[ Page 5553 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. The act provides for the periodic appointment of an Electoral Boundaries Commission to make proposals to the Legislative Assembly as to the areas, boundaries and names of the electoral districts of British Columbia and, if in so doing the commission considers it appropriate, to make proposals to the Legislative Assembly to increase the number of electoral districts to a maximum of 81.

The act presently provides that the first commission shall be appointed during the first session of the Legislature following the second general election after this provision came into force -- that is, during the first session of this thirty-sixth parliament. However, as the first commission has not yet been appointed, the act is amended to enable the appointment of the first Electoral Boundaries Commission by providing that it shall be appointed during the second session of the thirty-sixth parliament.

The general scheme of the act for the appointment of the subsequent commissions remains unchanged.

This bill also amends the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act by providing that should a retired judge be appointed to the commission, he or she may be paid remuneration for his or her services. At present the act allows for remuneration only of a commission member appointed under section 2(1)(b). Although section 2(1)(a) allows the appointment of a retired judge, there is no provision for remuneration of such a retired judge if one were to be appointed. The bill will correct that anomaly.

Hon. Speaker, those are my remarks.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

The member for Richmond-Steveston. [Applause.]

G. Plant: I'm temporarily silenced -- but only temporarily.

It's good to be debating legislation again. I got Votes and Proceedings out this morning. Apart from the fuss around supply, we haven't actually debated anything in the way of legislation since June 5. In fact, this is only the second day of debate on bills since May 8, which is over two months ago.

The bill that we have before us today in the House achieves a fairly simple purpose, but it has a rather troubling history. I don't think it would be appropriate to speak to the bill without some discussion of that troubling history.

I think it's important to begin by recognizing that what we're talking about here is the process by which the citizens of British Columbia exercise the most fundamental constitutional right -- to vote. We are going to be talking about that process in the sense of how it is that the government organizes electoral boundaries of constituencies so that people can cast a vote in a way which is meaningful and in a way which is untainted by partisan considerations to the greatest extent possible.

I was looking in the Law Reports this morning and was reminded, as I usually am in this context, of the very important judgment of Chief Justice McLachlin, as she then was, in the Dixon case in 1989. That was a case that concerned the issue of whether or not the then distribution of electoral boundaries was in violation of the constitutional right to vote under section 3 of the Charter. During the course of her reasons for judgment, Chief Justice McLachlin said this -- and she was talking about section 3 of the Charter:

"Viewed in its textual context, the right to vote and participate in the democratic election of one's government is one of the most fundamental of the Charter rights. For without the right to vote in free and fair elections all other rights would be in jeopardy. The Charter reflects this. Section 3 cannot be overridden under s.33(1); it is, in this sense, a preferred right."

In this province there is, unfortunately, a history of electoral boundary reform which is not altogether striking in its adherence to non-partisan principles. That's a complicated way of saying that the tragedy is that we have a pretty sad history, over time, of electoral boundary reform in British Columbia, with all kinds of incidents of gerrymandering and of politicians and public figures interfering in the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that advances their political purposes, as opposed to ensuring that the distribution of constituencies happens in a way that maximizes the rights that people have to express their vote.

There has been recognized for some years a need for an impartial process to determine how we allocate and set electoral boundaries. In fact, this need was recognized and became most acute as a result of lawsuits, including the litigation in the Dixon case, which gave rise to the reasons for judgment that I referred to just a moment ago. We have a series of reports; we have people who have tried to set out a process that would lead to an impartial organization of the distribution of constituency boundaries. We have Judge Fisher's report as part of that history.

What some of this history -- in fact, all of it -- led up to in 1989 was a statute. The statute is called the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. It's the act which we are today asked to amend. This statute created a new process for organizing and establishing electoral boundaries within British Columbia. It created a mechanism that allowed or tried to ensure that electoral boundaries would be established in a way that was as free from partisan political purposes as possible.

So we have a commission; the act establishes a commission called the Electoral Boundaries Commission. Some of the most important provisions of the act are the provisions that talk about who will constitute the membership of the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

[10:15]

[ Page 5554 ]

It is cabinet that appoints this commission, so we still fundamentally have a body that has as its primary accountability a political accountability, I suppose. But on the other hand, we have a statute which does the best it can. In fact, I think it does a pretty darned good job of creating a commission that should carry out its job in a way that respects the integrity of the electoral process, as opposed to advancing partisan political concerns.

This act came about, as I said, in 1989, which is getting close to a decade ago. The commission and the process that the act creates was in fact not used in the 1991 general election. For the 1991 general election, there were already boundaries in place. I believe they were the boundaries established as a result of the acceptance of Judge Fisher's report. The commission was also not used in the 1996 general election.

So we have a situation where the mechanism, the formula, for creating the commission was established by statute in 1989, but in fact the commission was never constituted. It was not constituted in time for the 1991 general election; it was not constituted in time for the 1996 general election.

The reason for that has to do with the section that we have under consideration here today. The reason for that is the formula for the time for the appointment of the first commission. Section 5 of the act, as it was enacted in 1989, said that the first Electoral Boundaries Commission would be appointed during the first session of the Legislature following the second general election after this section comes into force. That is one of those legal formulae that looks like it's a little difficult to follow.

The section came into force in 1989, I believe, so what we have to look for is the second general election after this section came into force. That was 1996. Then we have to look for the first session of the Legislature after that general election, and that was the session of the Legislature that began here on June 25, 1996 -- just a little bit less than a month after that election.

What the act says is that the first Electoral Boundaries Commission under this act was to have been appointed during that first session of the Legislature. It wasn't.

Let me pause for a minute or two here to talk about the context of that as I see it. I think that the 1989 act represented a very serious and legitimate attempt, as I said earlier, to put the whole process of electoral distribution onto a new non-partisan footing. Of course, the question of whether or not that purpose is achieved really doesn't turn on the existence of the wording in the bill but, rather, turns on the moment in time at which the commission in fact gets up and running and starts to do its business.

So we had, I think, in 1989 what I would call the promise of a return to or a restoration of integrity in the electoral boundaries process, but it remains an unfulfilled promise until the moment at which the commission is in fact appointed and does its work. It's only after the commission is appointed and does its work and makes a recommendation and submits a report that all of us as British Columbians can see for ourselves whether the redistribution of seats that the commission proposes is a legitimate, non-partisan approach to electoral distribution in British Columbia, or is in some way, unfortunately, tainted by the political process.

We had the possibility of a restoration of, a return to or an enhancement of integrity, but we never have had the realization of that, because we have not had an actual commission appointed. The reason we didn't have a commission appointed during the first session of the last legislative session is a bit of a mystery to me. I'm going to return to that in a minute, to try and figure out what the explanation for that might be.

It's important to understand that the significance is that, in effect, the government has taken that promise of the restoration of integrity to the electoral boundaries process, slapped it in the face and said: "We know that this is the structure that was created. We know that this is the potential that it has. But frankly, even though it is created in this way, for a purpose, we don't much care about whether or not it achieves that purpose in a timely and statutorily mandated way. We'll just ignore it."

That's what happened. This Legislature convened in March of this year for what became the final moments of the first session of the Legislature following the second general election, after which this section came into force. In fact, we raised then the issue of whether it was appropriate to close the session before the commission had been appointed. We were ignored, not surprisingly, and the session came to an end.

