[ Page 4931 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Federal-provincial forestry management agreement. Mr. Howard –– 4931

Proposed curriculum changes. Mr. Rose –– 4932

Mr. MacWilliam

Sooke Forest Products. Mr. Mitchell –– 4933

Legislative Assembly (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985 (Bill 46). Hon. Mr.

Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 4933

Expo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 44). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 4934

Mr. Lauk –– 4934

Mr. Williams –– 4935

Mr. MacWilliam –– 4936

Mr. Barnes –– 4936

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 4937

Transport of Dangerous Goods Act (Bill 45). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4938

Mr. Passarell –– 4939

Mr. Lockstead –– 4939

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4939

Constitution Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 47). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4940

Mr. Hanson –– 4940

Mr. Lea –– 4943

Mr. Macdonald –– 4944

Mrs. Wallace –– 4945

Mr. Mitchell –– 4945

Mr. Lauk –– 4947

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4949

Mr. Cocke –– 4949

Hon. Mr. Richmond 4951

Mr. MacWilliam –– 4952

Mr. Nicolson –– 4953

Tabling Documents –– 4954

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1985

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, on behalf of the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), to introduce in your gallery today Mrs. Yvonne Chauvet and Mrs. Eileen Rich. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: Also in the gallery are two representatives of the Arrow Lakes Advocates for Schools — the acronym is ALAS, Mr. Speaker — Shelly Glasheen and a person with whom I went to high school, Buddy Schweitzer. Of course, Buddy was a student and I was a teacher, but we went to school together.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce in your gallery today Chris Taulu, who is the district parent representative from the metro area in the lower mainland. With her are the many parent representatives whom we met with today. Please welcome them to the House.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a member of the Burnaby North NDP executive, Mr. Edward Mann. Would the House welcome him.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to join me in welcoming two members from Surrey who are here today representing District 36 Council for Education: Melody Sawkins and Sharon Wood.

HON. MR. SMITH: In the gallery this afternoon, representing the registered nurses, is Beverley Dockrill, who is a constituent of mine and a registered nurse.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, prior to recognizing the House Leader for the Opposition, I feel it is my duty, having perused yesterday's Blues, to remind members that Beauchesne points out that a question must be a question and not an expression of an opinion, representation, argumentation or debate. If the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) were to reflect upon those same Blues, which, I am afraid, set a bad example for the second member for Vancouver East (Mr Williams), who was subsequently followed on the same bad example in response by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), he would see that we tend to somewhat destroy the principle of question period. I would commend those observations to all members.

Oral Questions

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL
FORESTRY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

MR. HOWARD: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Forests. Can the minister explain to the House why he is having so much trouble with the federal government in Ottawa — his friends; in fact, he's having as much trouble as he had with the Liberal government in Ottawa, who were his enemies — over the signing of a simple forestry agreement between Canada and British Columbia? Where is the problem? Is it in Ottawa or is it here?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I would be very happy to attempt to explain why we are having trouble, if indeed we are having trouble. We have excellent relationships with the government of Canada. We simply have not yet signed an agreement. I would remind the member that there is an agreement in place which carries on until the end of this fiscal year. I have every confidence that by the expiration of that agreement we will have a new agreement in place. I'm having no trouble with my friends in Ottawa.

MR. HOWARD: If the minister would have proceeded earlier we would have had $60 million this fiscal year for forestry in this province. If the minister had got off his seat and done something about it....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Is the minister aware that within the next day or two Ottawa and the province of Quebec will be signing an already negotiated and agreed upon forestry agreement to the extent of some $300 million? Is the minister aware that the Parti Quebecois government is having no difficulty sitting down and signing an agreement with Ottawa?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member, in the spirit of cooperation and so on in this House.... I see we have a very calm and cooperative attitude; his statements certainly bring that forward, and I'll be very happy to cooperate with him. Mr. Member, I could care less what happens in Quebec; I am concerned about British Columbia. I am the Minister of Forests for the province of British Columbia. I will say again that we are proceeding toward signing an agreement with the government of Canada, and I feel every confidence that such an agreement will be in place before the expiry of the existing agreement. We will have an agreement, probably, which will total about as much as the combined forestry agreements of all the other provinces of Canada.

MR. HOWARD: Do I correctly understand the minister as saying, insofar as those provinces who have already signed agreements and the province of Quebec, that when he announces the agreement with the government of Canada over forestry, it will be for an amount of $626 million? Because that's what the total is of all the other provinces. That's what we deserve here in British Columbia, because we have half of the forests of all of Canada here in British Columbia. We could create thousands and thousands of jobs in this province if the minister would guarantee that, yes, $626 million is what he's talking about.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: When I talk about forestry agreements, I talk about agreements which direct funds toward the management and enhancement of the forest resource. That is the type of agreement which we are trying to finalize with Ottawa, and which I have every confidence we will finalize with Ottawa. I never will enter into agreements which will provide funds to subsidize the forestry industry, because I think the industry should be able to manage its affairs so that it does not have to be subsidized by Canada. So if the member will deduct from those agreements which have been signed the amounts of money which are being directed toward the subsidization of industry, yes, I will make such a guarantee.

[ Page 4932 ]

[2:15]

PROPOSED CURRICULUM CHANGES

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your admonition about my questions, I promise henceforth to be as parsimonious with my wording as the Minister of Education is with education funding.

My question is directed at the Minister of Education and concerns the B.C. Institute of Technology. I understand that the institute has been forced to close several successful employment programs. I list them: health information technology, building technology, recreation facilities, market management and medical laboratory technology. In view of our record unemployment, and of the fact that jobs exist in these fields for the graduates, why is the minister closing them down?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, nothing could really be further from the truth, with respect to the statement of closing down BCIT. The member knows full well that that is a fabrication.

At the present time, the college....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll make reference to the programs to which you referred, Mr. Member.

The college budget has not yet been finalized. Secondly, there would appear to be at BCIT a wonderful opportunity for the administration to review its administrative practices. There is also an opportunity for those people who are employed at BCIT to review the amount of time which they spend instructing.

As the member knows, a number of proposals have been tabled. The total amount of the saving is something on the order of $3 million to $3.5 million. I think the member is aware as well that most instructors at BCIT come in at a time when they are on what they refer to as the sixth or seventh level. And after a period of six to seven years, I believe it is, they are at the top level — the top of the scale. That's fine.

There are two issues before them: firstly, whether the administration is prepared to review the amount of compensation paid; secondly, the amount of actual instructional time. With the instructional time, I think they are looking at whether or not there would be more than 15 hours of actual instruction per week. It may very well be that with preparation something could be worked out. I think that's up to the parties to resolve. It's very easy to put more money in, but sometimes having to manage with a scarcity of funds brings out the best in everybody on both sides.

I don't see anything unusual. I think the member should be aware that the reason those notices were given and the programs are being addressed at this time — I repeat, at this time — is that under the collective agreements notice had to be given several months before; otherwise the cost of severance, in the event of anybody leaving BCIT, becomes very expensive. The matter hasn't yet been resolved, by a long way.

MR. ROSE: The minister is very good at scapegoating other people for faults that he causes himself. The fact is that these programs are slated for the axe. It seems to me that in a society such as this, with all its unemployment and positions for graduates, for the minister to stand up and say no more to the instructors except to work harder and longer for less money is not a real solution to the problem. That's all he's told us, and it's not really final yet. Isn't this a little like cutting off your nose to spite your face? The minister controls the funding. He even controls the programs under Bills 19 and 20.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, if the member were to look at the proposals which have been tabled, I think it would become clear that with a further three hours teaching per week, or the absorption of two hours of community education programs in the evening, the programs to which they refer will all be preserved.

In addition, 2 percent of the total provincial grant to BCIT goes into a fund called something like educational improvement. It's worth about $700,000 annually, which the instructors, with permission, have access to. It's under their collective agreement, and something they're working on. Now $700,000 is roughly 20 percent, on an annual basis, of the amount we're looking to save, if possible. That's for management and their employees to work out.

MR. ROSE: Will the minister confirm that last year BC got from the feds an extra $27 million for post-secondary education, and then it cut post-secondary by $27 million? That's where the money went. And will the minister also confirm that this year the budget from the feds under EPF for post-secondary education will go up by 7.5 percent? If there's a shortage of money, it's being diverted.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the questions with respect to the exact percentages. If it's possible to get the information, and I have no doubt it will be, I'd be quite prepared to provide the member with the information that I have.

But there's another point which bears giving some attention to. That is, pursuant to the agreement, which I believe was signed in 1976, the moneys come in the form of an envelope and it is up to the provincial government to allocate the fundings that are received as between those established programs — health, education and, I believe, human resources.

MR. MacWILLIAM: To the Minister of Tourism, the government has forced the elimination of the tourism option in the hospitality and tourism program at BCIT. What steps has the minister taken to protest this action on behalf of the government?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I believe the program that the member speaks of is a program at one of the technical schools, over which this ministry has no jurisdiction. It was a decision taken by the board of that technical school, if indeed that has been done.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Tourism recognize, as a priority concern, that these education cutbacks are costing jobs and costing British Columbians the chance to obtain good jobs in the tourism industry?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, there's nobody more cognizant of the importance of tourism in this province than I or this government. I would think that if the member

[ Page 4933 ]

has a disagreement with the board of the BC Institute of Technology, he should take up his disagreement with them.

SOOKE FOREST PRODUCTS

MR. MITCHELL: To the Minister of Forests: as we all know, Mr. Speaker, the important thing in our economy today is jobs. In my riding is Sooke Forest Products, one of the most efficient mills in British Columbia. Last fall the Toronto Dominion Bank closed down that mill on a bankruptcy proceeding. What leadership did this government give to keep that operation going, to keep the jobs in circulation and to protect the 300 jobs that were lost because of that action? At the present time we have over 300 people collecting UIC when they could be working. There is a product and a need for that job. What leadership did this government give?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Excellent leadership, Mr. Speaker. Very shortly after the announcement by the Toronto Dominion Bank that they were, in effect, placing Sooke forest Products into receivership, I immediately called in Hershell Smith, the principal shareholder and president of the company, to my office to determine what we, as a government, could possibly do to forestall or eliminate the possibility of this bankruptcy procedure proceeding. I had an in-depth discussion with him at the time about the financial situation of the company, and he advised me that it would take about $10 million of additional capital in order to salvage the company.

I then arranged for him to meet the president of the B.C. Development Corporation to see if any arrangements could be made whereby such funding could be forthcoming. It turns out that after the discussions with B.C. Development Corporation there was a considerable difference between amounts that I was told were necessary and the amount actually owing. The amount actually owing was closer to $40 million. The reason Mr. Smith had advised me that it could be salvaged for $10 million was that he had assumed the bank would write down the debt from some $40 million — I'm using rough numbers — to about $ 10 million. Apparently the bank wasn't willing to do that, and through subsequent discussions with BCDC it was determined that it was impossible to make those arrangements.

I could do no further then, and in fact it was a matter between the Toronto Dominion Bank and the company. I need not relate the subsequent actions by the bank and the courts. I'm not sure whether the court decision is finalized yet.

However, we did try to make arrangements so that the company could carry on. It is a good company. It has always been quite efficient, at least in the manufacturing recovery of products from the logs they use. However, something is obviously amiss when they can achieve debts in the order of $40 million.

The manufacturing ability of the company was good, and they did some pretty innovative things. But somehow the cash flow wasn't there. In spite of the fact that they went through a substantial modernization program a couple of years ago, they haven't been able to maintain their debt obligations. It's really a matter between them and the banks now. There is little I can do about it. They don't have licences for Crown timber. They've never felt it necessary to acquire such, so their relationship with me as the Minister of Forests is rather indirect. In spite of that, I did what I could to try to help them put some financing packages together.

Introduction of Bills

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Legislative Assembly (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985.

Bill 46 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, firstly I should apologize to the Leader of the Opposition, having given him a private undertaking yesterday to return a decision prior to adjournment. The House unfortunately adjourned earlier than anticipated, and I was not able to. I apologize to him for that.

On Monday the hon. Leader of the Opposition sought, under standing order 3, to move adjournment of the House to discuss, as he stated, the formation of a special committee comprised of elected bodies, representatives of business, employee groups and economic groups from all regions of the province so that groups and representatives could consult with the government and opposition, with a view to achieving economic recovery in British Columbia. The hon. leader also submitted a proposed motion to appoint such a special committee.

As the hon. Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members are aware, applications under standing order 35 are subject, under the rules, to certain well-established restrictions to be found in Speaker's decisions of this House and in Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. One such restriction is to be found in the 17th edition of May at page 364: namely, that the matter must not be couched in general terms or cover a great number of cases. Examples of matters disallowed on this ground are the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland and inquiry into the Department of Education.

[2:30]

While the Chair might not be disposed to find the matter stated to be too general in its terms, even although the subjects sought to be discussed — namely, strategies for economic reconstruction and development of goals and strategies to achieve economic recovery — are clearly very general in nature and very wide in scope, I am, however, bound by the intent and purpose of standing order 35, which, as stated by Sir Erskine May, page 364, 17th edition, contemplates the occurrence of some sudden emergency, either at home or abroad. Hon. members must recall that the matter of economic recovery, and the measures which ought to be pursued with respect thereto, has been the subject of debate over a considerable period. Therefore I cannot find the necessary element — namely, the occurrence of some sudden emergency — as required by the rules.

