government. That's what happened to BCRIC. No self-respecting stock-promoter, no company in the distribution of shares, would move in such a direction as deliberately reducing the net assets of that company by about 50 percent. They simply would not do it. It was an unprincipled and unconscionable thing to have done. But he did it for electoral purposes.

BCRIC is in trouble. BCRIC has been grossly mismanaged. When it was formed, BCRIC was a political corporation. The people appointed to it as the first board of directors — with all respect to their abilities in some other activity in the corporate world — acquired something for which they did not work. Most presidents of companies work their way into it. Most people who are on the boards of directors of companies have had a lot of experience in what they're doing and how they acquired the assets of the corporation in which they are directors. But not in the case of BCRIC. Not one of the members of the board of directors appointed by this government has turned a single, solitary wheel or invested a single, solitary penny of risk capital to acquire the assets which BCRIC acquired. They were given to them — assets which the people of this province own.

As soon as BCRIC looked like it was getting into trouble, the Premier — the father and the mother, wrapped up in one person, of this child called BCRIC — abandoned it on the steps, like an ashamed parent of a deformed child, like a parent with no conscience about his offspring. The Premier doesn't know anything about BCRIC now. He doesn't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. Why? Because it's down. What he touted and lauded as being a valuable thing for the people of this province to get involved in has burned those people. And the Premier, who commenced it all, now says: "I wash my hands of that. I don't know anything about that. That's a bad scene. That's a bad thing." He's running away and hiding from what he created.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: The bill before us, Mr. Speaker, I needed to have some preliminary information as to what exists in order to put forward a suggestion as to what should happen.

BCRIC has a number of subsidiaries, one of which, B.C. Timber, has plants and operations in my home town and in the home town of my colleague from Prince Rupert. B.C. Timber is — and this is partly what this bill is getting to — a wholly owned subsidiary of BCRIC. There is one shareholder: the parent company, B.C. Resources Investment Corp.

One of the things that BCRIC did, after it was gifted with these assets — one of the assets being what is now called B.C. Timber — was to proceed to increase its shareholdings from the 89 percent level, which is what I believe BCRIC acquired or was given by this government, by 200 percent. It proceeded, pursuant to law, to wipe out the minority shareholders. Many of them lived in Terrace, many worked in the industry up there and bought shares on the market in Can-Cel and in Col-Cel, its predecessor by name. Having acquired 90 percent, I believe is the figure, of the shares, BCRIC just wiped out those minority shareholders and said: "Your shares are no longer of any value. We want them back." And they paid them a price for them. The minority shareholders had no say in that matter at all.

The next thing they did was to seek to become a monopoly in my home town and to acquire a sawmill and some attendant cutting rights originally held by Price-Skeena Forest Products, a portion of the Abitibi-Price complex. He acquired that sawmill and those cutting rights and brought that under its domain. There used to be an independent sawmill of the community called South Hazelton. B.C. Timber acquired that as well, and now is in a monopoly position.

Nobody in the communities affected where B.C. Timber operates or wherever else BCRIC has wholly owned subsidiaries knows what the balance sheet position of those subsidiaries is. There's no information whatsoever. There's one shareholder, BCRIC. That is the shareholder to whom B.C. Timber reports its financial status.

The purpose of this bill, and of its taking words from the Resource Investment Corporation Act that are there right now.... While the words in the detail of the bill may sound odd — they did to me when I read them — nonetheless, these are the words that are in the act, and the people who drafted the statute in the first instance, presumably knowing what they were doing.... That was for me, anyhow, a good enough foundation to draft this particular bill.

What the purpose of the bill is is to set up a definition of a controlled corporation. It says that basically a controlled corporation, whether it has 100 percent ownership by BCRIC or whatever, is one which is effectively controlled by BCRIC. I use the words in the statute at the moment as to what effective control means. Basically it means that a corporation shall be deemed to be a controlled corporation, insofar as BCRIC is concerned, if it is in fact effectively controlled by BCRIC, either directly or indirectly, through the holding of shares of the corporation or any other corporation or by any other means. The essence of it is that a controlled corporation, in layman's language, would be a corporation that BCRIC effectively controls, directly or indirectly.

It then says that the public interest would be best served if a controlled corporation — let me refer to B.C. Timber in my own town — were required to disclose to the general public its financial dealings and its balance sheet on a quarterly basis, the same as corporations that are public companies with shares available to the public are required to do. It should be required to disclose to the general public its quarterly financial statements and its annual report, and thus reveal, especially to the people in the communities within which those controlled corporations operate, what its financial picture is. Right now nobody knows.

B.C. Timber could be making money hand over fist, which could be drained off by BCRIC into BCRIC coffers, and nobody would know about it. B.C. Timber could be losing money, and nobody knows about it except BCRIC. We say that there's an economic and social responsibility on the part of companies — controlled corporations — which now have under their controls assets which used to be owned by the public and which were given away by this gentleman from Kelowna to the communities within which they function.

Under the B.C. Timber's operation, we have in Terrace, in Kitimat and in the Hazelton area hundreds and hundreds of loggers and sawmill workers who have been unemployed for weeks and months on end, contrary to what the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) was saying the other day: unemployment is just kind of hit and miss; it operates on and

[ Page 9206 ]

off; people are laid off for one shift and then they're called back to work. That is just not so. Go to Alberni and say that. Come to Terrace and say that. Tell the sawmill workers there what you said in this chamber the other day.

There is an obligation, therefore, perceived in the principle of this bill now before the House, to require that company, B.C. Timber, to level with the people in the communities in which it operates and tell them what the score is and what their financial position is. Don't keep your financial position hidden under a bushel. That's the purpose of the bill.

The purpose is also that at least ten days before the annual meeting — again, this is extracted from the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation Act, which this bill seeks to amend — BCRIC, for itself or any of its subsidiaries or controlled corporations, shall be required to provide shareholders of BCRIC — not to require shareholders of B.C. Timber, for argument's sake; this is only one, so it's got to be with the parent company — who are basically the owners, in an indirect way, of these subsidiaries.... Ten days before the annual meeting, both for itself and for any of its controlled corporations, such as B.C. Timber, BCRIC must mail to the auditor and to each shareholder of BCRIC, at their latest addresses shown on the register, a copy of the financial statement of itself and its subsidiaries to tell those shareholders what it is doing. It shall also be required to publish a copy or a summary of the auditor's report, the balance sheet, the financial statement, so that it's displayed in a newspaper, something similar to what which exists, say, under the Bank Act and other corporate acts; they've got to say: "Here is our financial position." And the bearer of any of the five-share certificates, or a debenture-holder of the company, shall have to have this information furnished to him as well. Information about its financial standings must be published in each county in a daily or weekly newspaper and, if the directors think fit, elsewhere, to fully disclose to the shareholders of BCRIC what that company is doing with the assets that this Premier gave it.