With that, I think, came to an end a certain notion -- at least, on my part and I'm sure on the part of many others -- of whether or not this government has the necessary measure of respect for the integrity of the electoral process, Frankly, if this government had that level of respect for this process, it would not have allowed the session to end without appointing the commission. But it did that. The question, of course, is whether or not that happened as a result of sheer carelessness, inattention to detail or mismanagement, or whether what happened was somewhat more intentional in the sense of a disregard for the basic principles of the rule of law.

I want to come back for a minute and trace some of the history of how we got to the point of having this amendment. The issue was raised, as I said, in the dying moments of the session that ended on March 24, but it was then pursued afterwards by means of correspondence.

I should make it clear that there was some attempt to discuss the appointment of some of the commissioners during the fall and winter of 1996-97. As I said earlier, one of the appointments to the commission is of a person to be nominated by the Speaker. There was some correspondence with the Speaker's office, including a letter back in the fall of '96 from the leader of our party, putting forward some names of people who could be recommended, at least by us, as persons for the Speaker's appointment to the Electoral Boundaries Commission. Unfortunately, that attempt really did not lead to anything further than that, until after the session expired.

At that point, I was concerned that the way the statute worked, it was no longer possible for the government to lawfully appoint a commission. The way I read the formula, the procedure for the appointment of a commission really gave no option. It really said that the commission shall be appointed during the first session of that Legislature after the second general election, and so on, and that once that time had expired, we had lost the opportunity to comply with the statutory procedures for the appointment of a commission.

When you lose the ability to constitute the commission in accordance with the requirements of the statute, then you 

[ Page 5555 ]

have the risk that a commission could be appointed in a way that would no longer be accountable in the manner that we had originally foreseen; that you would have a commission that would go about its work without the sanction of law or lawful authority. This, frankly, gave me some serious cause for concern.

The process which happened after that was that I wrote a letter to the Attorney General on March 27 of this year, bringing this problem to the attention of the Attorney General and indicating my view that the government's authority to appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission had expired, that the government no longer had the power to appoint a commission because the session had come to an end, and calling on the Attorney General to take immediate action. The immediate action which I thought was then necessary was an amendment to the act. I urged the Attorney General to provide me with his immediate confirmation that such an amendment would be brought forward by the government prior to any attempt to appoint a commission.

The problem here is that there has been correspondence after the end of the session indicating that perhaps the Speaker -- acting, I'm sure, with the best of intentions -- was proceeding to make his nomination. Frankly, I was concerned about that, so I wrote the letter and asked the Attorney General for his immediate confirmation that the legal problem, as I saw it, would be fixed before any further action was taken.

Unfortunately, I did not receive that confirmation from the Attorney General, so I thought it was necessary to commence legal proceedings to ask the Supreme Court of British Columbia to declare that in fact any attempt to appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission would be invalid for the reason that I've said. I commenced those proceedings on April 3, and the bill which is now before us was introduced and read for a first time on April 10.

So in a sense, I guess you could say that the problem was eventually identified, and we now have before us a bill which I think achieves the purpose of correcting the problem. It will allow the government to lawfully appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission, pursuant to all the rules that govern the various nominees and all of that. So I think we're at a place now where, when this bill becomes law, the government can once again pick up from where it left off and do the job.

What the bill does, of course, is essentially forgive the government for its error by rewriting the time definition and by essentially creating a new formula for the appointment of the commission, which allows the government to appoint the commission in this session of the Legislature. Now, the interesting question, of course -- which we'll all wait with bated breath to watch -- is whether the government will pay any more attention to this timetable than the last timetable. At least we're going to create an opportunity for them to do that. I think that's a good thing.

I also think it's really quite unfortunate that all this has happened. You know, we talk about democracy; we talk about the rule of law; we talk about the importance of our democratic institutions. But frankly, I think that in order for our democratic institutions to work, in order for the rule of law to in fact be effective, we not only need to talk about them but we need to actually act in a way which is consistent with them. In this respect, I think our actions, especially our actions as legislators here, speak far louder than our words could ever do. We can make speeches about the rule of law; we can make speeches about our respect for democracy. But when we have before us a very simple set of rules that allows us to create an institution that is in fact intended to enhance the way our democratic institutions work and we flagrantly ignore those rules, and we simply disregard them because they are too much trouble for us, then we are not respecting the rule of law; we're slapping it in the face. That is exactly what this government did when it allowed the time line to pass.

[10:30]

If what had happened here in Bill 13 were an isolated incident, I might be prepared to think: "Gee, well, it was just an accident. Someone allowed the time limit to pass without really being aware of the fact that there was a time limit, and everyone is entitled to make one mistake." Unfortunately, what I think has happened here is endemic; it is systemic; it is part of a larger problem. We have an acting conflict-of-interest commissioner supposedly appointed, but if you read the Members Conflict of Interest Act, it is perfectly and plainly clear that the people who passed that bill had no intention of ever allowing the government to repeatedly appoint acting conflict-of-interest commissioners. Yet that is what this government has done. For over a year now, it has simply appointed, reappointed and reappointed acting conflict-of-interest commissioners. Until very recently, the government appeared to be completely unwilling to embrace the notion that they should bring before this House and its committees a serious and sustained discussion about what that commissioner -- the full-time, permanent commissioner -- should do.

So why worry about the rules? Why worry about the procedures? Why worry about the statutes? They are simply an obstacle to the larger -- and I'm sure ideologically purer -- motives of this government. And in respect of those motives, the words of the statutes just simply get in the way from time to time. So what we'll do is we'll ignore them and we'll let them pass, and if by some unfortunate coincidence or act of fate somebody notices the problem and brings it to the government's attention, well, it's simple: we'll just amend the statute and fix the problem.

As I said, there is a contrast between the rule of law on the one hand and the rule of people, and that is a contrast which I think is a fundamental contrast and fundamental aspect of our democratic society. We are a democracy because -- theoretically, I thought, and in practice, I also believe -- we have respect for the rule of law as opposed to the rule of people. But a government that thinks it can do anything it wants is a government founded on the principle of the rule of people, not the rule of law. That is, I think, very unfortunate.

So the question is: how can we restore and enhance public confidence in our institutions of government? I think that is always the task before us here in this House. What can we do? How can we make decisions on a day-by-day basis that in fact build up support for our institutions of govern-

[ Page 5556 ]

ment, that enhance public confidence in those institutions, as opposed to wearing them down or eroding them? What has happened here is, I'm afraid, a situation where the government has acted in a way that will in fact erode public confidence in our institutions of government, will erode public confidence in the integrity of the way our government operates. It will not restore faith, and it will not repair faith; it will in fact impair faith. I think that is most unfortunate.

We are, I think, going to do the right thing here by amending this bill. We are going to create for the government another opportunity to get this process on its feet. We are going to create for the government another opportunity to appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission that will do a job for the citizens, the electors of British Columbia, that we very much need. We need to have a regular review of our electoral boundaries, because we live in a diverse and growing province, an enormously large province, where people are coming and going. It's not surprising to me that, on a regular basis, we need to look at how our electoral boundaries are distributed to make sure that everyone who exercises their right to vote does so in a way which has the most effect. So we're going to have another opportunity now, when we pass this bill, for the government to in fact embark again on that process. But gosh, I hope we do that. I hope that when the bill is passed, we in fact will see appointments to the Electoral Boundaries Commission, that the commission will embark on its work and that in the appropriate time we will get new boundaries. What we're doing here, I suppose, is giving the government a second chance -- or is it a third, fourth or fifth? Who knows?