Hon. Members will fully realize that this finding in no way whatsoever denies an opportunity to have the very same motion placed on the order paper by way of notice of motion, should any member so desire.

[ Page 4934 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 44, Mr, Speaker.

EXPO 86 CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In moving second reading of this bill, I would like to make just a few comments about it and what it encompasses, and to say that the amendments are basically necessary because of the special nature of our world exposition, Expo 86.

The bill addresses, first of all, the number of members allowed on the board, as requested by the chairman and the board, to allow us a little more flexibility in the corporation. It addresses issues such as land development provisions under the Assessment Act, due to the temporary nature of some of the buildings and of the fair itself. It also addresses some provisions for providing delivery of alcoholic beverages to the site on Sundays and holidays. This is mainly due to the restricted storage areas that will be available on the site and allows the restaurateurs and pavilion operators to accept deliveries of these beverages on Sundays and holidays.

It waives some of the jurisdiction of the city of Vancouver as regards bylaws. This was done after much consultation with the administrators of the city of Vancouver. Again because of the special nature of the fair and the fact that international participants are involved, there was a worry as to putting the onus for the opening of the fair on schedule into the hands of a third party. So it was agreed bilaterally with the Expo Corporation and the administration of Vancouver that we would remove some of the jurisdiction from the city and, as well, remove the liability of the city and save them harmless in these cases.

It also addresses the delegation authority of the board with regard to setting up an executive committee. It makes it permissive and removes the authority to remunerate members of the board or committee other than for direct expenses. There is a section that deals with expenditures and the windup of the affairs of the Expo 86 Corporation at the termination of the exposition. There is also a section that deals with copyrights and the protection of the use of the Expo 86 logo in printed form or otherwise.

I would like to assure all of the members and the people of British Columbia that the bill does not in any way change any safety standards, health standards, fire standards or safety in the workplace on the site. It merely changes responsibility for those standards from the city to the province of British Columbia.

That is a brief outline of what is contained in the bill and I'm sure that any specific issues can be addressed in the committee stage. I move that the bill now be read a second time.

MR. LAUK: The opposition has carefully considered the position of Expo 86 and the government's necessary role in achieving its scheduled deadlines. After such careful consideration we're not in a position to oppose this bill in second reading. However, we have very serious concerns which we wish the government to address, and I'll canvass some of those in second reading.

We recognize the special nature of the exposition site. We recognize that a lot of things have to coincide with the opening date, including construction deadlines, operating schedules, the hiring of people and the training of people. All of this has to come together in accordance with more stringent deadlines than any other kind of project. The exposition will last for five or six months, and it would be inappropriate to have the opening deadlocked because of over-intricate codes, standards of building construction, and so on. However, this does not obviate the necessity of this government to address the real concerns that we see arising through this and other pieces of legislation for the safety of people attending the fair. For example, it's not clear exactly why the liquor control legislation is being set aside. Perhaps the minister can elaborate, in closing the debate, on the setting aside of the liquor control act.

The city of Vancouver, indeed, took a position, I am told, with respect to Expo 86 Corporation and health, safety and building construction standards on the site. The city of Vancouver requested indemnification if the corporation were to take on this responsibility through the provincial government. Why did the city of Vancouver want indemnification? Was is just from an abundance of prudence that they wanted this liability protection, or was it, as I believe, out of a serious consequential concern that, if standards of construction and safety were to be relaxed for the sites, the city of Vancouver taxpayers should not pay for any tragic consequences? I put it to the Members of this chamber that no one idly seeks indemnification for possible liability without such a serious concern. If we're going to get involved in shortcuts on safety, it is imperative that this chamber, and the public, be fully informed on what standards are going to be applied on the site and what proofs we could have on a routine basis that these standards are being met — indeed, that the standards in themselves are adequate to fully provide for the safety of the patrons and the people who are working on the site throughout the fair.

There are three areas of concern: health, the actual construction safety in the workplace — but also the construction standards of the buildings which are going up — and fire safety standards. This is going to be a family fair; men, women and children will be attending this fair over a period of five months. I want well in advance — and I'm sure the government does — a clear understanding and confidence that safety measures are adequate and that no problem may arise.

As for health, already through other legislation introduced and not yet passed, but ancillary to this piece of legislation, a local health inspector may and will be appointed, I presume, for the site by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The government will appoint him. What are the standards going to be? Are they going to be the Vancouver health board standards? Are they going to be provincial health standards, or are they going to be a totally different set of standards for health inspection? Are we short-cutting health inspection?

You must consider that on this site food services are going to be a major aspect of the fair, not only the normal food outlets but the specialty food outlets representing various nations and so forth. The problem of food inspection is an extremely important one. Recently we've seen where hospitals have a difficult time enforcing adequate standards for the health of their patients. This is a very serious situation. If we're going to transfer this kind of power to the cabinet — to appoint their own health inspector — we want to know ahead of time, so that we can comfortably recommend to all our constituents and visitors from out of province that this place is

[ Page 4935 ]

safe. City of Vancouver officials want to be satisfied as well. From that point of view, I point out that it's not just incumbent upon the city of Vancouver to seek indemnification, saying: "Oh, well, it's not my problem," and I'm not saying they are. But that's not good enough.

Construction standards. Are some of the buildings adequate — temporary as they are? Do the structures themselves meet building stress standards? We know it's not going to last 30 years, but we do know that adequate standards have to be imposed. Are the roofs of these buildings adequate if we have a freak snowfall? Granted, that is unlikely to happen during the time of the fair. But remember, these buildings are going to be up long before and for some time afterwards, and workmen and perhaps others on the site will be in danger if the roofs cannot handle a freak heavy snowfall. Other stress standards have to be applied. The city of Vancouver, ourselves and the public are entitled to have those standards spelled out and reviewed and discussed in sufficient advance that we know, with some degree of comfort, that people are safe.

Fire safety. What kind of standards will be imposed by the locally appointed fire inspector? Are there shortcuts? Are movie theatres going to be constructed in a way in which they have not generally been in this province? How will that affect safety standards? Are exits, fire protection systems, sprinkler systems and other control systems being shortcut? The public is entitled to know these things in advance, so that as a group of legislators we can all advise the public of British Columbia that we are satisfied with the safety of the site and that there should be no problem.

It is with those things in mind that I address the principle of this bill. I invite the minister to answer in some detail the questions I've raised. I realize that some specifics may want to wait for committee, but at this stage I think the minister should make a statement that the specific standards in health, construction and fire safety are going to be fully disclosed to this chamber before third reading of the bill. We would like — and I invite the minister to produce — the guidelines for those three areas before committee stage of Bill 44. It is only in that way, through cooperation and full disclosure of information, that we can support the government taking control over these vital areas of safety. It is also in the government's interest and in the interest of a successful exposition that this be done.

[2:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: In listening to the minister's comments on radio yesterday, one had the impression that this was a direct request of the city of Vancouver, and I think that's somewhat misleading, to say the least. While there are certainly complications and difficulties with respect to carrying out a project as large as this, it's worthwhile looking back in terms of what happened over a period of time. This matter has been discussed between the city and Expo officials for some time. As a result of those discussions, some time ago, with the aid of the director of permits and licences in Vancouver and of architects and specialists in these various fields of fire safety and construction, they ended up preparing the Expo master control standards. The enforcement and regulating of those standards was delegated to the officials of the city of Vancouver, in terms of carrying out the duties with respect to those.

Now what has happened is that there have been some difficulties, but it seems to me that the difficulties have been more on the side of the Expo officials and that clearly this could have proceeded. But the decision has been made. It is clear that the city did not unilaterally request this legislation. What we are ending up with is something I think the government has decided is the best answer. I guess the critical question, in terms of the detailed aspects of this bill, is will the master control standards that were established by the group of experts with the city remain in place and become the master control standards of the provincial government as well. I think that's an important question. Do we face the prospect of reduction of those standards?

Beyond that, there's the rather tough question, in terms of the distance of a third party, of seeing that the regulations are carried out properly and in a neutral way. It seems to me that all too often this administration puts its own civil servants in an impossible position. As I see it, what this will do is give the authority to provincial civil servants to deal with the regulating of fire, health and safety. At the time, its master is the group that is building Expo and has a deadline.

It does put the civil service in a tough position when the boss clearly wants the deadline met. It isn't fair to the civil service to put them in that kind of position, and that consistently happens in many ways. The Ministry of Forests — you name it. The civil service, who are the employees and servants, are put in judgement positions that they shouldn't have to be put in. That's a real dilemma for them, and particularly for a civil service that is worried about its jobs as the civil service is in this province.

The question of aid to and the impact on people in the immediate area of Expo, of course, is ignored again. People in the downtown east side community have no protection in terms of the impact of this exposition on their lifestyles — on rents and accommodation. It's bound to have a serious impact.

The whole question of long-term use of some of these buildings still remains unanswered. We're talking about tens of millions of dollars. The preview centre, $22-million worth; the B.C. Pavilion, now what, $70 million worth? And still, no long-term proposals for these particular buildings on the site. So we have no long-term view of the opportunities or lack of opportunities there.

We also look at one section that raises the question of deficit to be dealt with after Expo, should that be the case. It's only in recent weeks that we have had the beginnings of some solid numbers from the Expo officials — to the tune of a deficit of some $311 million. It's only in recent weeks that we have heard those numbers, and it was only a few months ago that this minister indicated there would be no deficit at all. So maybe the minister can comment on the sudden change of view with respect to the deficit that might be the prospect we face.

The other thing that intrigues me is the kinds of expenditures that will continue to have to be made at Expo, such as the film at the preview centre, and so on. Some $4 million worth, I understand, just for film facilities and the film itself. I hope we have some assurance that in this round theatre at the eastern end of False Creek we won't be surrounded by the minister in 360 degrees. The story keeps circulating in Vancouver that that is desired. I'm sure it's a terrible rumour. The idea of 360 degrees is just a little strange.

I think the tough thing you've done here is put civil servants of the provincial government on the line, and in the

[ Page 4936 ]

crunch it's pretty clear that the government will be more concerned with deadlines than with these other aspects of safety. Beyond that, I think we'd like some assurance that the master control standards that were established will remain in place.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Like my colleagues, I am in support of the principle of the bill, which I understand is to exempt Vancouver from revised zoning bylaws and building and health standards, along with a number of other housekeeping measures that aren't of any drastic consequence.

I also understand that the changes are acceptable to the city of Vancouver in giving them indemnity from the liability, and I think that is a reasonable route to take if the minister can guarantee or assure this House that the relaxation of the present zoning bylaws, public health, safety and fire standards are in fact taken care of. These assurances, as has been stated previously, have not been adequately addressed in the present bill. Although there is a statement of a master control standard, there is, in fact, no definition of that control standard. My concern, as is the concern of my colleagues, is whether that control standard will adequately protect the public health and safety with the amendments in the codes and bylaws.

There is another concern that I think needs to be addressed, and that concern deals with the definition of persons responsible or charged with the responsibility to oversee the revised building standards or the public health and safety standards. There's no adequate definition of the qualification of those individuals other than that they will be selected or designated by the Lieutenant-Governor- in- Council. Will those individuals be duly qualified to oversee their positions of responsibility?

I would like to refer briefly to a recent order-in-council that appointed the unsuccessful Social Credit candidate in the recent by-election to a position of responsibility on the B.C. Assessment Authority. It is my understanding that that candidate does not necessarily hold adequate qualifications that would allow him to make professional judgements in that capacity. My question to the minister is: will these appointments be a form of political patronage? It does beg the question to be answered. Will the individuals so ordered have the qualifications necessary? I don't think this has been adequately expressed, and I feel that it should be.

There is also a danger that the hidden agenda with regard to the amendments of the building, fire, health and safety codes.... I foresee the danger of an excessive relaxation of the codes, and Expo may become a special economic development zone in British Columbia with inadequate safety standards.

I think these concerns do need to be highlighted. Once again, we do not argue with the principle of the bill, providing these concerns can be met.

With regard to the funding deficit of Expo, I come from an area in the North Okanagan where there's considerable concern with the past priorities of this government in terms of the concentration of taxpayers' money on expenditures, whether it be through lotteries or general revenue, into a few large-scale projects such as Expo and northeast coal. My constituents ask me whether or not they are receiving the due benefit of the tax dollars that have been spent on these projects, whether or not the community of the North Okanagan will receive adequate spinoff benefits that have been suggested. I would hope that the tourist attraction through Expo does in fact filter out into the North Okanagan and other areas of the province, but I have concerns that the major recipients of the benefits will in fact be the coastal communities.

[3:00]

My feeling has been that rather than pump a lot of tax dollars and dollars that have been raised through the lotteries funds into these projects, which really do not give adequate job creation for the dollars we've spent, perhaps the Minister of Tourism can look at pumping more of the available tourist dollars into job creation programs and tourism incentive programs throughout the communities of British Columbia, into the North Okanagan, into the Island regions that also require incentives.

I think that we have to look at job creation programs in the communities. Expo 86 is a good idea in good economic times. My colleagues do not argue with that fact. However, we are concerned that the $31 million projected deficit may in fact be magnified if the gate-pass estimates that have been suggested — 13.75 million people — are in fact too optimistic. I hope they're not too optimistic; I hope we can get 20 million people through the gates . However, it is a concern that needs to be addressed. As was stated earlier, it does beg the question of who will pay for the deficit that remains after the fair is finished and closed. Is it going to come from the pockets of the taxpayers in British Columbia? Can it be adequately funded through the reserve funds of the lottery grants? That question has not been sufficiently answered. I think it's a question that does need to be addressed.