That's the purpose of this bill. It's one of those bills that I'm sure will meet the approval of the government. It isn't a money bill or anything of that sort. We all know that the Premier, proud father and mother of BCRIC that he is, would want to ensure that BCRIC itself is accountable to the general public in a way in which it is not now accountable. I look forward to complete support and endorsement of this bill and to unanimous approval by this Legislature, so that we can deal with it at committee stage a bit later.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Before I start I would like to say that the copy of the bill is in my book. I thank the attendants for not taking it out of my book. I appreciate that the bill is here and prepared for discussion.

Just to clear up some of the statements — and a sort of rewrite from the perspective of the member for Skeena — about the issuance of B.C. Resources Investment Corp. shares, at no time did anyone tell people to empty their life's savings. Anyone who was in British Columbia at that time is well aware of what took place regarding the issuance of BCRIC shares, the positive aspects and the caution made by the Premier to "invest only what you can afford."

When he talks about what has since happened to the share price of B.C. Resources Investment Corp. it's on public record that compared to other largely forest-related companies it has performed much better than giant, well-established companies. I see MacMillan Bloedel has dropped from around $60 just a little while ago to less than $20. When you measure how private companies operating in the public sector are performing in that respect in this difficult international market, particularly in areas where at this time resources are difficult, I think you'll find that it has held its value much better than companies the member has talked about.

I want to deal with this more completely at a future date. I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 20

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 207, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN
INSTITUTE OF NATIVE INDIAN
LANGUAGES FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

MR. HANSON: I'm pleased that this bill has been called today. It's the third time that I've introduced it in the House, but the first time I've ever been able to explain to the members of the House why I feel this is a vital aspect of Indian life and culture in this province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I've always taken steps to introduce and explain it publicly in as nonpartisan a way as possible. I never felt that cheap political points could be made on this issue, and I always wanted to persuade the government, even though they are not our party, that this is something that is long overdue. This is something that goes well beyond any party politics and is something that historically in this province will ultimately come to pass, because it is vital to Indian people. I ask the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) to pay particular attention to my remarks, if he would.

[ Page 9207 ]

British Columbia has a particular responsibility in this area because half of all the Indian languages in Canada are in British Columbia. In Canada there are 60 distinct and mutually unintelligible Indian languages. Because of the richness of resources in British Columbia that obtained even before European contact, this portion of geography on the North American continent afforded a large population of aboriginal peoples who came to occupy various geographic eco-niches of this province.

As most members are aware, Indian people have lived in British Columbia, as far as we know, for at least 10,000 years. They probably lived in British Columbia well before the last ice advance, which started 26,000 years ago and didn't waste away until 10,000 years ago. That may seem entirely irrelevant to some members, but it does point out the long time depth of occupation of Indian people and their adaptation to British Columbia that occurred here.

All over the world people who are knowledgeable about aboriginal peoples look at British Columbia as a particular showcase in terms of the linguistic diversity that occurred here. Because British Columbia is mostly mountains, topographically, with some wild rivers — the Fraser, Skeena, etc. — and very richly endowed marine resources on the coastal areas, extremely large populations developed in isolation from one another. In fact, it is estimated that British Columbia had the largest aboriginal population in North America outside of the valley of Mexico.

What I am trying to explain, Mr. Speaker, is that those 30 languages are really precious in terms of our knowledge of the human cultures on this planet. On a much smaller scale within Canada, British Columbia has that responsibility that I mentioned because it has the responsibility for the 30 Indian groups in this province.

I think all members are aware that within the last 200 years, which is just a snap of the fingers in terms of the human history in this province, the Indian people have been outside of the mainstream of development. That happened because of a number of historical facts. Our ancestors and those European and Asian ancestors that went before us defined reserves, which at the time made sense because people were living in those particular areas, but they were not areas that ended up in the mainstream of our modern British Columbia society.

Various attitudes towards Indian people changed over time. At one time Indian people in this province were disciplined; they were beaten if they used their own languages in the residential schools that they attended at Kuper Island, Kamloops, and so on. Those stories are factually documented. The churches that participated in those events now realize that that was an extremely wrong course of action to take. Indian people, rather than learning their own languages, understanding their past and their heritage, were actively dissuaded and punished if they participated in their own important cultural events. The things that made their life meaningful, the way they understood the world, the way they related to one another, the way they related to other cultures and other language groups.... Language is the vehicle by which that understanding was obtained. That language was taken away from them by our ancestors. That is not some kind of a collective guilt complex that we should have, but it is something we must recognize, and something we must take action to change.

The Attorney-General has a particular responsibility, Mr. Speaker, because clearly language is the cultural glue that makes many other things meaningful for Indian people. I think every member of this House recognizes the state of Indian society today.

There are a few facts that occur to me that I would like to relate, Mr. Speaker. The average life expectancy of an Indian man today, in 1982, is something in the order of 36 or 37 years. The extent of mortality as a result of accidents and other kinds of socially disruptive factors has resulted in cultural poverty and various things that are extremely pathological in the sense of having a negative impact on Indian culture.

It is not that Indian people do not want their language or do not care about their culture. In the priority of needs, trying to find work, trying to look after the basics, trying to deal with outstanding claims — legitimate claims from the past — have taken priority over some of these issues. It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that the right of Indian persons to have knowledge of their own language is a human right. For all of us in this chamber, whose ancestors come from other places on this globe, without exception the languages of our ancestors do exist in other places, whether in Europe, Africa, Asia, etc. They are alive and well somewhere else on this planet. The languages that I am speaking about, Mr. Speaker, only exist in British Columbia, and they are rapidly becoming extinct. I mentioned earlier that there are 30 languages. That is not entirely correct — three of them are now extinct. One of them was in the Nicola Valley, one was on Vancouver Island, one in the northern area, north of the Tsimshian, abutting the Kaska area: Tsetsaut. It is now extinct. So there are three that are extinct.ut a few of the numbers that we now estimate. For the Salish languages, what we do is look at the number of people who are fluent in the language and those who know something of the language, but those who can impart to future generations a pride, a dignity, an understanding of what past life ways were like: the way they treated one another, the way they viewed the world, their value system, their institutions of marriage, how they related to other family groups, their kinship and so on. In straight Salish, in this region, there are only ten speakers — ten out of 1,000 people. Halkomelem, which is along the Fraser: it's estimated there may now be 500 speakers. Thompson, it is unknown. Sechelt is another area where it is the Salish language, and there are 30 fluent speakers, aged 55 to 60 years. Okanagan, there are about 200 speakers in the age group 40 to 50 years. Squamish, an extremely large band, has ten fluent speakers aged 50 and 60 years.

The list goes on. The more remote from the major urban areas, the greater the likelihood that there are more fluent speakers. For example, Kwakwala, which we usually refer to as the Kwakiutl language: because it is isolated on the central coast outside of the main urban developed areas of British Columbia, there are approximately 1,000 speakers. Nitinaht, 50 speakers; Coast Tsimshian, 800; Nass-gitksan, 2,000; Southern Tsimshian, only five — it is on the verge of extinction; Tlingit, which is related to Haida, north of Prince Rupert, 100 to 300 speakers. In the interior, the speakership is much more solid: Chilcotin, Carrier, Beaver, Sekani and so on are larger populations.