In some respects, I'm endlessly forgiving and endlessly optimistic. I am therefore prepared to give this government that second, third, fourth or fifth chance, and to allow it to try again to go about the business of getting the Electoral Boundaries Commission constituted in a way that will restore public faith in our electoral process. Those are all my remarks.

G. Wilson: It's nice to be back debating legislation and getting work done in this chamber.

With respect to the intent of this bill in second reading, I would go on the record as saying that I have no opposition to what the bill is intending to do. I think that the sooner we get on with business, the better off we will be. I think that the member for Richmond-Steveston has very eloquently given us a history as to why this bill is here -- in order to provide the government the legal authority to go ahead and to make the appointment in this session -- and I don't think that needs repeating.

But it is very tempting -- in fact, it is too tempting not to -- to rise on a matter of principle with respect to electoral boundary reform and to put several issues on the record. While they may not speak to the letter of this particular bill, they certainly speak to the principle of electoral reform generally -- that is, to look at the definition of the act and to understand what, within that definition, the mandate of this new commission is going to be looking at.

If we are to get serious about electoral reform, not just boundary reform, it's time that we started to really challenge what has become a somewhat accepted practice, I suppose, on the basis of a fundamental principle of representation by population, and to ask ourselves whether or not we want to simply mandate this new commission to do nothing more than expand the number of elected MLAs, without having the opportunity to decide whether or not there is a better way of having representation provided in this chamber for the people of British Columbia.

To move to 81 MLAs might seem to be a better way of representing the people of British Columbia. On the surface, I suppose, if the commission should decide that they're going to do that, it is something that we will live with. But I think the time has come for us to really consider whether or not we want to broaden our horizons somewhat and expand our view with respect to how the people of British Columbia can best be served in an electoral reform process. Frankly, I'm not convinced that simply expanding -- increasing the number of MLAs -- is the way to go.

We have seen repeatedly the problems associated with rep by pop, concentrating electoral representation in the urban centres of British Columbia. If we want to extend the number to 81 MLAs and simply allow those MLAs to come from the heavily populated areas, what it will mean is that those heavily populated urban centres will continue to dominate the political agenda in British Columbia at the expense of the rural ridings. That's something that I think we need to go after and that we need to address.

Clearly, in a rep-by-pop model -- that is, representation by population deciding whatever the cutoff number of people will be within a riding, in order to establish what the boundary of that riding should be -- we fail to recognize two other considerations. One is a distance factor -- that is, the ability to actually represent a broad population in a large and dispersed riding. I can speak personally to that, in a riding that goes from Howe Sound almost to Bella Coola -- a long, very difficult riding to travel in, because there are few roads. You have to travel either by boat or by plane. In the north, I know certainly that Bulkley Valley is another one -- and the Peace areas. These distances are enormous.

The second issue that it doesn't address is the amount of wealth that is generated in the economy from the resource-based communities in those regions, and the people who generate enormous amounts of wealth for the general revenue of British Columbia who do not have representative clout in this chamber when we develop policies that affect resource-based economies or communities, because the representation comes largely from the urban populated south.

Where we see those problems is when we get into legislation that comes down that is driven, in large measure, with respect to restricting, governing or regulating our resource industries. In the forestry sector, for example, we look at the representation here from forest-based communities. We are in a minority with respect to our voting ability, even if we didn't have a party Whip system -- which is something else I'd like to see amended and reformed, but which is probably outside the context of this bill. Even if we simply just looked at those representatives from forest-based communities, they are in a minority in this chamber.

People who represent urban communities that benefit greatly from the wealth generated by those rural regions are in the majority. So when bills -- laws -- come forward and are voted on, they are frequently voted on from the perspective of the wealth that comes into the community that is generated into the general revenue of government, and are not voted on on the basis of what is in the best interest of resource-based communities, because they have a minority either within the caucuses elected or in the larger context of this Legislative Assembly.

With respect to this bill, then, it would be nice if the electoral reform process would do more than simply mandate a retired judge -- whether that judge gets paid or not, I don't have issue with, and that's in this bill. . . . People should be remunerated for the work they do; that's a general principle 

[ Page 5557 ]

that I think we can accept. But the point is that it would be nice if the mandate of that judge was to look beyond the horizon of simply a very basic formula of representation by population and could bring to bear a weighted representation that would weight the rural regions, to give them greater equity and a greater ability to have equity in this chamber with the larger, more densely populated urban centres. That's point 1.

Point 2 -- and I think we really need to address this -- is whether or not we ought to be, within this electoral process, simply going on a straight rep by pop in terms of the ridings, and whether or not within the voting procedure we should have a first-past-the-post proposition.

It seems to me that in most democracies that are progressive, forward-thinking and outreaching, we are now beginning to recognize that there should be a block of seats determined by proportional vote. It seems to me also that people are beginning to recognize that a simple plurality with respect to the voting procedure is something that does not represent us well, because what it provides for is majority governments that received a minority of votes. Therefore you have a minority extending the emphasis and powers of a majority, even though they do not enjoy a majority of the votes that were cast.

The member for Richmond-Steveston talked about the extent to which, once in a majority, governments can -- and he pointed to this government, in a number of issues -- simply ignore the rule of law. I don't take exception with anything that the member for Richmond-Steveston said. I think he said it eloquently, and I think he said it correctly. This government has, on many occasions, whether it's regional health councils or the conflict commissioner. . . . You can go through a whole list of areas where the rule of law has not been adhered to.

So as we look to the question of electoral boundary reform and as we have an opportunity to speak in principle to that question here, it becomes important for us to recognize that what could be mandated and what should be mandated is an amendment to the electoral process generally, so that we have a more democratic, more open and better process by which people in British Columbia can elect their representatives here and can have their voices heard and reviewed.

[10:45]

These are the issues that are really salient, are important, that ought to be dealt with by this commission, not simply mandating them to go and count numbers of people, draw lines on a map and expand the number of people sitting in this chamber from 75 to 81. That doesn't address the failings in our democratic system; it does not address the failings in the democratic process through which we elect the people who represent the communities of British Columbia.

With respect to this bill, let me say that I have no objection to the fact that the retired judge may be paid. I'm glad that the government has recognized, as the member for Richmond-Steveston has clearly articulated -- and I think articulated very well -- the need to make legal its action now, having already breached the law as it previously stood. I'm pleased that they have been able to do that. One might have wished they'd done that in a number of other areas where they're in violation of their own statutes. We can only hope that perhaps the lesson learned on this one might work well in those other areas.

I don't have a problem with the letter of this bill. But in principle what we are doing is not enough with respect to the electoral reform that is necessary if we are to restore confidence in the democratic process and procedures that elect people into this chamber.

With that, hon. Speaker, I look forward to committee stage and the passage of this bill, so we can in fact get on with the process of electoral reform.

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure for me to rise this morning and join in this debate on Bill 13. I certainly agree with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast that our friend and colleague the member for Richmond-Steveston has done an outstanding and thorough job of assessing Bill 13 and the reasons for it, its consequences and so on. There is always a danger when one follows the member for Richmond-Steveston of putting a moustache on the Mona Lisa. This certainly is a danger for me; it is a danger which I will face. I'll stand in my place here and face that danger of potentially putting a moustache on the Mona Lisa, in hopes that I can make some small contribution to the debate today. The member for Richmond-Steveston, as you know so well, has a manner of posing these things in a very spicy and provocative way. I've never been able to duplicate that, but I do hope that, in a rather bland way, a rather technical way, I can make a contribution here today.