If those concerns can be adequately addressed in the discussion of the bill before us and if we can in fact guarantee adequate health and safety standards, then my colleagues and I do not have any great difficulty in dealing with this bill and allowing its passage.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister, when he closes debate on the Expo bill, will comment on the access that will be available to some of the citizens who may find themselves unable to afford the cost of $20 as entry to the site.

I haven't seen any of the studies that presumably took place with respect to arriving at the figure of $20. I understand that it's possible to purchase a pass for the duration of the fair for $90 or somewhere in that neighbourhood, and that that cost will increase the closer we get to the opening date — probably doubling or something like $150. If you could clarify the exact details on the amount.... But the question that I wanted to ask is, was there a survey with respect to the affordability in terms of the classes of people who might be attending?

Obviously, if the projected entry cost will be in the range of $20, there are large numbers of people, with unemployment as it is and people on low incomes.... As you know, there are many, many people on social assistance; in fact, social assistance rates have probably doubled in the last two years. What decision have your ministry and you as the person responsible for Expo made to ensure that all British Columbians, regardless of means, will have an opportunity to participate in the fair?

Of course we know that the cost of the fair will be supported from general taxes through the B.C. Buildings Corporation, however the loans are arranged. But this very expensive event should certainly be available to those people who live in the periphery — the downtown east side, for

[ Page 4937 ]

instance — who are concerned about the impact the fair will have on the stability of some of the residential areas and the more vulnerable small businesses, particularly in the central waterfront area where there are many tenants in hotels and rooming houses — the whole problem of displacement as a result of speculation on the part of property-owners who might like to capitalize, during that six-month period, on the influx of fair attenders. These are some of the social concerns that I hope the minister would comment on. I join my colleagues who recognize the importance of the opposition's doing its best to assist in making the fair a success. Certainly it's a fair that will hopefully benefit all of us, but we have to guard against any short-sighted decisions that may result in something similar to what has happened in other fairs: New Orleans, for instance, and Montreal. But being on a positive note, we have this event coming onstream, and it is our duty to try to make it successful, but we think that we should recognize not only the concerns that have been raised with respect to public safety, health, etc., but also the accessibility of the fair.

You estimate that some 13.5 million people — duplicated, of course — will be attending. But a large number of those people will be coming from British Columbia. A large percentage will be coming from the lower mainland, and this means that you've calculated on the basis of affordability, the ability to pay. Have you considered the large numbers of people who are economically unable to pay $20, and will there be a strategy or an arrangement whereby they can participate in this fair, which is really right in the middle of their community?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Let me deal first of all with the aspects of safety, which are paramount in the minds of members opposite and on this side. Let me assure you that we are just as concerned regarding safety as they are, and so is the corporation. Let me just back up a little bit and pick up on what the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) was saying.

When the negotiations first started between the corporation and the city of Vancouver, there was a body set up called a project approval control office, which became known as PACO. They agreed to come up with a set of master control standards, to which the member referred. After much consultation and deliberation, they drafted this set of standards, which they both agreed upon. They were in essence a codification of the city of Vancouver's bylaws and standards. The standards were agreed upon by all parties.

When it was decided that the time constraints of the fair and the possibility of not opening on time were of paramount importance and that Expo should take over the jurisdiction for the fair, it was agreed that this set of master control standards would be the standards upon which the fair was built. I would refer you to page 2 of the bill, and I will quote from section 3(5): "The standards adopted by regulation by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and referred to as the Master Control Standards shall apply in respect of the exposition site, to the corporation and to all participants as defined in the Master Control Standards." I think that that answers the question that the second member for Vancouver East had as to whether these standards would apply.

To go on a little further as to who should be enforcing these standards or whether there would be "shortcuts in safety" as alluded to by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), let me assure the House and the people of British Columbia that the people responsible for enforcing these standards will have the highest qualifications. In fact, although they have not been designated yet by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the person designated to be responsible for fire control would be, in all likelihood, the provincial fire marshal. The same could be said for the health standards at the Expo site, and of course the Workers' Compensation Board legislation applies.

Just to reiterate, we are as concerned as anyone with the safety standards at this world's fair and have no intention of taking any shortcuts or, as the member suggested, having anything less than an absolutely safe fair site.

I will try to address some of the questions, although we can go into detail in them in committee. I just want to make a few comments, again to the second member for Vancouver East. I can assure him that when he sees the Omnimax film at the preview centre — and I sincerely hope that he will — he won't see any pictures of yours truly, unfortunately. [Applause.] I thought that would meet with your approval, Mr. Member. I have seen a preview of the film. I can tell you the thought never entered my mind, even once. I have seen a preview of what this film will contain, and it will be absolutely spectacular. I urge you and all members of this House to go and see it as soon as possible after May 2.

I also would like to bring to the attention of both the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) that when they speak of the balance sheet for Expo 86 they are prone to look only at the expense side of the ledger, and never make remarks about the benefit side of Expo 86 and what it will do for this province. We don't bear mentioned that it will generate approximately $2.8 billion in economic benefits for this province, that it will provide 60,000 person-years of jobs, or that virtually every leading industrialist and businessman in the world will visit our province during that time. The spinoff benefits in industry and tourism will be immeasurable and will go on for years. So we should address the benefit side of the ledger once in awhile when we're talking about Expo 86.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you say businessmen as opposed to business people?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Whatever suits you, sir. Business persons.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Okay; we won't get into a discussion about that.

I do want to address an item that has been brought up on more than one occasion by the member for Okanagan North: that is, will Expo 86 benefit people in parts of the province other than the lower mainland. My answer is a definite yes. If he had been doing his homework and paying attention for the last two years, he would know that we have been encouraging every community in this province to have an Expo committee and to stage events in their communities during Expo — in fact, his own community of Vernon has a very active committee at this moment planning just such events for 1986 — so that we in Tourism B.C. can encourage these visitors to spend the remainder of their vacation, once they've seen the fair, in British Columbia. Some of the communities have been very active; I can point to the Islands 86 committee, the Cariboo Gold Rush committee, the Okanagan committee headed in

[ Page 4938 ]

Kelowna, the committee in Prince George and their race from the mountains to the sea, and others.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Including the great city of Kamloops, which has many fine attractions, including the one that the member just mentioned, the very famous Rube Band from Kamloops. I thank him for bringing that to my attention at this time. I can tell the member for Okanagan North that his community, whether he believes it or not, will benefit greatly from Expo 86.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can tell the second member for Vancouver Centre that yes, a great deal of study and research went into the pricing at Expo, by people who are knowledgeable in that sort of thing outside the corporation. I want him to be assured of that. I also want to point out that when he mentions the price of $20, that is the very highest price that anyone can pay to see Expo. If you show up at the fair site during Expo and want to go for only one day, that is the price you will pay. But there are three-day passes, yearly passes and group passes for some of the people you mentioned, scaling up from as low as approximately $9 and something per day if you were to buy a group pass . Everyone between the ages of 6 and 12 is admitted at half price, seniors are half price and anyone 5 and under is free, We are working on a pricing package for the disabled, which will probably be announced within the next six weeks.

[3:15]

On the question of housing in the immediate area, research is being done on that at the moment by my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), so I will not endeavour to answer for him. I'll leave that for him to address at some future time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have addressed most of the questions put by the opposition during the debate. If any more detail is required, I'm sure we can address that at committee stage. I would close the debate and move the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 44, Expo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 45.

TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS GOODS ACT

HON. A. FRASER: I would like to move second reading of Bill 45, Transport of Dangerous Goods Act. This will help to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods. On passing this act, British Columbia will join the government of Canada and the other provinces in establishing a common set of regulations providing for the safe movement of these commodities.

The government of Canada passed the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act in July 1980. Since that time federal officials have been developing the regulations that will be implemented under the act. Some of these regulations are now in force, and more have recently been announced by the Minister of Transport for Canada. Provinces such as Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have all assented to dangerous goods acts. Ontario's act has received third reading and is awaiting the coming into force, in effect, of the federal regulations. Saskatchewan's act has received first reading and is currently before their Legislature. Quebec has a mechanism in place to allow for the control of dangerous goods through their highway traffic act, as does the province of New Brunswick.

The ministers of transportation of all the Canadian provinces agreed several years ago. I'm sure that the Members of this House will agree now that it is essential that regulations be identical, regardless of whether the mode of transportation is under federal jurisdiction, as it is in shipping, the national railways, aviation or interprovincial trucking activities, or under provincial jurisdiction, as in the provincial railways and intraprovincial trucking. The Members will surely agree that the regulations should require the same identifying placards, regardless of how the movement is being made, and that the documents outlining emergency procedures should be the same — some of the goals of the actions being proposed here today.

This bill will allow a common set of regulations to be set up by giving us the power to adopt the regulations developed by the government of Canada. Regulations dealing with interpretation; directions for protecting the public, property and the environment; and the appointment, duties and powers of inspectors are already in effect in the federal jurisdiction.

This act will require persons who are transporting dangerous goods or handling dangerous goods for transport to comply with prescribed safety requirements. It will require vehicles used to transport dangerous goods to display placards illustrating or identifying the commodity carried in the vehicle. The usage of these placards provides a method of easily identifying what dangerous goods are in the vehicle. This easy identification of the commodity will provide to persons with the needed knowledge the ability to respond quickly and accurately to any dangerous-goods accident which may occur.

All packages and containers carrying dangerous goods will be required to have labels identifying the nature of the goods carried.

Under this provincial act inspectors will be appointed and will receive certificates designating their authority, the primary authority being to ensure that all vehicles carrying dangerous goods are displaying the correct placard for the commodity carried. In cases of non-compliance, the inspector may detain the carrier until the carrier complies with the requirements of the act.

The bill also provides for a structure of offences and fines which will be common across the country, as well as requirements for the reporting of accidents.

The regulations developed under the federal act have been the subject of consultation with the provinces and, probably more importantly, with the representatives of industry. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Trucking Association have had strong voices in the consultation. Consultation has also been a major part of the development of the approach selected in British Columbia. My officials have established an interministerial committee

[ Page 4939 ]

so that all the regulatory bodies could ensure that a coordinated program would result.

The provincial emergency program, the waste management branch, and the office of the fire marshal, along with many others, have taken the opportunity to assist us in bringing this bill before you today. We have also consulted with the municipalities. Several months ago, at my request, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities established a small committee to discuss the impending legislation and programs with officials in the ministry. This consultation will continue as we consider the issuing of regulations and the development of enforcement programs. We have also kept in touch with the carriers in this province. The British Columbia Motor Transport Association has set up a committee with whom we have been consulting in coming to this point. We will continue to discuss with the industry the implementation of the regulations, enforcement programs, employee training and other procedures.

Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia the greatest impact of this bill will be on the trucking industry of our province. During the development of the federal regulations we have had excellent relations with representatives of the industry. We have supported them in calling for the writing of understandable regulations and reciprocity of placards with the United States. They have continued to support the concept of a uniform, equally enforced system across Canada.

This bill will also continue the practice of regulating the transportation of placarded commodities on railways under provincial jurisdiction, using the same regulations as those used on the federally regulated railways. As well, in this case the placards and practices are based on having a North American system so that our commerce is not restricted by artificial barriers.

Since there will be a need to clearly spell out the duties and responsibilities to be assumed by British Columbia and what will continue to be enforced by the government of Canada, there is a provision for the development of administrative agreements between Canada and the province.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this new bill will provide both industry and the public with more effective measures for ensuring safety in the transportation of dangerous goods, in line with those adopted in other provinces and in cooperation with the government of Canada. I move second reading of Bill 45.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party will be supporting this excellent legislation proposed by the government. It has been a long time in coming. It falls in line with other jurisdictions across this country with regard to the transportation of dangerous goods on our public highways, as well as discussing the issue of the two provincial government railroads.

Once we get into committee we'll be able to discuss specific issues. One concern that I have is the exemption of the Minister of National Defence with respect to dangerous goods, but I think we'll discuss that later. That's section 23(g), but I think we'll wait for committee to discuss that issue.

In cooperation, when this bill was presented yesterday the minister came over and talked to me as the opposition critic for this bill. I appreciated the minister's suggestions and comments. It is an excellent bill, and it's difficult at times to stand in this House when you have an excellent piece of legislation and not find anything wrong with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: I've had that problem at times myself.

MR. PASSARELL: Which bill?

I've gone through Bill 45, our research staff has too, and it's difficult to find too many contentious issues. It's logical. It's excellent. It brings us into line with other jurisdictions across this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's going on here?

MR. PASSARELL: I know my colleague from Mackenzie wants to discuss certain issues on this. I will be bringing specific questions to the minister once we get into committee. But Bill 45, the Transport of Dangerous Goods Act, is an excellent bill. I hope we see more of this type of legislation in this province and that in this session we can sit down as mature individuals and discuss things that benefit the people of this province.

[3:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mackenzie.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've put on a little weight since the last session so I thought perhaps you didn't recognize me.