What I am relating is that there is a crisis in terms of the retention of something that is a non-renewable cultural treasure of this province. In European history of British Columbia, we are extremely well-endowed with strong ethnocentric tendencies. We refer to British Columbia as a new province.

[ Page 9208 ]

It is a new province to our ancestors and our culture, a new frontier.

When I was employed by the provincial government, I once sat in a council looking at the development in a particular region of the province. I heard an extremely well-educated, extremely high-level manager in the government refer to this area and say it was a new area, as it had been occupied only since 1860, when the Grand Trunk Railroad went through. I put up my hand after he finished his remarks, and said: "Excuse me. You know, there is evidence that human beings lived in that area for at least 4,000 or 5,000 years." He knew I was from the archaeological branch. I got a call later on from an employee who said: "I'm keeping the minutes of that particular meeting. What did you mean by that remark?" I said: "Indian people lived there for 10,000 years in well-established villages." When I got my copy of those minutes, the transcript showed exactly what the manager had originally stated: that this is a new area since 1860, when the Grand Trunk Railway went through. But there was a little asterisk where it said: "People have been living there since 1860," and at the back of the report it said: "Except Indians. They've been there for thousands of years."

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Attorney-General to reserve moving adjournment on my motion for a moment. I think it is an important bill. It does not cost a lot of money, but in the long term it would be extremely wise economically. Consider the demonstration from my colleague from Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly): when a school district was granted to the Nishga people and they were allowed to incorporate Nishga in bilingual programs, the number of students who retained an interest in going through secondary education and pursuing post-secondary education soared astronomically. That is all that is required. It is not a capital intensive matter. It does not involve massive capital expenditures for physical plant. It involves a commitment by the government that the government would respect the Indian languages, would make an attempt to fund adequately support for a person who would not normally be supported in academia, as described by our culture. That is an Indian person who is fluent in the language, who has then been educated in terms of how to transcribe their language, and to then explain to their younger people and put it into curricula in the schools and to train other younger native people to be teachers in schools and so on. That is all that is required. It involves some expenditure for tape recorders and special typewriters with the kind of signs that indicate the different sounds in the Indian languages. It involves some kind of an immediate, emergency salvage program to try to help the languages that are immediately dying. It's not something that is woolly-headed and academic; it is something that cuts to the core of economic and social well-being of Indian people. We'd all be better off, and we'd all understand the history of this province better if this bill were passed by this government.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that the remarks which have been made by the member with respect to the significance of cultural preservation for Indian languages are quite appropriate and something which the government has not ignored. This would be an interesting matter for debate. However, as the member himself has acknowledged in the last few moments, the enactment of this legislation would necessarily place an impost upon revenues. Therefore this bill is out of order in the hands of the member, in accordance with standing order 66.

I would like to say to the member that his point of view is one which is recognized by the government and by a number of the Indian bands in this province. Native languages are being taught on some reserves. The extension of services for the purpose of preserving the language is a matter which should be properly undertaken by government with proper expenditures and, indeed, it should be done not only in this province but nationally. The languages of other original peoples must be treated in the same way. But this bill, Mr. Speaker, because of the necessary expenditure of money, to which the member has referred, is out of order in his hands.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Attorney-General makes a good point. The bill, in the hands of a private member, does offend standing order 66.

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. In section 5 of the bill I made every effort to ensure that it did not involve an impost. The institute may buy and hold real property, make grants, hire staff and otherwise expend such funds as may be separately appropriated by the Legislative Assembly. In other words, the funds would be appropriated in a separate bill.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter whether they are separately appropriated or not. I would remind the member that in the addition to the acquisition of lands, it provides for the appointment of directors and staffs and therefore would create an impost.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The bill does offend standing order 66 and is out of order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 80.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued)

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I rise to make a few brief remarks in support of Bill 80 on second reading. I found the debate interesting yesterday because some salient features with respect to the position being taken by the members of the opposition to this legislation are now coming clear. I think that one aspect is becoming clear, and that is that because of the nature of the regions presently represented by NDP members — principally urban constituencies or, if not urban, those which have significant populations compared to area — that they have lost sight of the fact that there are special obligations placed upon members of the Legislature if they are to accurately serve their constituents. These obligations are faced by members of this House who represent rural and remote ridings. As one looks at the membership of the New Democratic Party in opposition in the House, there is probably only one of their members who truly represents a rural, remote area — that's the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). He has a vast territory to look after. I'm sure that when he rises in debate in this House he will acknowledge the tremendous burden that's placed upon single members if they are to properly serve all of their constituents.

One need only look at the tables of population and geographical areas which are set out in the report of Mr. Warren as a consequence of his commission to identify the significance of the remark I'm making and to recognize the basis

[ Page 9209 ]

upon which he was compelled to recommend that there be additional representation. It is true that three of the ridings which he recommends for increased membership are in the major metropolitan area. But it is clear from examining those that their populations have grown to such an extent that it is unfair for the constituents to be represented by a single member.

I know that the New Democratic Party has indicated its opposition to the recommendations of the Warren report and this bill. They didn't want it introduced, and delayed introduction for several hours. I find it passing strange that on the occasion of this debate we only have one member of the opposition present. Maybe it's because they feel they have to go out and represent those small, urban ridings from which they are returned to this House. It is passing strange that they so vehemently oppose the recommendations in the Warren report and yet not be present for the purposes of this debate.