If the government is, after the conclusion of this debate -- and presumably it will be a successful debate and this bill will be passed. . . . Hopefully, this government will be finally able to execute its responsibilities and put an electoral boundaries commission into place. Certainly we'll be watching in the months ahead with great interest and anticipation whether the government can finally, after, I guess, the first unsuccessful try, actually execute this development. We thought, in fact, with the passage of Bill 19 in the 1996 session that we would be seeing that Electoral Boundaries Commission put in place. But, of course, for reasons which have been outlined so thoroughly by my friend and colleague the member for Richmond-Steveston, the government was unable in the appropriate time frame to put the commission in place.

In the decades ahead I think that historians will puzzle about whether this failure by the NDP government to put the Electoral Boundaries Commission in place was a reflection of arrogance or a reflection of incompetence -- or indeed some combination of the two. I presume that some historians will argue that failure to put the commission in place was a product of arrogance -- would point to, for example, the statement of the Minister of Forests that government can do anything it wants. That has now become one of the classic lines in provincial politics, perhaps soon to replicated by that famous line 

[ Page 5558 ]

from the member for Shuswap about Old Shep. "Government can do anything it wants" is going to rank up there as one of the great sentences of all time, in terms of analyzing this government and its performance.

K. Krueger: A defining phrase.

G. Abbott: A defining phrase, as my friend and colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson notes.

The member for Richmond-Steveston noted with great eloquence how this government regards rules and statutes as mere impediments on the road to a higher socialist utopia. I think there is much to that. We've seen that in so many instances over the past year and, indeed, in the first term of this government. I think arrogance has to be seen as a contributing factor at least in the failure of this government to put an electoral boundaries commission into place.

But I don't think that the issue of incompetence can be laid aside entirely. Certainly we also see -- and I wouldn't want to enumerate them all, Mr. Speaker, for fear of being seen as provocative and partisan -- more than a few instances where the outright incompetence of this NDP government has come into play in terms of public policy in the province. So we really shouldn't be surprised that Bill 19, which we debated very thoroughly last year, was not executed properly, and as a consequence we're here today debating Bill 13. There are, as I noted, more than a few examples of where this government has promised one thing and then, of course, delivered something completely different.

I think the most prominent example of this -- although there is some competition for that position. . . . The most outstanding example of the government failing to deliver on its clear and unequivocal promises was the promise during the 1996 provincial election campaign that the NDP government was delivering two surplus budgets. This was not a promise that the Premier enunciated shyly. This was something that he proclaimed loud and clear all around the province, and certainly in advertisements as well as in the many speeches that he made.

So there was this great claim of two surplus budgets. What we have found since then is that there weren't two surplus budgets. In fact, we had two very substantial deficit budgets -- as it turned out, the fifth and sixth consecutive deficit budgets produced by this NDP government in the great and prosperous province of British Columbia. What we found was that rather than producing two surplus budgets, as the Premier so proudly proclaimed, we had in fact seen two Betty Crocker budgets. These are, as the name implies, two cookbook budgets -- two budgets that, while being recipes for economic disaster in this province, were also recipes, I think, for some financial deception with respect to what was occurring in the province.

Hand in hand with the fifth and sixth consecutive deficit budgets, we see by the NDP a complete failure to observe its debt management plans. Again, in the last provincial election it was strikingly clear -- at least if one believed what came out of the Premier's lips -- that the province had put a promising and constructive debt management plan in place and that they were going to see the debt of this province reduced in the years ahead. Of course, what we've seen since the election is that just like the two surplus budgets, the debt management plan was pure fantasy. In fact, what we have seen since the 1996 election is that the provincial debt has grown to record levels and now, perhaps proudly -- perhaps shamedly -- on the NDP side, beyond the $30 billion level -- somewhere that the debt in the province had never been before.

Today I also want to briefly outline a few of the other areas in which this government has failed to deliver on what it has promised in the past, and particularly on what it has promised in recent months and years. It's important to do this, because it helps to put into perspective the government's failure to take Bill 19, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act of last year, successfully execute it and put a commission in place to get its work done.

Among some of the other areas. . . . I'm going to save the best -- or the worst, if you like -- for last, which is the area of municipal affairs. We've seen, for example, the imposition of health care regionalization, something which was. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I know that the opportunity for wide-ranging debate is available under second reading, but, of course, wide-ranging debate has to be relevant to the contents of the bill. I also know that this House has, over the last few months, given great leeway to that ability to debate anything they like. But I would also put on the record here that this government is very committed to having concise, logical debate. We will participate in that fully. We are under public scrutiny here. It is important that we meet the public test of relevance here; that becomes an increasingly higher test. The hon. member speaking now should know that, and I would ask that he and his colleagues remain relevant so that we can maintain the integrity of this House.

The Speaker: I would just ask all members to be guided by the cautionary notes provided in our standing orders. Relevancy is indeed the hallmark of good debate. I would ask the member to be guided by that caution.

G. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are absolutely right. It's imperative that debate be relevant in this chamber. That is why it's so important for the government -- and for the people of British Columbia -- to appreciate why we are here today debating Bill 13, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1997, when we had, in a very thorough manner in the 1996 session, debated Bill 19, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1996.

There are reasons for the failure of the government to complete the job that was outlined in the 1996 version of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. We have talked about the government's failure to look at rules and statutes, and I'm not proposing to go at any great length into health regionalization or anything else. They are entirely relevant to the reasons why this government failed to do its job in 1996 and why we find ourselves, in 1997, discussing once again an aspect of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. These are merely examples of this government failing to do its job. Of course, I'll keep my points brief and relevant, and I think they're very appropriate to debate in this chamber.

[11:00]

[ Page 5559 ]

failure of process, just as in Bill 13 we see another failure of process on the part of this government. Of course, these are not the only instances.

I want to again briefly note some other instances that tie in very effectively to Bill 13. The recent sideways shift by the Minister of Forests, taking funds from Forest Renewal to apply to tasks which had previously been undertaken by the Ministry of Forests in British Columbia, is another example of a government that says one thing and does another -- just as indeed Bill 13 does. My colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson has noted on many occasions in this House the imposition of an expanded gambling situation in this province, again without any kind of consultation and again without any kind of rigorous assessment of its implications.

There are numerous examples of where this government has failed to execute on its promises. Bill 13 is certainly one of those, and that's what we're debating here today. When we look at Bill 13, we have to look at it in the context of the overall performance of this government, which of course has been dismal. The Premier of this province loves press conferences; he loves to announce new, brassy initiatives to the people of British Columbia. But it is rare that he ever actually delivers on those brassy promises, which he makes in such a splendid fashion.

Before I leave examples and talk about a few other issues associated with Bill 13, it's important to briefly note some of the ways in which -- just as they failed to deliver on Bill 13 -- this government has failed to deliver in the area of municipal relations in this province. I won't dwell on them, but I do want to briefly note them as, again, examples of failure in consultation and failure in process. The most prominent example, of course -- and we debated it at length when we discussed Bill 2 earlier this session -- was the government's arbitrary and unilateral breach of the Local Government Grants Act.