Mr. Speaker, I did want to get up very briefly on this bill, primarily because I used to be what we used to call the critic for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. We now call ourselves debate leaders — I too want to express agreement with this legislation. In past years in this House the minister and I have discussed the need for this type of legislation. I might tell you that it was a while being brought in, but I do understand the problems. You had to have guidelines in the legislation — the federal part — and all of those problems had to be solved. But as the debate leader for several years for your portfolio, I want to tell you, Mr. Minister, that this particular matter was a matter of concern to many people throughout the province, particularly in the lower mainland, where you have trucks, trains, every method of shipping, and we've had a couple of close calls in British Columbia. There have in fact been major disasters in Canada in past years because this kind of legislation did not exist. I just wanted to get up and express my appreciation that we're finally seeing this type of legislation.

HON. A. FRASER: In closing debate, I would like to thank the two members who spoke on this expressing their appreciation. I guess that's the new cooperative spirit. Maybe it can go on from now through all the rest of the year.

In response to the member for Mackenzie, the reason it was so slow was that the federal people had the bill in 1980 and have been developing the regulations ever since. They haven't even got them all complete yet. But we were waiting. So with that, I move second reading, Mr Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 45, Transport of Dangerous Goods Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 47, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 4940 ]

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. CHABOT: In discussing the Constitution Amendment Act, 1985, I have to go back to the fact that in 1984 we brought in an amendment to the Constitution Act. In that amendment in 1984 there were provisions for the appointment of a three-man commission for the purpose of studying and recommending boundaries and representation in the province. Appointed to this three-man commission were Judge McAdam of the provincial court, Mr. Goldberg, the chief electoral officer, and Mr. Ian Horne, the law clerk of this Legislative Assembly. They proceeded to examine the method of representation in this province based on certain guidelines that were in the Constitution Amendment Act, 1984, which essentially established the Island electoral base and the mainland electoral base.

The mechanism that was used in establishing the Island electoral base was to take the population of the Victoria and Oak Bay constituencies — three seats, essentially — to produce a population base of 126,855 people, for an average of 42,285. So essentially the legislation and the amendments to the Constitution Act last year said that whenever the population base in any constituency on Vancouver Island exceeds by 60 percent the 42,285 made up of the population of the Oak Bay/Gordon Head constituency and the Victoria constituency represented by two members, that will suggest that the three-man commission recommend an additional member for that particular riding.

The mainland electoral base was established on the basis of examining the populations of five Vancouver constituencies, the constituencies of Vancouver Centre, Vancouver East, Vancouver–Little Mountain, Vancouver–Point Grey and Vancouver South. The three-man commission, after having examined the various Statistics Canada figures, came to the conclusion that there were 425,624 people living within these five constituencies, represented by ten members of the Legislative Assembly. That, in effect, established a base population of 42,562 as the 100 percent for representation in the metropolitan area. There also it was deemed that whenever a riding exceeded that 42,562 population base by 60 percent then there would be justification for an additional representative in this assembly.

I think that the commission, after having examined it, came to the conclusion that there was not fair representation in British Columbia, and, as an example to show that it was uneven, I feel that one only has to look at Vancouver East. Vancouver East has a population of 90,000 and is represented by two MLAs. When you compare Vancouver East to Richmond — with over 100,000 people represented by one MLA — you come to the conclusion that there is something wrong, that there isn't fair representation in British Columbia. Therefore the committee, in examining this particular situation, recommended that there would be an additional MLA for the constituency of Richmond.

We did have a fairly extensive discussion on the Constitution Amendment Act of 1984, and we discussed the possible ramifications of that amendment in 1984. Essentially this legislation addresses the inequities that exist within the electoral system of British Columbia.

We also took into consideration the situation vis-à-vis urban-rural constituencies, of which there are 11 on the mainland and the Island. We said that because of the geography of those particular ridings, when we gave them a 90 percent base, based on the Vancouver and the Island population base, whenever the population in those particular constituencies is exceeded by 60 percent, they would be entitled to an additional member of the Legislative Assembly. And 20 interior coastal constituencies have been given a base of 85 percent, and that because of the geography, those particular reasons.... When those particular constituencies exceed the base averages by 60 percent, there would be an additional member of the Legislative Assembly established.

We gave special recognition to the remoteness of the Atlin constituency and gave Atlin an 80 percent base of the mainland electoral base and said that once the population is exceeded by 60 percent of their particular base, then an additional member of the Legislative Assembly would be elected from that particular constituency.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the commission's report is fair and equitable. It is one which will recognize tremendous growth that has taken place in certain constituencies in British Columbia. I have no hesitation, under the circumstances, in moving second reading.

MR. HANSON: I rise as the debate leader on this bill to indicate that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition opposes this bill for a number of definite reasons.

As you can recall, Mr. Speaker, some years ago, I think in 1979, Mr. Eckardt was appointed to do an electoral distribution, a map and so on, for the present government. His report was clouded by the fact that there appeared to be political interference in the drawing of the electoral boundaries upon which the people of the province make their determination of whom they want to govern them. Mr. Eckardt modified various ridings in ways that could not be substantiated in terms of any known past practices of such commissions. There were fingers, Mr. Speaker, protrusions of various types, attached to ridings that appeared to favour the government.

Following Mr. Eckardt's report and the subsequent election, another commission was established, a one-person commission headed by Mr. Derrill Warren. As you can recall, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Warren's report was also subject to intense criticism because it did not appear to be fair. It appeared to be biased towards the government, and it used a mathematical formula that did not hold up to close scrutiny. In fact, the present minister, the Provincial Secretary, according to Mr. Warren's own conclusions, should have been written off and disappeared. It was a matter of a percentile or two. But that was modified to keep that minister in existence,

I think the history of that is presently outlined....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I think Belle Ede will win. I don't know if she's still there, but I believe she's the editor of the Lake Windermere Valley Echo, and she keeps an eye on that little member.

Mr. Speaker, what we have is the ghost of Larry Eckardt. We have embodied in this bill in perpetuity, certainly as long as the Social Credit are in power, that the Larry Eckardt boundaries and the inequity that accompanies those boundaries are frozen in time.

The thing that saddens me, Mr. Speaker, is that in an act of gross cynicism the government appointed a commission that this side of the House really felt was beyond reproach. That commission consisted of a Clerk of the House, a justice of the

[ Page 4941 ]

Supreme Court and the chief electoral officer of British Columbia. As I read through my remarks of April 10, 1984, when this bill first came before the House, we made it very clear that we have no criticism of that commission. We directed our criticism — and quite rightly, Mr. Speaker — at the formula that was determined by the Social Credit cabinet. Rather than allowing the commission the full mandate to look at the population distribution in the province, to look at transportation and various other factors that are taken into account in all progressive, modern democratic societies when they're determining electoral districts.... Rather than allowing that commission to proceed on a fair basis, open and unbiased, holding hearings in all the communities of the province and then determining where the boundaries should be drawn — separate and apart from any political interference — what we had was political interference from the very beginning.

We've had political interference right from Mr. Eckardt which is staying with us today. That's why I say that this bill is Larry Eckardt revisited. It's the ghost of Mr. Eckardt's redistribution. We have never agreed with that. We always argued, Mr. Speaker, that the air should be cleared, that a redistribution should be beyond reproach. It should be by people that have the confidence of the community, and they should be free to do their work in the best interest of democracy. But what we have before us instead is a mathematical formula based on population statistics which triggers in, on the basis of those existing boundaries, new representatives to take their place in this House. It's based on politically gerrymandered boundaries. It'll never have the confidence of the people of this province. They know what the Warren commission was, they know what the Eckardt commission was all about, and we've lived with those political imbalances since that time.

[3:45]

Rather than doing what they should have done to free that commission to do their job, today we are debating an increase of 12 seats in this House — 12 seats that may well be warranted in terms of the population increase of the province, but we feel that they're biased in terms of the boundaries that presently exist. Any British Columbian knows that there has been rapid growth in certain parts of British Columbia, certainly south of the Fraser River. And just so that no member of this House is confused by our position, our position is certainly that the area presently comprised of the region south of the Fraser River, Richmond, Delta, Surrey — warrants more representation. There is no doubt in our mind. What we question, and what we've always opposed, is the location of the boundaries, which are based on the Eckardt and Warren reports.

Mr. Speaker, we take no issue with the fact that Kamloops should have more representation, or that Kelowna should have more representation — none whatsoever. But as you know, when you place a map of British Columbia on the wall, it is very arbitrary where lines are drawn, where electoral boundaries should be. They should be on the basis of objective criteria, of the needs of the community, of transportation and other geographic and social criteria that make up every rational redistribution that's ever happened in a progressive and democratic society.

What we have now is now seats being created not on that basis but on the basis of politically biased boundaries, which is grossly unfair. We've looked at other jurisdictions where governments have overstepped their bounds. Governments are given certain authorities, but sometimes if they step over that fine line and interfere in the democratic process, attempt to predetermine by their own political bias future outcomes of elections, the public resents it. The public resents it and will act and will act to throw them out.

We've seen it in past history in Saskatchewan. There was a very politically biased redistribution done some years ago, and it was felt by many political scientists and others that it would be absolutely impossible for the New Democratic Party to overcome the tremendous advantage that the government had taken in their redistribution. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm saying to you and to the people of this province that the people of this province are fair-minded. They are fair-minded and they want a fair political contest. They don't want political parties to take advantage of the rules of the game, to effect rules that make it difficult for a fair contest. They want elections fought on issues, on policies, on ideas that will benefit and initiate a public discourse on democracy. The public is fair-minded and perceptive. There is an innate sense of fairness in people. When they feel that things are being tipped against them, they will rise up and deal with that.

In a way, the irony is that the government feels that they've taken out an insurance policy on the next provincial election; that they can cavort through the economy, wreaking havoc as they have done for the last few years, certainly in a major way since July 1983, the first session where major bills and a budget were introduced that have crippled our economy, and we're living with that now. This government feels that they now have a free licence, a free hand, an insurance policy. They've taken advantage of the situation. It's like the batter who steps up to the plate and has pine tar all the way up the bat, and when it's ruled by the umpire that he is taking unfair advantage.... Or a boxer who has something extra that the other boxer doesn't have in terms of apparatus — resin on his gloves or something to rub into his opponent's eye — an unfair advantage. A long-jumper who steps over the line for a record-making jump.... I'm using a sports analogy, Mr. Speaker, because an election is a contest. The language around elections is in terms of combat and contests. So the rules have to be fair. The rules have to be acknowledged to be fair Not only do they have to be fair, but they have to have the appearance of fairness; and we have not had that since 1979 when Mr. Eckardt did his boundaries. Mr. Warren tried to increase many of the same seats that we're seeing today, based on those boundaries, but his mathematical formula was proven and demonstrated to be flawed. There was a doubling up of seats in Peace River, which is a very sparsely populated region of our province.

I want to make it clear from our side that we do not acknowledge that the Social Credit Party has set up new seats in Social Credit ridings. We do not acknowledge that. We see those ridings as being New Democratic Party ridings in the next election, Mr. Speaker. We are going to go to those people on the basis of our policies, our fairness and our economic programs. We are going to be pointing to a new way of conducting business in British Columbia. And that new way of conducting business will be based on consultation and cooperation. It will be based on community and decentralized government. It will not be based on "Victoria knows best," or that cabinet ministers know everything and everyone else is stupid. We believe in the talent, abilities and the magnificent resource wealth of our province, and we will be going to those electoral districts and talking to people about those things.

[ Page 4942 ]

The government has taken unfair advantage in terms of the boundaries, and those are the Eckardt boundaries. On that basis we oppose this bill. As I said before, and I say to all the people of the province: we do not acknowledge that those are Social Credit seats in perpetuity. We have recently demonstrated, with a fine candidate and a fine program, with work and effort by thousands of people in the central interior of this province, that in Okanagan North we could win that riding within what has traditionally been a Social Credit domain. We will be doing that over the next couple of years until the next election. We'll be carrying a new message that there's a new beginning in British Columbia. There's a chance for us all as citizens to build a better British Columbia, to build a great British Columbia. We know that this province is far greater than is the present government that holds control over it. No matter what this government does, they will not break the spirit of the people of this province. They have hurt them economically. They have destroyed their businesses because of their economic policies. They have hurt people in terms of their job loss when it was totally unnecessary.

In other jurisdictions, such as Manitoba, we saw the NDP government go to public sector employee organizations and sit down with them.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 47.

MR. HANSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm relating my remarks in terms of the message that the government is communicating to the people of this province. I will not delay it, but I think it is appropriate to comment.

The government in Manitoba sat down, as adults, with the various sectors of the economy and said: "We are in trouble. There is an international recession. What can we jointly do to help?" They talked to their employee groups in terms of trading job security for any increases. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The investment figures, the unemployment figures and other economic indicators indicate that their program was well designed. It was adult. It was not punitive and authoritarian like this government's approach to doing business in almost every area.