As a matter of fact, there's another strange aspect, with regard to the opposition, that we have heard so far. It is clearly set out in the report of Mr. Warren that the New Democratic Party headquarters was unwilling to make submissions or cooperate with the commissioner. It is equally obvious, because he states it in his report, that the New Democratic Party caucus members in this House who are elected to represent their constituents specifically declined to make any submission or provide any assistance to Mr. Warren in the preparation of his recommendations and in the study he was charged to undertake.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That can't be true.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I refer the members to the Warren report in which it is clearly spelled out that this was the case. Yet yesterday those members of the opposition who took part in this debate rose in their places and went into great detail as to what should have been done. They talked about geographical areas, populations and representations. So they have all of these ideas as to what should take place with respect to electoral representation in British Columbia, but when the government establishes a royal commission to receive such representations, they say: "No, we won't talk to you." They know what to do, but it's quite clear that they're unwilling to do it unless they do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: And then they can't do it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As my colleague remarks, then they can't do it. Yes, they had a royal commission into electoral matters and reform. It was the Norris commission. Three members were appointed in July 1975 for the purposes of examining these very problems. That royal commission duly carried out its responsibilities. It was to report by October 31, but the NDP extended the time for the tabling of the report and then called an election before the report from the royal commission they had initiated could be received by the legislators and people of the province of British Columbia, in order to decide how better representation could be handled in this province. I wouldn't suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP, having received a copy of the report, having examined it, having realized that the redistribution which was proposed in that report would be against their interest.... That would be improper for me to suggest. But I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker: after the report was produced after the election of 1975, it was very carefully examined, based upon the electoral experience in British Columbia. And — would you believe it? — the recommendations of the Norris commission would have been favourable to the then opposition party, the Social Credit Party; it would have been clearly favourable to Social Credit and the constituencies which they represent.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Political manipulation.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do you think that's why they didn't pass it?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS. As I say to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting that that was the case, because that would be a dirty trick. As we know, the NDP would never involve themselves in dirty tricks. They're too piously righteous for that, Mr. Speaker. However I also find it strange that having failed to show to the people of British Columbia what their royal commissioner recommended, they have, however, been freely, liberally and vociferously critical of the two subsequent royal commissions which were established in this province. They were critical of the Eckardt commission report. Yet as I look around this assembly, when the NDP members deign to attend, I can pick out member after member who wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the recommendations contained in the Eckardt commission report. As a matter of fact, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) wouldn't have a seat if the government of British Columbia had not presented amendments to the Constitution Act based upon the Eckardt commission report. I haven't heard anybody complain about that. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) wouldn't be here; the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) wouldn't be here.

MR. HALL: Nonsense!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Your seat didn't even exist.

MR. HALL: I would be the member for Surrey, wouldn't I?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS. No, you wouldn't be the member for Surrey at all.

MR. HALL: Of course I would. You just look at the figures, you fool.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The reason you wouldn't have been the member for Surrey was because the people of this province in 1975, irrespective of electoral representation rules in this province, had had enough of the NDP.

I find it also surprising that those members of the NDP who have spoken so far in this debate are all mixed up. It's quite clear that there has been no consideration given by that party as to what should be done with respect to electoral representation. I suppose that's the reason why, when they were government, they didn't take any positive steps to do anything about this situation in this province regarding the steps that are being taken in Bill 80, Mr. Speaker.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), during his remarks yesterday, was long, loud and critical of dual ridings. He thinks that the province should be cut up more into smaller constituencies. Well, I find that to be a

[ Page 9210 ]

strange position as well, because the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, during the years 1972 to 1975, was a member of the government of the day — a cabinet minister. When they came to appoint the Norris commission, they gave it some very specific terms of reference. First, the commissioners were to take into account, where feasible and necessary, historical and regional claims for representation. Secondly, they were to make recommendations on the basis that the Legislative Assembly comprise not fewer than 55 and nor more than 62 members. That's a significant increase in number — 55 to 62. It just happens to be seven. It just happens to be identical to the same number that has been recommended by Mr. Warren in his royal commission in 1982. But they were suggesting it should be increased by seven.

Third, it set out: "and give consideration to the provision of multiple-member ridings of two members each in areas of dense population." They gave specific instructions to the Norris royal commission that they were to consider dual representation in areas of dense population. When you consider what the Norris commission recommended in this regard, you will note that their recommendations would have increased the number of dual ridings from seven to eleven. Norris recommended it. Now there have been criticisms, as the member from Maillardville-Coquitlam indicated, as to this concept. But the royal commissioners appointed by the NDP dealt with it. They recognized that there are arguments for dual representation and arguments against. What was their conclusion? Their conclusion was that whether or not there should be dual representation was a matter that should be examined constituency by constituency, which is precisely what Mr. Warren has done. So the outcome of the New Democrat move in 1975 — which they didn't like — was precisely the outcome that we are debating today.

Plus, however, in Bill 80 we are including a provision for the first time for the establishment of a permanent commission of three members selected through the processes of this assembly, by a committee which this assembly will itself establish so that we will avoid for ever again the charges that are being unfairly made, that somehow or other the government of the day influences what takes place in decisions with respect to electoral boundary change. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), speaking in debate, indicated that he felt the Nanaimo constituency had been overlooked. He would like to have something different done for Nanaimo. But he wasn't one of the members who came forward to the Warren commission making recommendations with respect to that. No, he was part of the group that stayed away.

I also find it interesting that in the remarks of the members of the opposition — almost every speaker who has taken the opportunity to participate in this debate — they are charging the government with bringing forward the Warren commission report in the form of legislation as a means of acquiring seven further seats for Social Credit. Obviously they have no faith in their ability to go out into those ridings and convince the electors that any of the policies or programs which might be advanced by the NDP are worthy of support.

We have some difficulty, because we've been in session all this year and we haven't heard any policy or program from the NDP opposition. But I would hope that they've got something put together against the possibility that there will be an election. Obviously they are so nervous and so much in disarray in their party and among their caucus that they believe that when they go out into those constituencies they will not be able to convince them that even one of the seven new members should be NDP.

I don't want to transgress on the remarks that I know will be made by the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) when he closes this debate, but I'll tell you: I don't know how the NDP candidate in the constituency of Columbia River can possibly hold his head up in that community, in view of the fact that the NDP, in the course of this debate, have suggested that that constituency should be wiped out entirely.

AN HON. MEMBER: False.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. One moment please. The Chair heard several unparliamentary remarks. They will not be tolerated. Please, we must retain parliamentary decorum and parliamentary language.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) said, "That's a lie," and I wish you'd have him withdraw that. The Speaker made reference to a ruling that was brought down earlier in the session about that particular word, and I wish you'd deal with the member for Alberni on his use of that language.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken. Hon. members, as the Chair indicated a little earlier, I heard several comments which I found unparliamentary. I could not identify.... If the hon. member for Alberni did impute an improper motive to any hon. member of the House, would he kindly withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: I said the Attorney-General lied, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for someone to lie in the House....

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that remark will have to be withdrawn. As has been the practice, the Chair would ask for an apology to the House for that statement.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SKELLY: I withdraw and apologize.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't hear any of the unparliamentary remarks. I suppose it's because my experience in this House is such that there have been so many venomous, unparliamentary remarks made by the opposition over the past months that one becomes deafened to such conduct and immune to the attacks that the NDP think serve them well; but that's not opposition, Mr. Speaker, and they will learn that, to their sorrow.

On the point I was making with regard to the constituency of Columbia River, I would ask the member for Alberni if he would like to look at the record of remarks made by his colleagues, He will recognize the accuracy of what I have said.

In the course of debate it has also been suggested that the increased membership recommended in the Warren report and advanced by the government in this legislation favours

[ Page 9211 ]

Social Credit ridings. It has been pointed out that ridings with significantly increased populations have historically returned Social Credit. They failed to point out, however, that those ridings to which they refer are ridings in the interior and in the north of this province. As the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has said, those ridings are found in the regions of this province which produce the wealth and the jobs — the principal engine of our economy in this province. For the NDP to stand up and say that that being the case, with the population in those areas growing rapidly, they should have less representation than the city of Vancouver....