Local governments in this province had felt, after they gave up the $250 million in money owed to them through the revenue-sharing program back in 1994, that the Local Government Grants Act was going to provide them with the stability, certainty, predictability which they had long hoped for. That lasted about two years until, in November of 1996, the then Minister of Municipal Affairs announced that the government proposed to unilaterally and arbitrarily repeal that section of the Local Government Grants Act. Again we have, just as we do with Bill 13, an example of where the government on the one hand promised stability, certainty, predictability into the future and then delivered something entirely different. What they delivered, of course, was a repeal of that and no certainty, no predictability, no stability from year to year in municipal grants. This is probably the most striking and certainly the most contentious element in the government's package of municipal affairs legislation over the past year, but certainly not the only one.

We probably don't have enough time today for me to enumerate all the broken promises in the area of municipal affairs, but to briefly note a few of them -- certainly, the termination of the downtown revitalization program. . . .

The Attorney General appears to be slightly puzzled by my current discourse, and perhaps I'll just take a moment to briefly explain to him, as I explained to the Government House Leader moments ago, how this all ties in. I know that sometimes the government -- and particularly government ministers -- have difficulty making all the connections, just as with Bill 13 they had some difficulty making the connection between the passage of Bill 19 and the actual appointment of an Electoral Boundaries Commission in this province. So I'll try to tie up a few of the conceptual links between the arguments that I'm making here so that the Attorney General, who I know is very much an admirer of my speeches in the Legislature here, can enjoy them fully. He regrettably was called out for a few moments during the earlier portions of my speech.

I want to just briefly explain that what I'm attempting to do is, on the one hand, take Bill 13, which we're debating here today, and the reasons the government failed to execute on what appeared to be a fairly straightforward plan set out in Bill 19 in the last session. . . . It is, as I've noted on a few occasions here, an example of the government promising one thing but failing to deliver it or, as is the case in some of other areas of government, actually delivering something different than what they had promised.

I just wanted to do that very brief update for the Attorney General so that he can derive the full enjoyment that he deserves from the speech I'm providing here today.

To continue, then, I'll give just a few more examples of the government's failure, as in Bill 13, to deliver on what they had promised in the area of municipal affairs. The termination of the weed control grants is something I know the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is very concerned about. I know he will be arguing very vigorously in cabinet to try to get a restoration of that. That's something that in a fundamental way hurt the regional districts in their attempts to control knapweed and other noxious weeds in the province.

The Ministry of Environment, again as part of the package associated with the municipal downloading of last November and December, arbitrarily breached a written milfoil control agreement that they had with local governments in British Columbia. Again, just as in Bill 13, it's a failure on the part of government to deliver on a promise -- saying one thing, doing another.

I don't want to embarrass the government. That would be, I think, one of the last things I would ever want to do here in this Legislature. I think the government record with respect to broken promises is one that will probably never be matched in British Columbia.

I just want to summarize here and conclude. Bill 19 from 1996 was, of course, a bill which provided for an Electoral Boundaries Commission and the expansion of the Legislature up to 81 seats. We opposed that expansion. I think we noted at the time that British Columbia has a growing population. It is in all likelihood going to continue to have a growing population. Some demographers, I think, anticipate a doubling of British Columbia's population in the decades ahead. Does that mean, then, that if we double our population, we should double the number of representatives in this Legislature? Well, I don't think so.

I think we need to find ways to accommodate a growing population, to accommodate growing demands on the time of legislators without constantly expanding the size of the Legislature. During the debate in 1996, we offered to sincerely work with the government to find ways of addressing this issue. To date, I don't think we have had the kind of response that we would have liked to that proposal.

I do think that rather than constantly expanding the size of this place and perhaps in some ways undermining the aesthetics and beauty of this place by trying to cram too many people in, we should look at ways in which we can achieve that objective without constantly expanding the Legislature and adding to the growing cost of government. So with those few brief comments, thank you very much.

[ Page 5560 ]

J. Weisgerber: This bill corrects an error, a shortcoming by the government. That was very clearly and very well addressed by the member for Richmond-Steveston, and I have very little to add to what he had to say with respect to the failure by the government to appoint a commission, for whatever reason.

What I want to do is take this opportunity to address another shortcoming in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act -- and by that, a shortcoming in the amendment to the act. I believe that when the decision was made to increase the number of seats to 81 -- a decision that I too disagree with -- the commission should have been instructed to deal with the problem of large rural constituencies.

This is a problem not unique to British Columbia; it's a problem in Canada. It's a problem that the Canadian government recognized. While they follow the principle of maintaining constituency population sizes within the area of plus-or-minus-25-percent, they also recognize that in this vast and diverse country there are exceptions. So the Canadian legislation provides for exceptions to the plus-or-minus-25-percent rule in those exceptional circumstances.

When the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act was introduced in 1989, the legal opinion of the day was that there was no constitutional ability to vary the plus-or-minus-25-percent-of-population constraints on electoral boundary selection. That was an issue debated rather vigorously at the time. The wisdom was that any attempt, constitutionally, to have constituencies with populations smaller than 25 percent of the norm would fail on the basis of the constitution. That has changed. The federal government has recognized the need to change in exceptional circumstances.

When the province of Saskatchewan amended its electoral act, it actually reduced the number of MLAs. It reduced by eight -- from 65 to 58 -- the number of members sitting in the Legislature in Saskatchewan. That government recognized also, in shrinking the number of MLAs, that there would be larger constituencies, and that in northern constituencies in Saskatchewan, which were already enormous, it would make them unserviceable -- make them physically impossible for one MLA to adequately service.

When the government of Saskatchewan, with the obvious relationships to this government here, both being New Democrats -- although one, I suggest, is much more dedicated to the notion of balanced budgets and fiscal constraint, and it isn't the one we're looking at across the way. . . .

[11:15]

But I hear the member for Vancouver-Fraserview taking disagreement, and I trust he will jump to his feet and defend his position with the vigour and the great ability that he has demonstrated over time.

First of all, the Canadian government recognized this need to deal with large rural constituencies. The government of Saskatchewan recognized the importance of dealing with large northern constituencies and the failure of the simple formula of percentages as applied to population in ensuring that every citizen has reasonable access. I wouldn't even pretend to attempt to achieve equal access. I just believe that all British Columbians -- my constituents, the constituents of the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, the constituents of the member for North Island or North Coast -- deserve at least reasonable access, along with those in Peace River North, to their elected representative.

I believe that we should now address this issue as the new commission contemplates reconfiguring electoral boundaries. I believe that even with the addition of six more MLAs. . . . The growth in population in the lower mainland is going to account for those six extra constituencies and put pressure on the commission to make some rural constituencies even larger than they are today. I don't think that serves British Columbians, particularly rural British Columbians, very well.

In addition to the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan looking at this problem, the government of Alberta, with large rural constituencies, also considered this problem. Their current act says, under section 17.1: "The population of a proposed electoral division must be not more than 25 percent above nor 25 percent below the average population of all the proposed electoral divisions." That's very similar, perhaps almost identical, to the wording in our act. But section 17.2 says:

"Notwithstanding subsection 1, in the case of no more than four of the proposed electoral divisions, if the commission is of the opinion that at least three of the following criteria exist in a proposed electoral district, then the proposed electoral division may have a population that is as much as 50 percent below the average population of all the proposed electoral divisions."