With the present boundaries, and looking at some of the numbers, Social Credit in the last election.... There are a few numbers which are of interest to all of us. Social Credit received 821,000 votes in the last election. The NDP received 741,000, a difference of something in the order of 80,000. The 100 percent power that Social Credit has to determine the affairs of our great province was based on 80,000 votes. But that relatively small number translated itself into a majority of 11 seats. Obviously we have a first-past-the-post system: the person who gets the most votes wins. So it is possible to have a relatively small number of votes between the major parties and at the same time a large difference in the number of seats. Now that comes as no surprise. But under this bill, if the May 1983 election was held today and every single person voted in exactly the same way as they voted in May 1983, rather than having 31 seats on that side of the House they would have 44 — with the same number of votes cast on both sides. Isn't there something in that illustrating a structural flaw in the boundaries which are presently in place? For the same 80,000 votes, rather than having a difference of nine or ten members, the difference would be 21 members: 44 Social Credit and 23 NDP with the same votes. That tells us something about the weighting of the population by ridings in this province.

[4:00]

My main point is that it is not inconceivable for a political party in the next provincial election to obtain over 55 percent of the popular vote and be in opposition with this redistribution. In other words, the popular will of the province would be so distorted by the Eckardt boundaries that it would not manifest itself in government. We've seen that kind of situation in Third World countries, but no fair-minded jurisdiction.... It occurred in our own country, in Quebec, where the popular vote for the Pequistes exceeded that of the Liberals, and the Pequistes came in second.

The people of this province have a great job ahead of them, and that is to overcome these moving goal-posts. It's like playing a Super Bowl game in which every time one team gets close to the goal-posts the other team has the authority to move the goal posts further away. It makes people deeply resentful, It makes them angry. But they are going to lie in waiting, because no matter what this government does to try to break their spirit, to try to move the goal-posts, to put pine tar on the handle of the bat, or to put some substance on the glove of the heavyweight fighters to try to take unfair advantage of the people of this province, it will not work. Our message, our ideas and the kinds of things we stand for on this side of the House will prevail. The innate sense of fairness and the intellect of the citizens of this province will overcome any unfair advantage that this government tries to take of them.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Richmond and Delta, and Surrey will benefit from us as a government of this province. We will sit down with them as local government and assess their needs in consultation with them, and develop programs that meet their needs. It won't be "Victoria knows everything" — that the cabinet knows everything. We will be saying to the people of Kamloops that the massive unemployment they have experienced, the devastation in their economy and the social implications of that devastation, will be addressed by the New Democratic Party.

They have in Kamloops a fantastic Member of Parliament, Mr. Nelson Riis, who represents the New Democratic Party. We will have MLAs of that calibre running for the New Democratic Party in Kamloops and they will be sitting in this House after the next election. As my colleague from Okanagan North has demonstrated, with work and the efforts of a large number of dedicated and committed people with the values and perspectives of the New Democratic Party, it is possible to win — it is achievable — in what has traditionally been Social Credit electoral areas.

We intend to ensure in the next election that that member will again be in his place in this House, and it may well be possible.... We're looking to having the two new seats in Okanagan South represented as well by the New Democratic Party in this Legislature. That is not beyond comprehension, Mr. Speaker; it is achievable, and we will achieve it. No matter what that minister does with these predetermined redistributions, this predetermined formula....

Shame on that minister, Mr. Speaker, for asking three upstanding individuals to follow a predetermined political formula that has a predetermined outcome. I said last April that an intelligent 12- or 13-year-old with a Radio Shack calculator could have determined where these added seats were going to be. It was strictly a matter of population data within those boundaries and determining how they related to a base formula for a particular region. A child could have done it, a young person could have done it, so why did the

[ Page 4943 ]

government try to pull the wool over the people's eyes in this way? Because they're desperate; they know that the Decima polls released last quarter indicate that 70 percent of the people of this province feel, believe, that the government's economic policies are complete and utter failures. Their assessment based on the Decima polls indicates that 69 percent say the economic performance of this government is poor or very poor. That's the lowest in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and the Decima company is a conservative polling company.

The government is attempting to take out an insurance policy against the loss of the next election. It will not work. I say to the people who are going to get the extra seats, look to the New Democratic Party in the next election. Put your votes there because that is the only hope for building a better British Columbia. The people of this province know that working together we can build a better British Columbia. They know it; they feel it intuitively. And no matter what that government does to take advantage in extra seats or extra laws or extra authority or extra control, it will not work. In the next election Prince George will no doubt be represented by two members of the New Democratic Party. South of the Fraser River will have New Democrats, and we've indicated that the interior is prepared for a new approach, a new way of conducting public business. They don't like the old way. I have colleagues who will be taking their place.

Let me say in conclusion that we support better representation for the people of this province. That will take the form of New Democrats, Mr. Speaker, not more Social Credit.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise once again, representing the people of Prince Rupert in this Legislature. It's almost like double your fun, double your pleasure, because not only am I representing the people of Prince Rupert but I'm also representing a brand new political party in this province, the United Party, and it gives me great pleasure to do that also.

MR. MACDONALD: You should resign. You've changed your spots.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, is that cooperation?

One of the names that's probably been mentioned in this House more than any other is Gerry Mander. Oftentimes I think we should call him the hon. member for somewhere. I didn't think we were allowed to use first names. But it seems that that's the member who has been in this House for so long that everyone knows it off by heart.

I think any reasonable person looking at this province will realize that the growth of population has happened in ridings presently held by Social Credit Members It therefore makes sense that when you're talking about making new ridings in this House you would look at those areas that are becoming more heavily populated, and it will be the ridings presently held by Social Credit Members There can be no doubt about that.

I'm not overly concerned about the fact that those ridings are presently held by Social Credit. I think it's up to all political parties who want to hold a riding to go in there and to win it. It's not who holds it now; it's who will hold it after the next election that counts.

Mr. Speaker, I think we're basically wasting our time talking about this act. I don't think the present Election Act will be able to be a statute in this province after April 17, 1985. I have had legal counsel from constitutional counsel informing me that this act, plus the present Election Act, will be ultra vires to the new Charter of Rights, once it becomes effective in the national House. Section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights says:

"Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

But the first part of subsection (1) is what I'd like to talk about:

"Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination."

MR. WILLIAMS: One person, one vote.

MR. LEA: That is true.

Mr. Speaker, if you are a citizen of this province and you live in a constituency that has one member, then that one citizen is represented by one member in this Legislature. If you are a citizen who lives in a constituency that has two members, then two members in this House represent that one citizen. In my opinion that goes against the Charter of Rights of Canada that will become effective on April 17, 1985.

By the same legal counsel who tells me that this will be challenged in the court I am told that there will be that challenge by a citizen who lives in a constituency where there is one member, not two. I believe, through the advice that I've had, that that challenge will stand the test of the court.

It would seem to me a waste of time for us to spend too much time debating this legislation. I would suggest that this legislation be put aside and that the government itself present this legislation, along with the Election Act that's in effect now, to the Supreme Court of Canada to ascertain whether or not this legislation will be ultra vires and whether the present legislation is ultra vires. What's the point of having legislation on our statutes and passing new legislation into a statute when in fact it won't be in effect anyway, if it's challenged in the courts successfully, at the next election date?

[4:15]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the hon. Provincial Secretary at least stand this bill down until he's had time to talk with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) of this province and until they receive advice from their constitutional lawyers in the Attorney-General's ministry.

This legislation is going to be challenged in court. I'm told by, as I said earlier, people in whom I have every faith as lawyers of stature and respect in the province of British Columbia that there is every chance that this will be challenged successfully. And it won't be the first legislation that this government has brought in that has been challenged successfully in court. I think back to the legislation surrounding the drug program brought in by the Minister of Health. It was finally struck down by the courts as not being constitutional. Wouldn't we be saving the people of this province money if we were to do the checking now? Why should the people of this province pay the thousands of dollars that it's going to take to defend this legislation in the courts when it can be avoided?

I don't think there's going to be an election next month, I don't think there's going to be an election the month after, and I don't think there's going to be an election next year. You can

[ Page 4944 ]

call the Premier a number of things, but you can't call him stupid. The Premier is not going to call an election while his government and his political party is looking so poor in the polls. There's time. There's no rush. We can save money for the people of this province, the taxpayers of this province, if we have this legislation taken to the courts and have an opinion now. We can also save a citizen of this province who is ready to challenge this legislation in the courts a great deal of money. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that that challenge will take place.

In summing up second reading of this legislation, I would ask that the Provincial Secretary reply to the remarks that I've made. I would also ask that the Attorney-General make some remarks in response to my remarks during this debate.

As I said at the beginning, the fact that these new seats are going to be created doesn't worry me. I believe the people of this province are not twits. I don't believe they're going to vote Social Credit forever because they voted Social Credit in the past. I don't believe they're going to vote for the NDP because they voted NDP in the past. They will vote on the issues of the day. They will vote for the party that offers them the most hope for the future. It isn't a case of having the people of this province told what to do by this legislation or being manipulated by this legislation. The people of this province are far too wise to be manipulated by a piece of paper called legislation. But I think it would be irresponsible of us in this House to pass a piece of legislation knowing full well that it's going to have to stand a test of its constitutionality in the courts. I would ask that the government pull back this legislation, have it tested in the courts now, save the taxpayers money, save a citizen of this province money, and save this chamber the debate that's going to go on when in fact, probably, this legislation won't stand the test of time.

MR. MACDONALD: The Provincial Secretary rises in his place and drives out most of his colleagues by advising hon. Members that this legislation addresses the inequities in the electoral system of British Columbia. I've never heard such malarkey in my life. The hon. member for Prince Rupert says that it isn't fair under the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I certainly second the fact that it isn't fair, although I can't say what a lawsuit might do. I hope if the lawsuit goes ahead they'll throw in there whether a member who runs as a perfectly good rouge and then switches and becomes some kind of wishy-washy blue should resign, to see whether or not the people approve of his sudden course of conduct. What about that for a case under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Well, I know he's the leader of the United Party, and united it will be as long as he's the only member — and no longer.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I know we're all supposed to be good boys and girls now, and I shouldn't engage in debate in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're too old to change.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, that may be something in my favour.

This honourable Provincial Secretary says this is a very equitable distribution throughout the province of British Columbia. You look at the figures for what have been....

And I agree with the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) that they're not going to be that way forever by any means. But look at the traditional Social Credit country of Central Fraser Valley and Langley. Under this neat little formula they have devised — which they say is so fair to everyone concerned, and how good they are — in Langley, according to the 1984 census, you've got 65,000, for two members. I have rounded the numbers. In Central Fraser Valley you've got 64,000, for two members. When you add that up, it gives four Members for 129,000 people, which works out to one member for every 32,000 people. We're not talking about registered voters but about the census figures which reflect the number of registered voters.

Now you come to the city of Vancouver, where you have, in the largest of those ridings, two members for 91,000 people. In other words, if you live in the city of Vancouver there have to be 45,500 of you to get one member. But if you live in the Social Credit traditional stronghold country — the Bible Belt area — of Central Fraser Valley and Langley, what do you get? You get one member for 32,000. Like the first member for Victoria, I hope that people will see through what is going on in this Legislature. It's just the latest instalment of the Social Credit gerrymandering a la mode, It's building upon a fraudulent electoral base in the province of British Columbia.

It's absolutely mind-blowing to think what former Judge Eckardt did in his report that came down in 1978. For example, he took — there was never any explanation of this, and there can't be an explanation — the riding of Nanaimo, which at that time had a population of 66,000. Then to the south was the riding of Cowichan-Malahat which at that time — I'm using 1981 figures — had a population of 44,000. He took the town of Ladysmith, which had a traditional NDP — formerly CCF — vote, and he moved it from the smaller riding into the larger riding. That was a fraudulent electoral act which was perpetrated on the people of British Columbia at that time. Nanaimo gets two seats. In this particular case that partially compensates for what happened. But we're building our electoral system upon that fraudulent electoral base. You can see it in the city of Vancouver where the moving finger writes and continues to write.

Let me take a moment to rebut what the minister says about this being such a fair and up-to-date and responsible redistribution of the province. The largest riding in the city of Vancouver, Vancouver Centre, is one that had been held by the NDP for some years. It had a population of 92,000 — I'm rounding the figures. Vancouver East, 91,000 population. Going west.... And everyone knows that traditionally — not forever, perhaps — the city changes; people change; people think. As you go west, you get into the ridings of Little Mountain and Vancouver–Point Grey. What is Point Grey? Compared to Vancouver East, it's 75,000 compared to 91,000. Oh, it's just a discrepancy of 16,000 votes. It's nothing to think about. It's not much. Just a bit of political gerrymandering by the Social Credit government to make it clear that an NDP voter in Vancouver East will have his vote devalued by, say, 16,000 out of the 91,000. It's just devaluing the votes in the eastern half of the city of Vancouver in favour of the western half. It's just a little bit of political trickery by the Social Credit government, and the minister has the nerve to stand up and say that this is a fair and equitable distribution of the electoral boundaries in the province. What nonsense!

I ask you this: given those figures and the fact that Vancouver–Little Mountain has a population of 82,000 — a

[ Page 4945 ]

Social Credit seat, and smaller than East and than Centre because it was a Social Credit seat — why would what is known as Gracie's Finger be added onto the Little Mountain riding, which was larger than Point Grey? Why would that be done? Did Judge Eckardt give the answer? No, they had a secret hearing under the former Attorney-General, which was never made public. And then the ombudsman moved to investigate what I say is a fraudulent electoral base in the province of British Columbia, and he was stymied by this government and tied up in the courts. They didn't want the light of day to shine on those misdeeds. But it's so patently obvious that there has been political gerrymandering. It's patently obvious that the Social Credit Party has not changed its spots, and that this bill is simply a continuation of unfair electoral representation for the people of the province of British Columbia.