MR. LAUK: That's a specious argument.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not a specious argument. Why do you have to have two members from Vancouver Centre? One of them has been ill for some months, and we regret that very much; the other member is never in the House, and when he gets in trouble he runs off to Europe. I hope he will stand in his place, when he gets a chance, and justify why it takes two members, who get the same pay and the same allowances, to represent that small geographic area with a large population, but if you take areas of equal population, with vast areas to cover, in the interior of the province they are only entitled to one. Where is the fairness in representation with respect...?

MR. LAUK: Where is the equal population?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Just look at the statistics, Mr. Member, and you will see exactly the truth of what I am saying.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) not to interrupt.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As you look at the areas represented by the NDP, those large urban communities, in many respects, it is becoming increasingly clear that not only are they afraid to go out into the interior of the province and attempt to convince the electors that they should return NDP members; they're even frightened for their own seats. They're comfortable in those seats. They don't want any change. "Just leave it the way it is so that we can, with these small urban ridings which we control, have an opportunity to command the majority in this Legislature and forget about the rest of the province; draw a line and remove the interior and the north." That's what they'd like to do: control the membership in this House from that tight metropolitan area in which they find themselves so comfortable. Frankly, I don't know why the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) would even associate with these big city-slickers from downtown Vancouver.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Members can joke about West Vancouver–Howe Sound, but it happens to be 120 miles from the bottom of the constituency to the top. It covers agricultural, forestry, mining and recreational areas.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You're laughing at the riding. You go up to Squamish and laugh at the claim that they're a forest area. You go to the Pemberton Valley and laugh at the claim that they're a significant agricultural area. You laugh at the whole range between Squamish and Pemberton, and laugh that they're a mining area. You go to Whistler Mountain, Powder Mountain, and the like and laugh that they're a major recreational area in this province. You people are so bound to the metropolitan areas that you don't get out in this province and see what goes on. I don't know why the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) puts up with you either. He's got a big area. I notice that the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is laughing. He thinks this is funny. He's another one who wouldn't have a seat if it weren't for the Eckardt report, the one they criticized so much,

MR. LAUK: What do you expect us to do — not run someone in those seats?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Of course not. But why say what a terrible report it is, when it produces all these members for you: Surrey, Port Moody, Coquitlam....

MR. LAUK: If it were a fair redistribution there would be nothing but NDPers in this House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: This is so ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid I'm inflaming the opposition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. Would the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) please come to order?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, I shouldn't inflame the emotions of the opposition with regard to these matters. They are, however, so embarrassed by their performance in this House and electorally in this province that they have to respond in this way. I hope they will learn what needs to be done in this province.

One of their speakers yesterday also pointed out that four of the constituencies associated with the recommendations we're debating in this bill have always returned Social Credits members, except once. That includes the constituencies of Richmond and Delta, particularly. If you look at the Warren report, those are the constituencies which have had massive increases in population.

The NDP, having represented those areas once, would like to go to the voters in Richmond and Delta, to say: "I'm sorry, but although we can have two members in Vancouver Centre and Vancouver East, you can only have one. You're just outside the area. You people in Richmond and Delta have had the unmitigated gall, having been represented by the NDP once in your total history, to have returned Social Credit again, and you are to be penalized." The fact of the matter is that the good people of Richmond and Delta recognized, like others in the province, that they made a dreadful mistake in 1972, and will never repeat it again.

It is the responsibility of government, under the system which has been in place in this province since its beginnings,

[ Page 9212 ]

to consider carefully, at the time that census figures become available, whether or not representation in this House fairly reflects the changing population in this province. Whether population grows, whether population shifts because of economic influences, it has been traditionally the responsibility of government to ensure that the members who come to this chamber fairly represent the people of this province.

We have, in the course of the life of this government, twice had the matter examined by a royal commission. When you have it examined by a royal commission, Mr. Speaker, it is not left to the government then to choose whether or not it will go along with the recommendations. That would be the ultimate in unfairness. It also is improper for the government to decide to choose part of what is recommended and add something else they think would be better. No, the royal commissioner has a responsibility, under the terms of the appointment of his commission, to go about the province and hear what the people have to say. Everyone has a right to make a submission; indeed, all members of this House, because of their particular knowledge, can make a significant contribution to the work of the royal commission. When that exercise has been completed, it is not for the government to say: "I'm sorry. We don't like it; we'll have to shelve it or change it." It is the government's responsibility to put it into legislation and bring it onto the floor of this House for debate, and that's what is being done on Bill 80.

But the NDP don't like it. They don't like it because that's not their style. They ducked the one in 1975 and they have made a calculation, based upon their reading of the Warren report, that it doesn't do them any good. Because it doesn't do them any good they don't want it. That's why they are expressing opposition to Bill 80. But at the same time as they are opposing it, because it's not to their advantage when they go to the people, they also oppose the opportunity to change for the first time the system in this province so that government never has to assume this responsibility again unless it's done in this chamber. They aren't saying anything about that aspect in the course of their remarks. It's patently clear that the NDP's approach to fair representation simply means that representation which is an advantage to them is fair, and every representation which is an advantage to somebody else is not. They would ignore that the purpose of Bill 80 is to ensure not a benefit for the NDP, not a benefit for the Social Credit, but the right of the people of the interior and north of this province, and in those large dense urban ridings, to be properly represented.

MR. STUPICH: Do you think the people of Nanaimo would trust a commissioner you appointed?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm hearing the NDP member from Nanaimo in his seat. I want him to go back to the people in Nanaimo and say he doesn't want a system whereby the people of Nanaimo can have the opportunity to fairer representation than before. Now he's taking that position because he feels he hasn't had his way in this particular legislation.

MR. STUPICH: Remember Brannan Lake and the lies you told them?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I remember Brannan Lake. I am proud of the action taken by Brannan Lake, and so are the people of Nanaimo. When it's built they'll be glad to have it so we can properly look after the miscreants who live in your constituency. That's what we have to look at.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, my attention was withdrawn from my remarks. This debate will, I am sure, go on for many hours yet. The NDP will have the opportunity of standing in their place and continuing the venomous, hate-filled attack upon people who have been involved in attempting to improve electoral representation in this province. That's what it is.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They won't say it outside of the House, because they would be subject to some very serious consequences. But they will one day have the opportunity of going to the people in Richmond, Delta, Kamloops, Okanagan South, North Peace and Cariboo. They will be able to go around to all those people who, by reason of population increase and geographical size, have been under-represented by this assembly for years. They will have the opportunity of going out and explaining to all those people why they aren't to be properly represented in this House. You can have all the debates you want in here. You can vilify as much as you want in this chamber; we're accustomed to those words. We know what you're going to say. But you just go out and use those same words to those people in those constituencies who have had under-representation before and who, with this bill, for the first time will be fairly represented in this House.