I think that we should look at this principle and bring a similar section into our Electoral Boundaries Commission Act to protect the size of four constituencies. My reading of it is that if we set the following conditions for a variance of 50 percent in as many as four constituencies; and if we selected 50,000 square kilometres in size, rather than the 20,000 selected by Alberta; if we said that the constituency boundaries should be 800 kilometres from the capital here in Victoria, rather than 150 kilometres, as is the case in Alberta; and if we put the same stipulation that part of the constituency 

[ Page 5561 ]

boundary should be coterminous with the province's boundaries; then we would come up with four constituencies that would be able to have populations as much as 50 percent below the average for constituencies across the province.

If one looks at those criteria, the four constituencies that would qualify would be North Peace and South Peace -- and one might say that's very self-serving. The other two happen to be North Coast, served by the Minister of Employment and Investment, and the constituency of Bulkley Valley-Stikine. It's geography. It's the north. It's scarcity of population. It's difficulty of access by constituents to their elected representatives. It's the difficulty, Mr. Speaker -- and you may well be able to relate -- of representing a constituency that has a variety of populations, a variety of circumstances and a variety of economic activities.

With all due respect to members representing large urban centres -- constituencies in metropolitan areas -- most of the issues fall into a relatively narrow range of patterns. If you represent a big northern constituency, you're expected to know the forest and water issues, you're expected to understand the gas and oil industry, you're expected to represent seven or eight municipal regional districts -- all of those things. I'm not complaining about it. I'm just suggesting that there is a limit to what any one MLA can do, there's a limit to how much any one MLA can travel, and there's a limit to how far constituents should be expected to travel in order to contact their MLA. I don't see this being at all partisan.

I don't know why the government would worry about protecting its own members against the possibility of expanding Bulkley Valley-Stikine, for example. This is an area -- and the member may well feel motivated to stand up and support my comments. . . . The constituency starts in the northwest in Atlin. If you're going to drive there, you've got to drive into the Yukon Territory in order to get there. You come back through Dease Lake, including Telegraph Creek, all the way down to Meziadin junction, over to Smithers, down to Burns Lake, including Houston. It is a challenge for any member to represent.

The challenges on the north coast are equally daunting. My own constituency of Peace River South starts at the Alberta border: the community of Pouce Coupe, Dawson Creek, Chetwynd, Tumbler Ridge, and Mackenzie, which is divided rather ironically from the rest of the constituency by the Rocky Mountains -- a little minor natural obstacle against natural flows of transportation. But if that weren't enough, the constituency then runs another 400 or 500 kilometres north to take in communities like Fort Ware and Ingenika.

With the instructions that the new Electoral Boundaries Commission is given, they may well find themselves obliged to make any one or all of those four constituencies larger. The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine may want to check off the last Sunday he's got for free time with the thought that his constituency may include another community or two.

All of the members are going to be challenged. I think that we have one more opportunity to look at this before we put in place new electoral boundaries which, by the terms of our legislation, will in turn apply for two more elections -- essentially for another decade.

As the government overlooked some of the requirements under the legislation with the appointment of commission, I believe it has also seriously overlooked the problem of the size of northern constituencies. I say again: the government of Canada, the government of Saskatchewan and the government of Alberta have all recognized these problems. They have all addressed, by way of legislation, variances to the principle of plus or minus 25 percent as the population parameters in establishing the size of a constituency.

Mr. Speaker, to your relief and perhaps even to the greater relief of the Attorney General, I am not going to introduce an amendment to bring these into effect, although I would very dearly have liked to. But on consideration, I will be introducing a private member's bill which would, if passed, enable the government to implement that same principle. I genuinely hope, because this is put forward in a spirit of attempting to provide good government, in an attempt to represent the north and to improve northern representation, that I will be introducing a private member's bill which will suggest that the four constituencies be protected, that they be at least 50,000 square kilometres, that they be at least 800 road miles away from Victoria, and that they have a boundary that is coterminous with a provincial boundary. Again, I would suggest that would include my own constituency, the one represented by my friend and colleague from Peace River North, and also by two members on the government side, those being the constituencies of Bulkley Valley-Stikine and North Coast.

So with that, I would encourage the Attorney General to look at this with an open mind. If he wants to bring in an amendment, I would be more than delighted. It's not a question of whether I bring in a private member's bill or not. If another amendment is brought forward by the government to deal with this issue, no one would be happier than I.

K. Krueger: It's a privilege, as always, to be able to rise and represent the people of the Kamloops-North Thompson constituency in this House, although it's kind of a shame that we have to spend any time at all on some of the things that this act has been brought in to address.

We think about the basic issue of why we are here. Of course, we're here to do the business of the people of British Columbia, and we're here to do it well. Is everything in order in British Columbia? Well, of course it is not, and there are myriad examples everywhere of the profound problems we have in this province. I'd like to see us working on those problems instead of creating new ones.

What are we going to do about the problems of British Columbia? Hopefully, we're going to fix them. Hopefully, we're going to implement a new and better vision for how to conduct government in British Columbia. Hopefully, we're going to channel our energies into all that and not into wasting any time.

Why do we have this problem? We have this problem because an NDP government created it. Frankly, the official opposition warned them that they were facing this problem, that they had to deal with this issue. They didn't do it, so a problem was created. Now we're spending time in this House having to deal with that.

The Attorney General, who is responsible for this bill and who was apparently responsible for the slip that led to the necessity for this bill, expressed a lack of understanding to the member for Shuswap about why he was raising other examples of this government's mistakes and this government's incompetence. We have to raise those examples to try to get the point across that it's time that the affairs of British Columbia were conducted in a more businesslike way -- that we stop making these mistakes, that we stop having this experience of watching the NDP twisting every opportunity for 

[ Page 5562 ]

political gain and refusing to go about the business of British Columbia in a businesslike and appropriate way. It is also obviously important, when we have laws in British Columbia, that the government, of all organizations, obey those laws and that the Attorney General of British Columbia obey those laws.

We do in fact presently have a government that thinks it can do anything it wants -- and has even been so bold as to say so, to frankly state it -- a Premier who thinks he can do anything he wants and an Attorney General who has said that the Premier is the government. So there we have it in a nutshell: a government that thinks it can do anything it wants and a Premier who is considered by the cabinet and by the governing caucus to be the government.

[11:30]

We just heard a dissertation from the member for Peace River South. I hope that the government was listening, because if you're going to be working with these matters, you could certainly be addressing, I submit to the government, this whole issue of underrepresentation of rural constituencies. As the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast said, the problem is that the interior is constantly mined for resources and revenue, and then the people have to come, cap in hand, to try and recapture some of that wealth that came out of our constituencies and take it back for programs and economic development up in the interior, where the money came from in the first place. That is wrong. This government could be working to address those problems, but it doesn't seem to want to, unfortunately.

We talk about conducting business in a businesslike way. The Minister of Health had the nerve to get up on a point of order a little while ago and talk about the need for concise and logical debate here. Well, of course we need that. So why, the other night, did we have the appalling spectacle of this government obliging the opposition by debating until 2:30 in the morning, speaking to an empty chair and misusing, in my view, the rule about not being able to refer to the absence of a member in the House by pulling the Minister of Forests out during his estimates and leaving our members to ask questions of an empty chair, with civil servants not being allowed to speak on his behalf or in his place, even though they were here to advise him, and having their time wasted?

Interjection.

K. Krueger: The Minister of Human Resources is asking what this has to do with anything.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Point of order. Once again we are hearing from the members of the opposition, who are misusing the rules of this House by once again referring to the absence or presence of members. This has been clearly stated numerous times to be against the rules of this House. I would ask the Speaker to please remind them to cease and desist from doing that in future.