MRS. WALLACE: When you predicate a decision on a faulty premise, the result is meaningless, and that's what's happening with this bill: it is predicated on a faulty premise. I want to deal with two aspects of that, both of which have been touched on. One of them affected me very closely — the matter mentioned by my colleague from Vancouver East, the redistribution recommended by the Eckardt report. I note that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is leaving as usual when I get up to speak. One of those things does relate very closely to me. I want to deal with that again. I mentioned it at the time of the Eckardt report. I doubt that even Mr. Eckardt made that decision. I've always suspected that that was a decision made behind closed doors somewhere at some point. There was absolutely no justification in taking a constituency that was considerably smaller than an adjacent constituency, removing a large portion of that constituency and putting it in the adjoining constituency, so that, with the bill we are discussing now, that constituency has reached a point well in excess of two members. My own constituency is well over the 100 percent. In fact, give or take a few thousand voters, it could well have been that those two constituencies, had they been left as they were under this formula — which I don't agree with — would both have been entitled to two members.

[4:30]

The faulty premise on which this whole thing was based makes it critical that we stop now. The further you go, the further away from equity you get. That has been pointed out by many speakers with many examples, but I just wanted to deal with that one that relates specifically to my own constituency, about which I have a great many concerns.

I want to deal with another item, which my friend from Prince Rupert raised: that is, the two-member seats. We have had many reports in this Legislature indicating that the direction should be away from two-member seats. If my memory serves me correctly, that was even in the Eckardt report. This bill allows the committee — a very respectable committee, completely removed from any suggestion of political influence — such narrow scope, because it is set down in black and white what they can or can't do. That committee has been forced to go to StatsCan and come up with some statistics predicated on something way back in 1981. We don't know how accurate those predications are. We can hope they're accurate, but there is also great room for error in those predications. So we are not sure. Yet we are establishing two-member seats, which have been recommended against by previous commissions, on the basis of a fixed formula and an estimated figure. The preceding act that allowed this bill to be before the Legislature set those terms in stone, as it were, and the committee that was asked to interpret them had no alternative but to do what they have done.

It is wrong to go ahead with two-member ridings, and it is wrong to go ahead with boundaries that were drawn up on a politically motivated basis. Those are two basic errors in any formula that goes before any independent committee, and they have no power to deal with that. It is wrong to continue that, and it is important that we make the change now. The future of British Columbia is a bright and hopeful future. We can best achieve our aims and objectives if we have a truly democratic society and a truly democratic government. If we are going to go forward economically and socially, we must maintain a democratic approach.

This bill is moving away from that. This bill is putting a restraint on democracy, and it's making it so established that there is no way that we're going to get around it without a complete change. Let's stop now. Let's say: "Okay, there may have been some errors. Let's take a second look." Certainly the former Social Credit government was renowned for taking a second look; it's time that this government took a second look. We on this side of the House would be happy to cooperate with that. Let us withdraw what we have done, and let us say: "Okay, we will set up an independent commission to review the former reports and to take into account things like single-member ridings."

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: No, I am not attacking.... You see, if you had been here to listen, Mr. Minister, and if you had co-operated by staying here and listening to what I had to say, you would have heard me say that the commission had absolutely no power to do other than what it did under the terms of the act it was faced with.

I would suggest that this bill be withdrawn and that we have new legislation, a new independent commission that will start from the very basics and assess the needs not on a political basis but on the basis of the general nature of the constituency, the size and the density of population. That should be done with a direct instruction to provide for single member ridings, not double-member ridings. The distortions that occurred as a result of the Eckardt commission should be disregarded. Any independent commission should be instructed to establish new boundaries without regard for those that have been established on a very faulty premise. I would ask the minister to consider those two reasons for withdrawing the bill.

MR. MITCHELL: I have to rise in opposition to the bill basically on the principle of what it's doing and where it's not going. I think when you look at legislative reform, we have to look at the four electoral commissions that have been set up over the last nine years. I don't think any province has had one issue studied so well and so long and still not brought out a piece of legislation that reflects a proper parliamentary reform. We had the Norris commission, which filed its report in 1976. It basically recommended single-member ridings.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Because you were in power in 1976.

[ Page 4946 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Not Jack. He wasn't here in 1976.

MR. MITCHELL: The Social Credit were in power in 1976. You know, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is again showing his lack of political knowledge of this province. He's not even sure when the Norris commission came in.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It was when you were in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wrong.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: The Minister of Education withdraws his statement. It came out....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: It was under review; it never became public.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the intent of the Norris commission was to get away from double-member ridings. Politically they are wrong on many counts. What I would like to say is that mainly the service to the voter is diminished in many ways in a dual-member riding. In a lot of cases there is a large population from different economic bases, from different historical beginnings. Vancouver, Victoria, Point Grey, Kamloops have areas that one member could represent very well. He could get to know his population and the industry in that area; he could represent the voters, the constituents, the citizens far more effectively than when he's trying to cover both sides of the area. I think we had a prime example of that in the '79-'83 session, when Surrey was represented by MLAs from two political parties. In effect, each member was representing the problems of that total area. That particular area should have been divided up into three single-member ridings in 1976, and not wait until this piece of legislation comes in. We have said that the dual-member ridings are wrong politically and democratically; now the member from the UPBC says they are wrong legally. I won't argue that particular point.

According to the table that was put out with the report, my riding has 157.82 percent, 2.5 percent short of a dual-member riding. The adjoining riding of Saanich has 190.96 percent, way over the 160. When you combine them and divide by two, you have 174.39 percent — two would make a dual riding.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I recommend to the minister that he withdraw this bill and appoint an independent group that British Columbia can have faith in; that we do set up three or four new members in that riding but that each elected member would represent a given area of the district. It's a shell game, where you move a block of voters into one area and take it out at another end. Again, it was part of the Eckardt report that created Saanich the size it is now. It took sections off the Esquimalt riding on the north side and a large section off the east side. But again, we still have in both ridings an inner urban core of population; then Saanich has a rural area, and we have the unincorporated areas in the Western Community of my riding. Both Members are representing many different groups and different areas.

[4:45]

British Columbia has a great need for proper legislative representation in this House. It should be done on a proper basis, with the intention of having single-member ridings, so that if a person comes to see their MLA they know who it is. They know who is going to represent them and be responsible for that area. I'm convinced that the minister realizes, when he looks at his own percentage.... He made some snide remark against Vancouver East, but look at the percentage of votes in Columbia — 64 percent! I'm not saying that he doesn't represent Columbia very well, but whatever set of figures we have, somewhere down the line I think it should be close to 100 percent. I think there should be a position for urban ridings and rural ridings. I think the makeup of British Columbia dictates that the areas of large areas without the density that you have in the inner cores do need maybe smaller representation or smaller numbers.

I think that if you're going to look at a proper redistribution, a proper representation, areas must be taken into consideration. I think there is a need. For years in British Columbia, we did have the rural and the urban representation. I think that as long as they not only appear to be fair but are fair the average voter would be more than happy with whatever representation or recommendations an independent body made. As in many other jurisdictions in Canada, that particular body is not represented by individuals. It is represented by positions that change over time. I believe I made a recommendation for an independent commission consisting of the president of one of the universities — not the individual but the president of one of the universities — the senior judge in the Supreme Court.... I think I'm convinced that the chief electoral officer should be a member of that commission. The three positions would be independent of personalities. The names of the individuals will change but the positions and the responsibility of the recommendations they bring in will not be tarnished by the political manoeuvres that have taken place in the last few years.

Maybe I'm being logical. Maybe I am not looking at the political end of it. Maybe I'm only asking for fairness. I think it's important that each one of us as MLAs be prepared to say about the type of legislation we're going to support that we would support it no matter what side of the House we sat on, that recommendations that come in for electoral reform should be supported 100 percent by each one of us. When you find that the MLAs who represent 45 percent of the voters of this province are not happy to stand up and support a piece of legislation, you, Mr. Speaker, and each one of the government members know that there must be something wrong with the legislation, when up until now not one backbencher of the government has stood up to defend this piece of legislation. The minister got up because he is duty-bound to say what a great piece of legislation it is. I don't know what support he got for it in caucus, nor do I want to. But I say that when this type of legislation is viewed out in the public as being political, I'm convinced that you, as a very fair-minded person, as Speaker, know that there is something in it that doesn't stand up to close examination. The figures, the manipulation, the gerrymandering that took place under Judge Eckardt's redistribution are still there. It's wrong.

1 must say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that I know that the government in their wisdom think that this is a lifesaver for them: it's going to save their hide in the next election. If you

[ Page 4947 ]

go back a little in political history, when Ross Thatcher brought in a piece of legislation very similar to this in Saskatchewan, he was quite convinced, the public was convinced, and the newspapers were convinced that he was in there forever.

Mr. Speaker, I must say what our debate leader said earlier: the people of this province are going to be voting in the next election not on boundaries, not on this piece of legislation, but for policies of a new beginning, policies that are going to give this province hope, a vision and some security.

I say the legislation is wrong. We are going to be voting against the legislation because it's put together incorrectly. It is not looking at fairness. It's out of place in modern democracy. We've got through 1984, when we had the Big Brother outlook in the government. We are now into 1985, and in 1985 we should be bringing in legislation that is positive and forward.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring your Honour's attention to standing orders of the House. There is a stranger in the gallery, and I ask that that stranger be removed forthwith.

MR. HOWARD: On the point of order, I draw your attention to the fact.... It is my understanding that strangers in the House are what is involved, not strangers in the gallery. There are no strangers in the House that I can see. It's perfectly permissible in most other jurisdictions that I know of, under our British parliamentary system, to permit members of the assembly to be attendant in the galleries.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: I want you to know that the spirit of cooperation does not extend to the internal affairs of this side of the House. However, I withdraw my objection in the face of such formidable opposition. Traditionally we have excluded members of the chamber from sitting in the galleries. I would have no objection to that rule being changed, but insofar as it has been enforced I ask that it be ruled upon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair was aware that our honourable Speaker was in the gallery. He is attending to some of his duties as Speaker, so I thank you for withdrawing your objection, and I thank the hon. member for Skeena for interceding.

Perhaps we could get the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to continue.

MR. MITCHELL: Looking from here, I thought Mr. Speaker was in Hansard's office up there. I didn't realize he was in the gallery. I don't know how he got into the office without going through the gallery, but he wasn't caught. Years ago it was quite an offence to walk in that hallowed gallery up there. I know that is quite out of place in this debate. I am looking forward to seeing what your ruling is. Can MLAs wander up top and not be thrown out or bring the whole place to a...?

The Provincial Secretary has taken over the orders of the Speaker. He is taking a duty that he shouldn't have. In closing, I say that his ruling on the MLAs in the gallery is just as out of place....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are dealing with Bill 47. We are not debating the matter that was brought up by the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre. The Chair would really appreciate it if you would continue with the debate on the bill.

MR. MITCHELL: I was just summing up, Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted by the minister. His ruling on the MLAs in the gallery is just as wrong as his recommendation in this piece of legislation he has brought in. I would ask him to withdraw it, to set up some commission to review electoral reform for this province, so that we have single-member ridings with fair representation and so that the figures on the side will be close as possible to 100 percent.

MR. LAUK: If I am within earshot of the people who scampered out of the gallery.... They obviously thought I was referring to them, that this was a closed in-camera meeting considering the Provincial Secretary's salary or something like that.

In the spirit of a more light-hearted view of the commission's rather imperfect report to the government and to this House, I would like to canvass the idea of electoral boundaries and electoral reform over the 900 years or so of the British parliamentary system, and I will do that within approximately four or five minutes. At best, we would all agree that electoral reform, and particularly boundary-drawing for constituencies, is an imperfect science. Under the reign of Henry II, parliament was summoned by the monarch by writ, and you became attendant upon that parliament if you owned more than 3.4 acres of land. It wasn't precisely described in that way, but the reason you became a Member of Parliament in those days by owning 3.4 acres of land was that you were automatically knighted when you owned 3.4 acres of land. All knights had to attend upon the service of the king when summoned to his parliament. That's how we all started. That became somewhat unsatisfactory because a lot of people not only lost their land but also their heads when they did not attend upon the king's summons. A lot of people were out ploughing at the time and may not have received word.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here it's $250 a day.

[5:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: No one knows that better than I, Mr., Speaker. But I'd sooner pay the $250 a day than lose my head, which at times I believe the government would dearly wish was still the penalty for not coming to the House.

Well, that became unsatisfactory after a period of time, and it was decided that riding boundaries would be determined by how much of the area to be represented a member of parliament could ride around in one day. That's where we get the word "riding." As you might expect, these were not always recorded and ridings could overlap. These were settled in a democratic manner — usually by some sort of joust or duel .

Then we developed pocket boroughs over the years. We all know, as the Deputy Clerk knows full well, the nature of pocket boroughs.

Interjection.

[ Page 4948 ]

MR. LAUK: Am I keeping you all awake? I'm sorry about that. I don't want to interrupt. As soon as you give someone silk, he feels perfectly at case in interrupting the brilliant reminiscences of the member for Vancouver Centre.