MR. SKELLY: It's not a pleasure for me to take part in this debate. It's something I suppose we're compelled to do. My constituents expected me to be down in the Legislature during this fall sitting to discuss an economic recovery program for the province of British Columbia, where something like 220,000 are officially out of work — many of those people in my riding, where the forest industry has been shut down for well over a year now, where the local vice-president of MacMillan Bloedel is saying that it's hardly likely that they're going to be coming back to strength until 1985.

We expected to be discussing an economic recovery program for the province of British Columbia, but this government has brought forward absolutely nothing that would be of advantage to the people of my constituency. They're angry that we should be debating this bill in the House. They're angry about the content of the report and about the content of this particular bill which is being so hastily run through this Legislature. They see it as an attempt to guarantee in office a government that has been so fiscally incompetent, so economically incompetent, so dishonest and petty, that they would like to see it run out of this province for now and for all time because of the damage that it has done to the economy, to the education system and to the health system. They see the gerrymander that is taking place under this bill as an attempt to perpetuate in office a government that has demonstrated no economic leadership, total economic incompetence, total political incompetence. They'd like to see it run out of this province as soon as possible so that we can get back on a recovery program, so that people can have jobs again, so that their dignity can be restored, so that they can live as proud citizens of British Columbia. The threat that they see in this bill is that they're going to be plunged into an additional five years of Social Credit mismanagement from which this province will never be able to recover.

[ Page 9213 ]

My constituents, Mr. Speaker, have looked at the Warren commission report. My constituents have listened on radio and TV and read in the newspapers their impressions of the Warren commission report, and they have no question that this report is nothing but a gerrymander, that this legislation is nothing but a gerrymander in an attempt to keep a government in office that has no right and does not deserve to be re-elected as a government in British Columbia.

When a distortion so blatant as this is brought into this Legislature, the Attorney-General can always be trusted to swallow whatever pride he has left and to get up on behalf of Social Credit to defend it. It's something he's been doing in his ministry all the time. It's something he did for Eckardt. It's something I predicted he would do for the Derril Warren report.

Now he talks about fairness of representation. Yes, Derril Warren had a formula drafted which indicated that certain areas of the province were under-represented and that those constituencies were strongly favourable to the Social Credit Party. But a formula is not a fair formula unless its equally applied, unless it's applied from one end of the province to the other and every constituency has the benefit of the application of that formula. No mathematician who is worth his salt and willing to be tested in the community of his peers would say that that was a fair formula. It was a formula designed to increase membership in Social Credit ridings, and it wasn't applied to all the ridings in the province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We never advocated that certain constituencies be done away with, such as Columbia River and South Peace River, nor did we advocate that additional members be given to Nanaimo or to Saanich and the Islands. We simply said that if there was a formula fairly applied in the Warren report, that's what would have happened. But that formula was not fairly applied or developed. We feel that the Warren report should be thrown out, and that a fair and impartial inquiry should be adopted and should report back as soon as possible, if we feel the electoral boundaries should be changed before the next election.

The Attorney-General also said that the Norris report favoured Social Credit. It's interesting that he feels he has the competence to predict history after the fact. Nobody knows who the Norris commission would have preferred.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: You examine the records. Nobody knows who would have benefited from the Norris report, because it was never tested. Why wasn't it tested and why should it have been tested? We went to election in 1972 on the boundaries that were established by the previous Social Credit government. We went to the election in 1975, win or lose, on the same boundaries. The succeeding government, whether it was NDP or Social Credit, should then have taken a look at the Norris report.

It's not true to call it the Norris report, because some upstanding citizens of this province also contributed to that report: Lawrie Wallace, an executive assistant to both Premier Bennetts, and Morton, the chief electoral officer of the province. It wasn't a stacked commission. After the 1975 election, the succeeding government was perfectly entitled to take the recommendations of the Norris, Wallace and Morton commission, to bring them back into the House and to say that this would be the basis upon which representation would be established for future legislatures, and, of course, have the power to change it in the bill they brought in to amend the Constitution Act. It was within the power of the succeeding government.

There's a principle in legislatures around the world under the British parliamentary system that members of one parliament should not decide on what their salaries are going to be; that a salary commission should be struck, salaries should be determined and after the subsequent election the new salaries should take place. The same thing should happen with electoral boundaries and redistribution, because there is always going to be the charge — legitimately, because the public in this province has a right to be suspicious — about the honesty of government in dealing with members' salaries and the redistribution of elector boundaries.

In almost every jurisdiction where we find the traditions of the British parliamentary system the belief is in the fairness that any determination reached on members' salaries and benefits should affect the subsequent parliament. I feel the same about electoral boundaries: when a commissioner sits to determine what those boundaries are, then those boundary changes should affect the following parliament, and we should go on the electoral boundaries under which we were originally elected. The NDP did that in 1975, Social Credit did that in 1972, and that's the way it should be.

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) goes from the general problem to the specific. He said the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) would never have been elected if it weren't for the Eckardt report. He pointed to other members on this side of the House and said they would never have been elected if it weren't for the Eckardt report. It was not for the Eckardt report that those people were elected. He pointed to the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) and said that member wouldn't have been elected if it weren't for the provisions of the Eckardt report.

What contributed to the election of those members, aside from their ability to represent their constituents, which no commissioner can determine upon, no commissioner can investigate into. What elected those members was the revulsion of the people of this province at the kind of government that would have brought down the Eckardt gerrymandering; the revulsion of the people of this province at the kind of dishonest, hypocritical government that brings in gerrymanders each time in order to preserve its own existence; the revulsion at the Eckardt report and at the subsequent amendments to the Constitution Act and all they included — like Gracie's Finger.

It was that kind of revulsion of the part of the free, democratic people of this province that elected those members on this side: revulsion at what this government did in appointing Eckardt in the first place, revulsion at countenancing the kind of changes that he proposed — including Gracie's Finger — revulsion at the dirty tricks during that election in 1979, where thousand-dollar bills were handed out like water to Socred hacks, and revulsion at that government, its questionable honesty, its questionable morals and its hypocrisy. The free, democratic people of this province, in feeling that revulsion, wanted to throw that government out, but the government managed to save itself with the changes they brought about in the Eckardt gerrymander, because they have absolutely nothing else to recommend them to the people of this province.

[ Page 9214 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You've been in the muck so long you can't even understand the argument.

MR. SKELLY: Sit down and read it. That minister would have apologized for anything the Socreds brought down in order to keep his position as a cabinet minister in the style to which he's accustomed.

Mr. Speaker, the people of my constituency have sent me to this Legislature to talk about economic recovery, to make proposals for economic recovery, and they tell me that they are tired of a government whose ministers wine and dine themselves at taxpayers' expense in Arizona, on Broadway, in New York — dining and wining in luxury at taxpayers' expense. They want to get rid of that kind of government that's nothing but an imposition on the people. They want to get rid of a government that has now turned around and hypocritically told the people of this province that they must exercise restraint, while the government is living in the lap of luxury.