The Speaker: I'm sure the member listened carefully to the intervention by the minister and will be guided accordingly.

K. Krueger: I did indeed listen to the minister, and I'm surprised to hear him essentially making my point for me. I think the rules of the House are there in order to ensure that the House business is conducted in an orderly way and not in an unnecessarily partisan way, a way that abuses the time and effort and energy of the opposition, who are here to represent their constituents and to get things done in this House.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: Now the member for Vancouver-Fraserview -- who's been piping up all morning and ridiculing members from the opposition who are here representing rural constituencies -- once again voices his silly opinion without having the initiative to stand up and speak to this bill and perhaps apologize to the people of British Columbia for the fact that so much time has to be spent in this House redoing things because this government can't get them right in the first place and exhibits such shocking incompetence in so much of what it does.

The very late start of this session of the Legislature is another example: the fact that there wasn't a budget in place and that this government didn't bring us into the House until a week before the budget was due and has been scrambling ever since, having to bring in supply bills and so on; the fact that one ministry after another, one Crown corporation after another -- everywhere we look -- is in chaos because of the mismanagement and total disarray of this NDP government; the fact that the government was elected in the first place on false pretences of back-to-back balanced budgets, when everyone knew there was no truth to that whatsoever; the fact that this government continues to labour under the cloud of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal, has yet to repay the money stolen from charities, has yet to make things right with the people of British Columbia. . . .

point of order.

I. Waddell: On a point of order, surely one has to be relevant in the House. That's part of the rules. A member has to speak to the bill. So making comments about me and various other things, the Nanaimo Commonwealth and so on. . . . How about the bill? This is a bill, and it involves an electoral boundary commission. Perhaps the member could speak on the bill.

The Speaker: Before recognizing the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, I would just like to give all members a cautionary note. It is our practice in this chamber to allow wide-ranging debate with considerable latitude in second reading debates. The point of fact, however, is that all debates ought to be ultimately connected to the purpose of the particular bill before us. I would suggest to members, then, that they ought to be guided by that.

[ Page 5563 ]

I don't want to make it the Chair's practice to intervene and interrupt members on a regular basis, but I would ask members to please be guided by those basic rules. Otherwise, I guess the Chair will have no choice but to intervene.

K. Krueger: I'll pay heed to that. I think it's probably clear to you -- and probably clear to the members opposite, even if they pretend that it isn't -- that I'm trying to make the point that this act, Bill 13, should never have been necessary. It wouldn't be necessary if this government met its deadlines, if it managed in a businesslike way, if it dealt with the sorts of issues that it knows very well are before it.

For example, last summer in estimates I spoke with the Premier about the fact that we have the oldest unamended Auditor General Act in British Columbia. It's 20 years old; it's a shame. The man is not empowered to do his job properly, and still nothing has been tabled this session. Instead we have to work on Bill 13, because the government didn't bother to appoint the electoral commission by the deadline that it knew it had. Certainly there is relevance to what I'm saying, and I'm actually attempting to be brief. I could probably wrap it up fairly quickly, if it wasn't for these constant interruptions from the outraged members opposite.

It's wrong that we have a government that manages by decree. It's wrong that we have a Premier who essentially is empowered by those members opposite to act like a little dictator in this province, to thumb his nose at the Legislature, to govern by order-in-council between sessions; and an Attorney General who will actually say that the Premier is the government. The Premier doesn't have a very good track record when we look at his performance as the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, when we consider his performance as Finance minister -- the deficits, the taxation, the tremendous problems that flowed. And. . . .

The Speaker: Member, I am going to interrupt you now to remind you of the conversation we had just moments ago, in which you said you would pay heed to the Chair's admonition. Please do so, member. Make the connection, but then move on to the substance of the bill, please.

K. Krueger: Obviously the substance of the bill is pretty brief. It's a pretty flimsy bill. It deals with a couple of points. One is that the judge should be paid. Certainly nobody's taking exception to that, but we do take exception to the fact that, once again, this government has failed to do its job. We're talking about other examples of this government failing to do its job, as well as this one, to indicate why this province is being turned into such a witches' brew of problems, with more problems repeatedly thrown into the mix.

This retroactive change is reminiscent of the broken promises that we had to deal with all through Bill 2 -- the broken promises to municipalities, the fact that they were not to have increases or decreases of more than 2 percent in their unconditional grants. In my constituency, for example, in the city of Kamloops the cut was over 50 percent. B.C. lurches from one crisis to another. This matter is the subject of a lawsuit against the government of British Columbia -- and rightfully so, because it's appalling that this government breaks its own law.

It's appallingly easy to be opposition in British Columbia right now, because there are so many examples of these problems. I find myself searching for something nice to say about the government. A person doesn't want to be negative all the time, but there is chaos everywhere we look. The proof of competence of a government is in the pudding; you measure by results. If you look at us having to spend time on an act like this, instead of dealing with the very real problems that are affecting people's lives all through British Columbia, you realize that we really have problems.

I'll be voting for this bill, because obviously the problem has to be fixed. But I'm disgusted that it's necessary to have this bill. The people of British Columbia deserve competence. They deserve good management, and they deserve good stewardship of the time of the MLAs in this House. They deserve trustworthiness and they deserve leadership. They deserve orderliness and a businesslike way of conducting government. They deserve thoroughness and efficiency and evenhandedness. They don't deserve the kind of incompetence and failure to listen to the opposition that led to the necessity of this bill.

K. Whittred: I would like to start out by saying that I too am pleased to be able to stand to debate this bill. It is a pleasure to be back once again debating legislation. I certainly will be supporting this bill as, I think, will many of my colleagues.

However, the real issue here is the need for the bill. To start with, why are we debating this bill? This was a process that was put in place in 1989. Once a process is placed, one assumes that the process will simply carry on and be followed through. The purpose of this bill, of course, was recognized several years ago. It was recognized that there was a need to reform electoral boundaries.

I believe one of the members opposite talked about gerrymandering and about Gracie's Finger. That was in fact one of the more notorious examples of electoral boundary fidgeting, if you want. Another example was where I lived myself -- this was on the federal scene -- the old riding of Vancouver-Burnaby. It made no geographic sense and it made no social sense, but I think it made some political sense. We have to say that it was a good thing that in 1989 these particular problems were recognized as not being very fair within the electoral system and as something that needed addressing.

I think the other thing that was recognized as this legislation was introduced was that populations do change. We have increases in population; we have newcomers coming to the province. But perhaps more important than increased populations is that we have changes in distribution. The issue of population distribution -- not only in British Columbia but in Canada, as many members are aware -- is as old as our nation's history. In fact, we are all familiar with the words of Mackenzie King, when he said that Canada has not enough history but too much geography.

I would like to dwell on that point for a moment as a sort of follow-up to the remarks made by the member for Peace River South. I was very interested in the points he made about the very remote ridings and his comparison to the bill in Alberta. I'd like to take this opportunity to add to that a couple of observations. You might ask, Mr. Speaker, or perhaps members opposite might suggest: what experience would I have with remote areas? As a child I did live on a ranch. Our nearest neighbour was 18 miles away, so I do have a little bit of a sense of what it's like to be in those very remote areas.

[11:45]

[ Page 5564 ]

Alberta, the capital city is in the centre of the province. Therefore, when you have guidelines where you are measuring the distance from the capital, those problems will not be as great as they are in British Columbia.