A pocket borough was a sort of phony constituency. It was almost always inherited through a family or through the petty nobility in the British system of election by constituencies. There was a period of time when elections were held outside the local pub by voice vote. The incumbent member of parliament would be the one judging how the vote went — for one. In all of these votes the person whose supporters could shout the loudest won the day.

There was a time, even in British Columbia's history of parliamentary democracy — and this is only by legend....

MR. HANSON: Prior to Hansard?

MR. LAUK: Prior to Hansard.

But we did hear a rumour that when Premier William Smith, I think it was, became Premier in this province.... Was it Smith? He became Premier because when the ushers opened the doors on the opening of the first session of that parliament, he was able to get to the Premier's chair first and he was able by force of arms — his own — to keep the chair until the Speaker was elected and took control of the affairs of the House. From time to time, having a look at our own House Leader and my colleague from Vancouver Centre, I muse about how it would turn out in this House if that kind of test determined who was to take the Premier's chair. So I cannot help but look back nostalgically at those days.

As light-heartedly as we can look at the past, Mr. Speaker, I consider it inexcusable to still view the issue of electoral reform and the drawing of constituency boundaries as so imperfect a science that we would stand enthusiastically to support a bill that does not take into consideration the many aspects of proper representation in a modern democratic state. With that in mind I listened with interest to my colleagues' criticisms of this bill, and I agree with them wholeheartedly. But I'd also like to mention something I mentioned in this chamber the other day. Electoral reform must take into consideration the fact that we are a member province of a federal state. That federal state, in consultation with each province, passed a Charter of Rights and that Charter of Rights says in the most unequivocal language that every citizen of Canada shall have a vote in a provincial election. I ask the Provincial Secretary to indicate whether he has taken steps to exempt British Columbia from that provision of the Charter, if indeed it's possible — I'm not sure it is. Any by-election or any general election that is being held will automatically exclude thousands of Canadian citizens who under our provincial laws are not entitled to vote because they are 18 years of age.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. member is reflecting on another bill that is before the House now.

MR. LAUK: It was ruled by the Chair not to be relevant to that debate, so I'm bringing it up here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's still not relevant.

MR. LAUK: I'm only trying to cooperate.

Now how is it determined...? Here's how it's relevant; it just occurred to me. The relevance has just focused before my eyes. If you are making a judgement about how many eligible voters are in a constituency, are you to exclude the thousands of citizens who are 18 years of age?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, you don't understand the issue, and that's why you're still Intergovernmental Relations minister. I'll speak slowly; follow my lips. The Charter of Rights says that every Canadian citizen shall have a vote in provincial elections. Can you follow that? Under Canadian law you are a citizen at the age of 18. You cannot be a citizen at the age of 17 or younger; you have to be 18, but you are a citizen if you are 18. In British Columbia you can't vote in a provincial election unless you're 19, according to provincial law. Does that not strike you, Mr. Speaker, as a little bit of a contradiction? I'm not raising nearly so esoteric an argument to the Election Act as another member earlier today. But this is a clear issue that has to be addressed. How did the commission arrive at its conclusions about population if they excluded thousands of 18-year-olds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stick with this act.

MR. LAUK: I certainly am. Isn't that an ingenious way to stick to this act, Mr. Speaker? Of course you agree with me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do think we have some problems here. The Constitution Amendment Act, 1985, Bill 47, which is before us now, deals with representation from electoral ridings and does not deal with the previous bill that we have passed or with the Age of Majority Act. Perhaps we could relate our remarks to the current bill. I'm sure the member can do that. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: I know the minister might suggest that the commission arrived at its figures dealing with total population. However true that may be, I wonder whether or not it was a complete examination of electoral boundaries and the populations within them without considering those people eligible to vote. I reiterate that I think it would be a tremendous waste of taxpayers' money not to carefully take care to make sure that we're in line with the rest of the country on eligibility to vote. I think that's one of the major attacks on this bill.

Comments have been made about dual-member ridings. I think that my colleague and I have had a very good working relationship in the constituency over 13 years. We try to divide the labour as best we can. But even with a great deal of good will and cooperation, we find ourselves sometimes answering the same inquiry twice.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Sometimes it's bad management, that's quite true. We reply to the same inquiry twice. Sometimes our constituency secretaries have gotten crossed up in communication and we both attend the same banquet or function in the riding when another one goes unattended — that kind of thing.

Interjection.

[ Page 4949 ]

MR. LAUK: There's no truth to the rumour that my colleague goes to all of them; only the ones he's invited to.

I'm just trying to point out that even with the greatest skill and degree of cooperation, a dual-member riding can be very difficult. Instead of giving double representation to the people there, we give duplicate representation, and sometimes under-representation, when this cross-communication takes place.

I think that the idea of representing a constituency is more consistent and in keeping with a single-member riding, where the single member has the centre of responsibility. Although my colleague and I have never done this, it has been rumoured that in ridings represented by the government party the buck is passed back and forth between the two members when very critical issues arise in the constituency. It has never happened in one of the NDP dual-member ridings, but I've heard serious rumours to the effect that this happens all the time in Social Credit tidings. I think that's something to be avoided.

I think that dual- and triple-member ridings are a thing of ancient history, so much like the history of the British parliamentary system. It's not like other things in life; going back to the old ways is not so good. The more this democracy can say it's truly civilized and representative, the more it in fact will be an example to the rest of the community. We can honestly say that we represent people on a democratic basis — one person, one vote. The idea of a single-member riding that is answerable, and is a responsible sensor for that constituency, its issues and its constituents, is very important. I think the commission should have but did not address itself to that problem.

The way in which the commission has decided to act upon some of these problems and not on others is a very revealing thing. They brought in legislation to answer some of the problems for electoral reform — this representation by population. But the electoral system is not compartmentalized. It doesn't work that way. If you see inequities in the total system, you have to correct all the inequities to improve the system. By attempting to correct one inequity you create others. If you correct inequities simply by choosing to double and triple member tidings — on a fairly arbitrary and, I think, unsatisfactory formula — to create further representation in those areas, without consideration of the other factors, you're creating more inequities. You're not solving the problem. You must try to improve the system as a whole, because it's an integrated system. If you've got several things wrong with a transistor radio, and there's more than one transistor that needs replacing, it's not going to work to replace one of the defective transistors. You've got to replace them all, or the radio won't work. It's very much like the electoral system in this province. That's where I think the report fails and should not be supported.

A good independent commission will make several recommendations, and will make the clear statement that all these recommendations should be implemented, or none of them. You can't tinker with an electoral system that way. You've got to deal with the thing as a whole. I think that an independent commission, without political or government interference, would arrive at those conclusions.

[5:15]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd just like to make a couple of short observations apropos the speech of the last speaker and the reference he was making to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in the sense that he was referring to section 3 of the charter. He was indicating to the House that there could well be some difficulties with the Provincial Election Act insofar as age is concerned.

Firstly, I think the House is aware that the Attorney-General is at the present time in the process of completing a review of the provincial statutes insofar as they impact and reflect upon section 15, which will be coming into force and effect as of April 17, 1985. The results of that review, conceivably, will be given attention to in the new session which will be commencing within the next few weeks,

Insofar as the point that the second member for Vancouver Centre raised, I think it's advisable to have it on the record that individual sections of the charter are not really to be looked upon as watertight compartments. The charter is always subject to section 1:

"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it and is subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

It's very apparent that certain of the, shall we say, age restrictions throughout the country in every province, and, indeed, in federal statutes.... We may well have to restrict according to age, and that age then would be subject to section 1. Providing those tests in section 1 were subscribed to, and providing the courts felt that those tests were proper and reasonable, then the statute would remain in place.

The second thing is that if a province — or indeed if the federal government — felt it was necessary and had the political will to support such a step, the law, whatever that law might be, would prevail. If political will, the will of the electorate, supported that, then the "notwithstanding" provision could come in, which essentially would really overrule, I suppose, a court decision. I'd, like all members to know that these matters are being carefully checked out. Please don't start suggesting to the public of British Columbia an incorrect premise, which, with every respect, the member for Prince Rupert raised earlier today as well. It's an incorrect premise to just articulate one section of the charter without getting into section 1 . Section 1 provides the three tests, and providing the law meets with those three tests — that it's a reasonable limit that is prescribed by law and can be demonstrably justified in the free and democratic society — then that law will prevail.

MR. LAUK: Do you actually believe that a court would say that some citizens have less rights?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, I didn't say that.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of delight to follow the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations speaking on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as opposed to Bill 47.

However, I understand that he was replying to a colleague of mine.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, I don't know. I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that the minister answered the questions raised, in any event, because my colleague was indicating that numbers

[ Page 4950 ]

are crunched and include people other than the ones that are eligible.

In any event, let me say this. I am delighted to see, visiting us for a short while, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). She was once Provincial Secretary in this House. While she was Provincial Secretary, a bill was introduced that forever gerrymandered this province. We're still living with that today, and we will continue to live with that kind of situation as long as our premise is based on that gerrymander.

There's no question about the gerrymander. The public understands it. Everybody that's interested in government understands it. Mr. Speaker, had we had an equitable distribution then, there would always be some room to move and change, and so on and so forth, but you would do so within equitable boundaries. But when we base this Bill 47 on that senseless, fraudulent distribution that occurred, there is no way you can possibly bring equity and fairness into the representation in this House. There can be no doubt of that, Mr. Speaker. We've been given an example of....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr Speaker, I would like to ask you to ask the member to withdraw the term "fraudulent." He's gone a little too far in saying "fraudulent." He's gone a little too far in his whole argument.

MR. LAUK: On that point of order, I want to assist the Chair in the point of order raised by the hon. minister. I would like to be of some assistance to the Chair. If the hon. minister wishes to ask the hon. member for New Westminster to withdraw the word "fraudulent," is she assuming that the words were directed to any member of this House?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: He did direct it to me.

MR. LAUK: I don't think the hon. member directed his remarks to the hon. minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I will advise the House that I heard the word applied to the legislation. That still doesn't make it correct, and I think "fraudulent" is a term we should avoid. I did hear the legislation being referred to, as opposed to a member of this House. But I would caution against that type of language.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I think the speakers can use those terms to attack legislation, to attack points of view and to attack government policy. The word "fraudulent" is quite often used in Westminster. Why, only the other day....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was not making a ruling, hon. member, I was just presenting a note of caution to all Members of the Legislative Assembly.

MR. COCKE: Mr Speaker, I recognize the term as being somewhat intemperate, but there is a time for intemperance for a member of this Legislature, and I felt that that was the time.

Now the basis for the present bill, Bill 47, was created back there in 1978, and there is no argument with respect to that. Had we had an equitable distribution then, we would not be doing the things we are doing now. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much if we would be adding 12 members to this Legislature. I wonder how the architects are going to feel as to where they are going to put them.

But in any event, had we had the kind of equitable....

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll be retired.

MR. COCKE: Whether or not I retire, Mr. Speaker, there will be a member for New Westminster, and it will be an NDP member for New Westminster, no matter when that happens. As a matter of fact, it's been going on for years and years and years. Since 1952 that riding has had the brains to elect either a CCF or an NDP member, thankfully.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Some want Rae Eddie.

MR. COCKE: Yes, and many of us would too, were he available.

Mr. Speaker, I just feel that it's best brought to the attention of the House that we would not be in this conundrum now had that been done properly. Now having said that, then why didn't we do it this time? Why didn't we call for a full redistribution? I know we argued that point on the original bill. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't done, and so here we are today. I'm not blaming the commission that came up with this particular report. They bad no choice. They were given an impossible job with impossible strictures, and they went to work and did what they could. But it's wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: They did the impossible.

MR. COCKE: That's right. But it's dead wrong, Mr. Speaker. I don't suspect that this government will ever do anything that's just and right. So I guess that until the NDP gets in power and has an opportunity to bring fairness back into this province, this is all we can look forward to.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to go on and reiterate one or two things that my colleague from Vancouver Centre said about double-member ridings. Isn't it about time we got away from that? Somehow or another we managed to get away from it in Surrey. We had to carve it up and stay within the Eckardt boundaries. The member for Surrey who's sitting there right now, and the other member for Surrey, must recognize the intolerable, inequitable situation that was set up in the first place. In order to put a riding into a situation.... Just a few years later, seven years to be exact — not even seven, because we're in the beginning of 1985, and that was in the middle of 1978.... Six and a half years ago they drew the riding boundaries, intolerably incorrect. Now all of a sudden we're going to slice it up like a watermelon and create three ridings. If they can create three ridings there, they can do it elsewhere, but they knew they couldn't do it equitably without being even more demonstrably wrong in the public's mind. So they created these double-member ridings.

Mr. Speaker, the double-member ridings should not exist. We should have single-member ridings in this province. We should have all the boundaries redrawn. When you do that, you don't necessarily have to add a whole lot of members All you do is see to it that the boundaries are equitably drawn. But we haven't done that. We didn't do it in 1978, we didn't do it in.... I can't remember the year that we had the last fiasco.

[ Page 4951 ]

MR. STUPICH: In 1966.

MR. COCKE: Oh, 1966 was bad too. Of course that was a very bad basis, changed by the government of the day. But I'm talking about the guy from Kelowna. What was his name?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Warren. The Warren report.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That was even more recently. Suggestions, Mr. Speaker, that were unacceptable. In 1982. Here we are in 1985 looking at this situation. We shouldn't be doing it. We should have gone back to square one and done an honest redistribution in this province, and we wouldn't all be in this quandary at the present time. I recognize the basis, since many of these ridings are fairly heavily Socred, but I don't fear losing elections based on this boundary redistribution.