The people of my constituency have asked me to come here to talk about that. It's legitimate to talk about that under this bill, because this government is attempting to keep itself in office, to keep its privileges, to keep the right to wine and dine its members at public expense through the imposition of this bill and this gerrymander on the people of the province. I'm telling you that the people in Port Alberni — the people in my constituency — want to have none of it. They want to have none of you. They asked me to come here to vote against this bill.

My constituents are tired of a government that has raised every single tax, every single user fee, and every single government charge under the government's jurisdiction over the last six and a half years. Then they hypocritically talk about restraint, trimming the fat and tightening our belts, while they impose more user charges, taxes and fees on my constituents — small businessmen who are suffering, or barely staying alive, people who are out of work in the forest industries and who are on unemployment insurance and welfare. They see taxes, medical plan premiums and hospital co-insurance premiums constantly going up in order to pay for the luxury that this government affords its cabinet members. They see this bill as something that's going to perpetuate that kind of government in office, and they say: "Vote against this bill. Get those Socreds out. They're an impediment to economic recovery and small business. They're simply living in the lap of luxury, off the people of this province." The Warren commission and this bill do nothing but attempt to perpetuate that on the people of my constituency.

I was interested to listen to the arguments of the Attorney-General. My constituents are tired of Attorneys-General who operate their ministry as a protection racket for friends in cabinet. My constituents are tired of an Attorney-General who announces changes in the prison system and new prisons, not when they're required for humanitarian reasons or reasons of justice, but only when they're politically expedient.

MR. REE: Say that outside.

MR. SKELLY: You get up and say anything at all. You're going to be gone in a few months.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. If we address the Chair and if other members keep their interjections to an absolute minimum, we have the tendency to proceed with an orderly debate. Otherwise it's not fair to every member of this chamber. The member continues on Bill 80.

MR. SKELLY: On Bill 80, Mr. Speaker, my constituents are tired of that type of Attorney-General, who does those kinds of things and then turns around and talks about the fairness of the Warren gerrymander, and who, at the same time, could be expected to talk about the fairness of the Eckardt gerrymander. I'm sure that with any kind of gerrymander of the political boundaries of this province that would have been brought down, the Attorney-General would have suspended his moral judgment and stood up in this House and defended them on behalf of the people who have appointed him to cabinet at a fairly substantial salary.

My constituents are also tired of a Premier who has sold out the assets of this province to the people who already owned them at $6 per share. He gave a company, then operating in the private sector, something like $400 million of public money and allowed them, with management that he appointed, to get involved in a takeover hysteria which was running the country at the time without creating a single job in British Columbia. He bailed out Kaiser Steel in Oakland, California. He allowed Edgar Kaiser to buy the Denver Broncos.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. By any stretch of the imagination, it would be very difficult to relate the current remarks to Bill 80. I must ask the member to return to the principle of Bill 80.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the principle of Bill 80, as is clearly evident to everyone in the province, is that this Social Credit government, as a result of its lack of economic leadership, lack of honest and moral political leadership, has lost the confidence of the people and is now trying to gerrymander the province, through the Warren commission recommendations, in order to perpetuate a dishonest government in office.

It's critical that we relate what's happening here today to the performance of this government. This BCRIC corporation that the Premier set up has not created a single new job in this province. He has now allowed the company to be sold outside the province and has sold off assets of the company to other provinces and other organizations. This gerrymander is keeping in office the kind of government that has committed theft of the province's resources and industrial capacity, and the jobs of people in this province. The gerrymander that's taking place here today under this legislation is designed to keep that type of government in office, and my constituents are against it.

MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm at a loss to know exactly what bill is being debated at the moment. I would suggest that that member appears to be confused. We're on Bill 80. It's got nothing to do with BCRIC.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the point of order should be well taken by the member to return to Bill 80, which is before us.

[ Page 9215 ]

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, every one of the points I'm making is critical to the debate on this bill, because the....

MR. SPEAKER: While the member may have that feeling, unfortunately the rules of debate in this House do not allow the Chair to share the same view as the member. We must deal specifically with the bill before us.

MR. SKELLY: The principle of this bill is to keep in office a government that does not deserve or merit its office because of an ability to manage the economy of the province of British Columbia, an ability to create jobs for the citizens of British Columbia, an ability to maintain services that are absolutely and critically necessary — education, health, family support. The purpose of this bill is to perpetuate in office a government that has totally lost the confidence of the people. This kind of dirty trick is designed to keep this government in office, regardless of its merit, ability and competence to deal with the economy.

My constituents have asked me to come here and draw this matter to the attention of the government, and to say that they totally reject this type of tinkering with electoral boundaries, this dishonest cheating of its way into office. They are absolutely opposed to this piece of legislation which denies them the right to throw out a government that has proved itself useless and incompetent and actually an impediment to economic recovery in the province of British Columbia. My constituents are tired of a government that has said B.C. is not for sale, and then has turned around and sold out tour buses in Victoria, sold out ferries to eastern trust companies, sold out processing plants.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Again, I must draw to the member's attention for another time that the debate currently being canvassed by the member certainly does not fall within the purview of what we are discussing at this time. I'm sure the member, on reflection, will be aware of the concern of the Chair that we don't have a debate encompassing more than what is actually before us at this time. Simply, hon. member, using one form of argument to canvass many others does not make that particular argument in order.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, what I am talking about is the principle and the effect of this bill: what it is designed to do and what dangers are inherent if this bill passes this Legislature in order to perpetuate this government in British Columbia. In any other parliament, that would be strictly relevant to the debate at hand and to the principle of the bill, because the bill is designed to keep in power a government that has those characteristics that I am attempting to outline to you, which has dangers for the economic survival of British Columbia, danger for the economic survival of the citizens of my constitutuency, and has dangers for the possibility of the recovery of the British Columbia economy.

If this bill passes, we can see this province will be plunged into five more years of economic despair under the mismanagement of that government over there. It is critical that we be allowed to debate as part of the principle of this bill the effect that passage of this bill will have on the lives, economics, health, safety and education of our citizens, because this bill places those things in peril. Yes, why don't you let the people decide? Take this to them as an issue during the election: do they want the Warren report or don't they? Listen to the newspapers, radio and television. The people out there are saying they don't want another gerrymander like the last gerrymander.

This is a government that said B.C. was not for sale. It sold out tour bus companies. It sold out Panco poultry. It shut down industries throughout the province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I must once again, and hopefully for the final time — I hope not one more time — advise the member that the argument he is currently engaged in does not fall within the confines that we are looking at in this particular debate, at this particular stage.

MR. SKELLY: On what basis, Mr. Speaker, are you making that statement? This is directly relevant to the bill. It's directly relevant to the results of this bill if it's passed. It's directly relevant to the lives, the education and the health of the citizens of this province. It is directly and completely relevant.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That may be the opinion of the hon. member, but it is not the opinion of the Chair.