I think the NDP is going to win the next election because of all the unfairness that has come from that side of the House, and that continues and continues and continues. That having been said, I still say it is wrong to gerrymander a province and to keep it gerrymandered, We should have fair and equitable redistribution as opposed to this silly adhesive-tape bandage situation that will never serve the people of our province. If you owe anything to the elector, you owe that elector an opportunity to be well served by the House that that elector owns, We are the servants of the people. We should be serving them well, and we're not serving them well with the kind of bill that we have before us now. We're forever damned because we're basing this on a false or an entirely wrong premise. As long as that premise is with us, and as long as we have for our guide in 1985 the kind of foolishness that occurred in 1978, we will continue to make the same mistakes and the people will not be well served. Therefore I have to say that I cannot support Bill 47.

[5:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on Bill 47 as it relates to my constituency of Kamloops. It's very fitting that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) spoke against this bill, because I intend to compare the constituency of Victoria with my constituency of Kamloops. I'm sorry that I didn't hear all of the member's remarks, I was at a meeting in my office. I regret that I cannot rebut point by point. But that's neither here or there. I do understand that he went on at great length about the Member of Parliament for the riding of Kamloops. I don't quite understand how he worked it into the debate on Bill 47. The Blues aren't available yet so I guess I'll have to wait until tomorrow to read those, but I would respectfully request some of the same latitude that was allowed that member for Victoria.

I know the Member of Parliament for Kamloops very well, Mr. Speaker. Having served two terms on city council with that member, I understand full well where he comes from and the nature of his politics. I will admit to one thing: he's a very articulate politician and he's very clever, but he has a penchant for taking credit in that riding of Kamloops for things that other people do. Of course he will never be able to point to anything that he's accomplished in the city of Kamloops or its environs because he'll always be in the opposition in Ottawa. He's very good at taking credit for what the government of the day happens to do, but he cannot point to one single accomplishment in that constituency or that riding, whichever you wish to call it. So enough dwelling on the NDP Member of Parliament for Kamloops, who has become an instant expert on everything.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm going to come to that, Mr. Member for Victoria. I'm so glad that you compared Kamloops to Victoria in this bill, because I intend to do the same thing.

They are very comparable in population, Mr. Speaker. I will start with that. They talk about the fairness of the representation in constituencies. Let me give you just a few statistics, and then you decide what is fair. The populations of the two constituencies of Kamloops and Victoria are very similar: they have — and I will speak in round numbers — between 78,000 and 80,000 people in each constituency. However, that is where the similarity ends. Victoria has an area of approximately ten square miles. Kamloops constituency has an area of approximately 8,000 square miles, with roughly the same population. So right there the inequities start. But let me go on from there on fairness in representation. This member for Victoria and his colleagues, who would deny the people of Kamloops a second member, talk about fairness. The members for Victoria — and I hasten to point out that they have two members to represent this ten square mile, postage-stamp constituency.... They can walk across it in about half an hour, and they're home every night. They deal with very few ministries in this government. Granted, they deal with the social service ministry, as everyone does. But unlike many of the rural members, especially in Kamloops, they don't have to deal with mining and all the inherent problems that go with mining.

MR. HANSON: We've got sewage problems.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: So have I, Mr. Member. You don't have ranching problems — the inherent grazing lease disputes and fencing disputes that go with ranching. You don't have many ranches in your constituency. You don't have the lumber industry to deal with in anywhere near the complexity that many of the rural members do on this side of the House. You don't deal with pulp mills and their inherent problems. You don't deal with highways problems and everything that is involved there.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It seems, Mr. Speaker, that we have touched a note across the way as involves fairness. It seems to me that fairness has only one meaning to the members opposite. There they are with two members in their urban riding, and seem to have difficulty looking after it; in the name of fairness, they would deny the people of Kamloops and other rural ridings two members

I think it's presumptuous of them to assume also that any riding or constituency in this province is a stronghold of either one party or the other. I think that's very presumptuous. They don't talk like that on the radio talk shows, or, as the

[ Page 4952 ]

member for Victoria just did, telling me how I'm going to be defeated in the next election. For purposes of debating this bill, it's a Social Credit stronghold. They don't talk like that when they're outside this House. In Kamloops they did in fact happen to win it once, in 1972. It won't happen again, I can tell you that. And we won't change the boundaries of Kamloops; they will remain the same. But the support for Social Credit just gets stronger and stronger in that constituency. We will send two members back to this House after the next election, let me assure you of that.

I would have been remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I hadn't pointed out the inequities in representation that this Bill 47 is going to correct. I do want to thank the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) for his most enlightening history lesson. I found it very entertaining and informative. I thoroughly enjoy his sense of humour, but I think that's where the enjoyment of that speech ended. When the member for New Westminster, who has left the chamber, talks about fairness, I would appreciate it if he would take into account....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Oh, you mean the member for New Westminster who is presently in the gallery. We've been through that exercise once this afternoon. I will not bring attention to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who is in the gallery. We will just let that go.

But the boundaries in Kamloops, Mr. Speaker, will stay the same as they were in the last election, and I'm sure that the people of the Kamloops constituency will be interested to note that the members of the NDP don't feel that they deserve two members when the constituency of Victoria, which is much smaller, has two and has had two for some time. So needless to say, I am lending my support to this bill.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I am pleased that the hon. Minister of Tourism outlined some of the distinct problems that his constituency is having. He outlined that the constituency is having mining problems, unemployment problems, highway problems and agricultural problems. I am concerned about that, and I would like to suggest to the hon. minister that it is perhaps a result of the policy of the very government he represents. That's why you are now having those problems.

With respect to the legislation before us, I support the argument of the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who suggested that in fact the legislation might be ultra vires. It may run afoul of the Canadian Charter of Rights.

We have, Mr. Speaker, a fundamental issue here. That issue is one of representative democracy: one citizen, one vote. The legislation in front of us runs in the face of that very principle of democracy. In essence it gives more than one vote to a number of citizens in this province. I suggest that on that basis the legislation is faulty. The attempt by introduction of this legislation makes a mockery out of the concept of participatory democracy in this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I notice a stranger in the gallery. Under standing order 24, I wish you would ask him to withdraw from the gallery.

MR. HOWARD: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the Provincial Secretary is completely off base. Members cannot be strangers in this place. Everybody else can be, but not members. This is the chamber and a member in the gallery is not identified as a stranger. The members should have — and do have, I maintain, by ancient custom, going back to time immemorial in the development of the parliamentary system in Great Britain, of which we are the beneficiaries — every right to be in the gallery.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Skeena is confusing the traditions. I think that any strange member in the gallery should be ordered back into the chamber where he belongs.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is very difficult for the Chair to rule that an hon. member of this chamber could in any way be categorized as a stranger in his own House. The process is a very difficult one to give a very firm ruling on, but I think hon. members, upon reflection, would find it difficult to classify any member of this chamber as a stranger and not entitled to sit in any place in this assembly hall.

MR. LAUK: If that's a ruling of the Speaker, I would ask you to rule on whether or not members in the gallery have a voice vote during debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, with all due respect, we could continue this ad infinitum, but I think that on....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I wish you would refer to the decisions and rulings of Speakers in bygone years, which have established precedents in this House. I wish you would refer to them before making any decision as to whether or not a member in the gallery is deemed to be a stranger. The only time in the 22 years that I've been here that I have witnessed any members of this assembly in the gallery while the assembly was meeting was back between 1972 and 1974. Those two members, upon my bringing that matter to the Speaker's attention, were ordered to withdraw by the Speaker of the day, a great authority on parliamentary practices, former Speaker Gordon Dowding. So before you make a decision, I wish you would study the decisions of the former Speakers and so forth and bring back your thoughts on that matter, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair will undertake that on behalf of members of the chamber.

[ 5:45]

HON. MR. GARDOM: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do believe that issue was also canvassed during the days of Mr. Gordon Gibson Sr. Perhaps you would review those decisions as well. It was Speaker Murray, if my recollection is correct. Pending the decision, since the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) does appear to at least be transgressing the practice of the House — in all respect to the assembly and certainly in order that he would not distract Hansard — he perhaps could relieve himself of his position in the gallery at this point in time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair cannot help but feel that we have taken this to an extreme. Nonetheless, on behalf of the members I will undertake to bring back an opinion on the matter at the earliest opportunity.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In view of the fact that the hon. minister had so skilfully deflected the comments that were

[ Page 4953 ]

being made at the time of the discussion, perhaps I should review some of the salient points of the argument that I was attempting to make. Those salient points wore that this legislation may very well be ultra vires in accordance with the Charter of Rights. As I mentioned before, we have a fundamental issue here: one member, one vote; one citizen, one vote. It's a fundamental issue in any participatory democracy. The attempt, through this legislation, is to make a mockery out of that basic parliamentary right.

We have yet another attempt by this government to manipulate the political system to its own end. Let me remind you, as I look across the floor, of the infamous moving finger and the previous recommendations of the electoral commission that are based, as has been mentioned before, upon false premises. People saw through that manipulation, and they were outraged by it — and rightfully so. No citizen should have a right to vote for more than one representative, because that is giving him more of a right than his fellow citizen who has only one vote. Are some citizens, because of geographic favour, in fact more equal than others? I suggest that that should not be the case.

I suggest that this government, through the presentation of this bill, is guilty of insensitivity to the public concerns of democratic equality. It's guilty of manipulating the balance of democracy in this province, and it is guilty of seeking to circumvent the democratic process in favour of its own ends. I don't argue with the need for justifiable and equitable electoral reform. I don't think anyone in this chamber would argue with that. I don't argue with the need for an equitable redistribution in the light of the recent demographic shifts in population that have taken place over the last few years. I don't argue with the basic premise of equal representation for all citizens of this province, and, like my colleagues have done before in this discussion today, I would like to call once again for the minister to consider an independent process of electoral reform that is free from the direct political manipulation that appears to be present in this present legislation. So I call for an electoral reform commission that is not based on the faulty premise that is presently before us.

In addition, such electoral reform should include changes in the enumeration in this province, because — and I speak for the citizens of the North Okanagan and, I know, the citizens of many other constituencies — too many individuals are disfranchised by not being allowed to register their vote. There are too many inadequacies in the process.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I would remind all hon. members that at the present time the member for Okanagan North has the floor and, as a new member in this chamber, is afforded certain privileges in his early addresses to this chamber. I would ask all members to consider that courtesy, which was afforded to each and every one of them during that time.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the privilege, but at the same time, if you can't take the heat you may as well get out of the kitchen, and I intend to be here for quite a long period of time.

Perhaps, because I was deflected previously, I should readdress the salient point I was making, which is that electoral reform should address the need for a full enumeration before each election, so that people who have moved and are not registered do get a full opportunity to participate in the electoral process.

As has been mentioned before, and I would like to address it again, the question of why individuals 18 years of age are denied....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member is speaking on a bill that has already been discussed in the House, the Elections Act. This has nothing whatever to do with the qualifications of voters.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point of order, the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: The minister, Mr. Speaker, is quite wrong. We attempted to raise the question of age during a previous piece of legislation, and it was ruled out of order by the Chair. Now we're raising it in its proper forum, as has been stated before. The question of electoral boundaries and integral ancillary aspects that are the input and output of the commission's report are well canvassed, and in a gracious atmosphere such as this the honourable member should be allowed to continue his remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I believe the point made by the Minister of Health is most appropriate, and I would ask the member to continue in his address, bearing in mind the specifies of the legislation before us for debate.

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I shall speak very slowly.

In summary, I would suggest that the minister consider, as has been mentioned numerous times before, that a fully independent process of electoral reform be instituted, because the present legislation is unfair. It's unfair because it is based upon a faulty premise, and I cannot support this legislation based upon that premise.

MR. NICOLSON: What we have before us is not electoral reform. It's an easter egg hunt, and about a year ago the cabinet went out and hid all the easter eggs. They hid one in Langley, a couple in Surrey and a couple somewhere else. They drew a map. They sent out three prestigious, well-respected, very intelligent individuals, and do you know what they did? They found all the Easter eggs that had been planted, because they were given the right clues, the right frames of reference. That's what we've got here, and that's what we object to.

I want to say to this government that I don't care where you hid those Easter eggs; there aren't any safe Socred seats in this province. I represent a so-called safe Socred seat. It was safe for 20 years. But there are no safe Socred seats. The people of British Columbia have had enough. They know that they deserve better and that they can do better. It doesn't matter where you hide those Easter eggs; come the next election there's no place to hide. There will be a day of reckoning. I'll vote against this bill, but it's not going to scare me. The people in this province have been bent but they haven't been broken. They're going to fight back against this and against any other kind of trick. It is all transparent. They all know, and we're going to win seats. We're going to win seats in Dewdney. We might win seats in Langley, just like we won a seat in North Okanagan this last year; just like we won

[ Page 4954 ]

Nelson-Creston and Rossland-Trail, which were safe Socred seats for 20 years, and Vancouver Centre and Comox and Victoria. There are no safe seats, After the next election, I don't care how you carve up the map, there is going to be no safe place for you people to hide.

Mr. Stupich moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw question No. 50 standing in my name on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.