MR. SKELLY: Are we dealing here with a clash of opinions, or do you have anything to back up your statements that this isn't relevant?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Take your seat, hon. member.

The scope of debate, as the hon. member knows, is limited in second reading to the principle of the bill. Matters that would be otherwise canvassed in another debate of much broader scope, such as items that may have been introduced in other stages of our proceedings, are not canvassable at this time as they would be in a general budget debate, a reply to the Speech from the Throne, etc. We are now dealing, as the hon. member knows, with matters specifically relevant to the principle of the bill before us.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is strictly relevant to the principle of this bill, because this bill is going to produce the outcomes that I have delineated here. There is no way that a member of this Legislature, because it may possibly prove embarrassing to the government that is proposing this bill, should be limited in such a way as to be silenced on what the outcomes of this bill are going to be. We have an obligation as members representing constituencies — and, in fact, representing citizens in the whole province — to explain what the effects of this bill are going to be on the citizens of the whole province. Those effects are going to be disastrous, and they are completely and entirely relevant to the principle of this bill.

The people of this province do not want to see a gerrymander take place in this Legislature that will perpetuate in power a government that has sold off our assets, a government that has destroyed jobs in this province, a government that has undermined our economic ability to recover in this province, a government that will continue selling off assets like the ferries, a government that at one time said the CPR couldn't buy MacMillan Bloedel, for example, because it was an out-of-province corporation, and turned around and allowed Noranda to buy it. Now jobs in my riding are suffering and are being taken away because of the change in

[ Page 9216 ]

management of the corporation. It's strictly relevant, Mr. Speaker.

These constituents, of Alberni see that if this government is allowed to be perpetuated in office by this act which gerrymanders the province to create new seats for Social Credit to keep them in office where they do not deserve to be because of their own merits, because of their own abilities, because of their own competence.... The people of my constituency are saying: "Get rid of the Warren recommendation. Let's fight on the same basis we fought on in 1979, or let's go back and fight on the same basis we fought on in 1972." Whatever, let's fight an election and bring in the Warren commission later and see what happens then. But we don't want to perpetuate a gerrymander which will perpetuate in office the kind of government that simply doesn't have the competence to run this province, and in fact is running it into the ground.

My constituents are tired of a government that produced fake financial reports on the economic status of the province in 1976, as an excuse to plunge this province into debt. And plunge this province into debt they are, at the rate of $775 million a year — $64.5 million a month. In fact, they're plunging this province into debt by increasing amounts — right now at $2.1 million a day. Debt is piled on debt piled on debt. My constituents are concerned that if we don't change the government, that kind of madness with increasing the provincial debt will go on and on, and this province will not have the ability to come back to recover in the future. They're tired of a Premier who spends like a wild man during the good years, commits himself to huge, monumental megaprojects, and then cries "restraint" when he suddenly discovers that his actions have plunged the provincial economy into a depression.

My constituents have asked me to vote against this bill, which perpetuates the government that hires PR flacks from Hollywood, pays them thousands for salaries and moving expenses in the production of fictional movies about the competence of this government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Again, I must advise the member that he is in no way in order under the debate before us. While he may feel that the items he is canvassing have merit to be discussed, this is not the time for such discussion. We have rules for the orderly conduct of the business of this House. If we are to ignore those rules, and if each and every member is to speak on whatever subject he feels is of interest to him, then surely we have lost control of the process of allowing members to express opinions on matters that are before the House. At this time, I ask the member to bear in mind the rules which govern us. In any case, hon. members, we are discussing a matter which seems to relate to democratic principles. I would ask hon. members to consider that we also have rules which we may not always like but which we do have to abide by in this chamber. That applies to all members of this House.

MR. KING: On a point of order, I would like to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that this bill does provide for the expenditure of public funds for staff, and my colleague is making reference to the flacks and the fixers who have already been hired within the public service under the provisions of statutes such as this. I submit that that reference with respect to the further expenditure of public funds in this time of restraint is in order under this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, had the matter been briefly referred to in passing, and had the member not been cautioned on numerous occasions, then the point of order might have had more validity. I must instruct the member that we must at this time debate the principle of the bill before us.

MR. SKELLY: But Mr. Speaker hasn't told me what the principle of the bill is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Can't you read?

MR. SKELLY: I can read, and what I read as to the principle of this bill is precisely what I'm talking about. This bill is designed to perpetuate a government in office, no more and no less than that. I'm talking about the character of the government that it's designed to perpetuate: a profligate, wasteful, dishonest and hypocritical government, and a government that's poisoning the economy of the people of this province. It's a government that's poisoning the minds of the people by generating confrontation between different groups in society. If that isn't clearly the principle of this bill, then it has no principle at all.

I am mentioning in passing what my constituents have told me about the results of the a gerrymander that is the basis of this bill, what government will be perpetuated in office, and the characteristics of that government. This is a government that brings in PR people from Hollywood at the expense of thousands — political hatchet men from Bill Davis' government, the only government that supports Trudeau's economic and constitutional policies. It hires Liberal ministers for northeast coal development, advisers from the Prime Minister's office for B.C. Place; yet they're firing teachers and hospital workers, laying off Hydro staff, and creating a general climate of economic chaos throughout the province, which this bill will perpetuate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have some difficulty relating the statements being made by the member for Alberni to the principle of this bill. He's canvassing everything he's ever heard. I think he should stick with the principle of the bill. I think he should be cautioned one more time, and if he's not prepared to do that, if he has nothing further to say about the bill, he should sit down.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the point of order should be well taken by members of the House, and I would ask the member, for the final time, to bear in mind the rules that guide us, and that the debate proceed according to the rules of this House.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I feel I am bound by the rules that guide us. I'm also bound by an obligation to represent my constituents and the people I've talked to around British Columbia. They have certainly identified the principle of this bill. We know the reason behind this bill. We know this bill is an attempt to keep any discussion of the economy and economic alternatives out of the Legislature so that the Premier can travel around the province. The man who likes competition and free enterprise likes to have an opportunity to be out there without the opposition there, explaining his economic development programs but not bringing them into the House where they deserve to be debated.

[ Page 9217 ]

Dealing with the principle, this is an economic bill, because it's designed to keep in office an incompetent, bungling, dishonest, hypocritical government which has not only destroyed the economy of this province but also sabotaged its ability to recover. Seven new Social Credit members will perpetuate this excuse for government in office and will perpetuate the economic disaster this government has brought down upon this province and the people. This government is universally recognized as an impediment to recovery. Since the Warren gerrymander is blatantly designed to perpetuate it, I would encourage everyone in this Legislature to follow the people in this province and vote against it.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, first I'd like to congratulate you on your appointment to what we all know is a most difficult assignment — perhaps I should say condolences, but we know you're up to the job and we're all going to abide by your rulings.

Because I've organized my remarks and want to speak for perhaps 20 or 25 minutes, I'd like to move adjournment of this House until the next sitting.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.