The second thing I want to point out is that the province of Alberta, being less mountainous and so on, also has a much more accessible road system. Its roads are designed in grids, which make it relatively easy to travel around the province.

An Hon. Member: They've got pavement.

K. Whittred: And they are paved. In fact, they are beautifully paved. You can travel anywhere in the province of Alberta on a beautifully paved road. If you don't like it, you simply go two miles east or west, and you'll find another beautifully paved road. So those remarks were meant to augment and simply support the thoughts of the member for Peace River South.

Returning to my major theme of what happened when this legislation came into being in 1989, there was a need for a non-partisan process. Of course, if we go back to the old story of something like Gracie's Finger, we have a very visual representation of why a non-partisan process was needed. So if all of this was put in in 1989 to be with some specific process that was eloquently described by my colleague from Richmond-Steveston, then what's the problem? What's the excuse? This is a reform that was promised, it's a reform that is non-partisan, it is a reform that is agreed to in principle by all members of this House. So what's the problem?

You know, in my job I've heard a lot of excuses. Do you know what it sounds like to me? It sounds like that old excuse: "You mean it was due today?" I can't think of any other reason. When someone comes and says, "You mean it was due today?" what does that exemplify? This is a forgotten deadline. In my job I used to interpret that as suggesting that somebody didn't take me very seriously. I guess, in terms of this House, we could say that when it -- was it Bill 19? -- was passed in 1996, the instructions on that were not taken very seriously.

If this was simply one little lapse, if it happened once, then perhaps it could be excused. But when it happens a number of times, we start to look at this. Perhaps it represents a lack of respect -- this idea that has been stated, that government can do anything it wants -- and we start to see a pattern emerging, a pattern of a lack of respect for what has been done in this chamber.

We've seen it with a number of items where the government has changed its mind. One that comes to my mind is a committee I sit on -- the conflict-of-interest commissioner. I believe I pointed out on one other occasion where the instructions -- the mandate from the government to the committee -- keep changing. Another was the promise that regional health boards would be elected; and lo and behold, they are appointed. I could go on, but I think the point has been made.

What is more important to the province, and to me in particular, is that all of this leads to a skepticism in the public we serve. The cynicism amongst the citizens, whether they are served by this member or by members opposite, is pandemic -- that politicians really don't accomplish very much. There is the belief that we all talk about it; the trick is to do what we say.

I would like to conclude by saying that I support fully the principles outlined in the particular bill we are debating, which is for the reform of electoral boundaries. I would like to say to the Attorney General that I would echo the remarks of my colleague from Peace River South; that I hope the government will take an opportunity to look at other jurisdictions and look very carefully at how we make remote representation as equitable as possible vis-�-vis urban representation.

I would go further and say to the government front bench that I would like to see this House go beyond just boundary reform. I would like us to take the gloves off and look at real electoral reform. Let's put all the assumptions aside. Let us not be afraid to examine other electoral systems. Let's see if there's a way that, collectively, we can try to remedy some of the ills that this whole Legislature is supposedly being accused of. Let's maybe start by doing something really simple and enact committees. I conclude with those urgings to the members of the government front bench.

I note the time, hon. Speaker. Is it appropriate to. . . ?

Interjection.

K. Whittred: I yield to the next speaker. I was going to adjourn for lunch.

The Speaker: I want you to know that the member succeeded in having us all wondering.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I agree with the member for Vancouver-Fraserview that my colleague did provide an address to this chamber that included some real substance, and I commend it to him and all of his colleagues.

The debate has been very interesting. I've listened to all of the speakers, and I think it's interesting that on a bill that some might suggest could or should be dealt with in short shrift, there's an excellent opportunity here. I think that most of the members speaking have taken advantage of that opportunity. But as my colleague mentioned, I note the hour and note that we have a report that needs to be brought, and I would reserve my right to return after the lunch half-hour.

I move that debate on this bill adjourn.

M. de Jong moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. U. Dosanjh moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 10:11 a.m.

[ Page 5565 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)

P. Reitsma: Good morning to everyone. I think we left off last night with the Parksville gravel pit at Englishman River. I think we have established that the ministry will have knowledgable staff attend the public hearing that has been asked for at the appropriate time, and that's fine; that's comforting. The minister has also indicated in her letter to me on July 4, which was a response to my letter of May 9, that although it's within the boundaries of the Ministry of Employment and Investment, the proposal receives the same level of technical review through her ministry that it would under the Environmental Assessment Act.

I have a number of questions on that, so we can set some benchmarks for myself and the many people that are so concerned, including my colleagues at the municipal and regional district levels. I wonder if I could delve into the technicalities of the level of technical review. What kinds of benchmarks, rules and regulations, standard procedures, if you like, will be applied to this environmental assessment review? What kind of stringent rules and regulations. . . ? Will they be the same as would apply to any other review?

Hon. C. McGregor: Generally, any environmental assessment process is reflective of the particular circumstance that is considered related to the project. There aren't really any benchmarks -- I think that was the word you used -- through which you can assess every project.

But let me say this: in this particular case, the area of concern is any potential concerns related to groundwater as it flows into the river. What has been set into place is that there are some piezometers that have been placed into the site to do some ongoing assessments of the groundwater as it stands now. It is going to take a few months to get the kind of base data that's necessary. The public hearing that we made reference to earlier is going to be postponed for several months until this data is collected, so there will be an opportunity to understand fully what potential impacts there might be.

[10:15]

Hon. C. McGregor: As the correspondence I sent to the member indicates, what we are trying to do is parallel the environmental assessment process. As we pointed out last night, this project falls below the ceiling that is put in place in terms of what projects are reviewable under the Environmental Assessment Act.

P. Reitsma: It's below that.

Hon. C. McGregor: Right, it's below that. So what we are doing is pulling together specifications. This is what one would do in the environmental assessment process, as well. Those specifications will be provided by a variety of participants in the process. As we indicated last night, we are involved in it, DFO is involved in it, E&I is involved in it, and I've just been told this morning that the Forest Land Commission is also going to be involved in contributing towards the specifications of the review of the project because of their interest. They have not yet made a decision to remove it from the forest land reserve, so they need to be involved in the specification development, as well.

In terms of the specifications that we have put on the table, I pointed out to the member earlier that impacts on groundwater are key issues. A change in the flows of the river is another area under consideration, as are effects on the aquatic habitat and any potential impacts on drinking-water quality.

P. Reitsma: The points outlined, as the minister knows, are of extreme importance, not the least being potable drinking water, as more and more we are relying on the overland supply rather than aquifers, since they are decreasing. There has been less of an impact of snow over the years if you actually look at the tabulations and statistics. I appreciate what the minister is saying. A transcript of our conversations will be forwarded to the appropriate people. I cannot overemphasize the importance of potable drinking water, as the minister appreciates. For my benefit, what is the definition of a full environmental assessment review?

Hon. C. McGregor: It would fall under the Environmental Assessment Act and would have to meet the criteria outlined under the act.

P. Reitsma: I suppose I should get a copy of that, if it's not too voluminous. That's fair enough; that's described in there.

I think this concludes the concerns that I have, what I'm relaying. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, the position I took on behalf of my council when I was mayor is still well known, because of the incredible impact it has on the communities. I look forward to getting the copies that I asked for.

I very much look forward to a public hearing, which I think is extremely important. I'm not anticipating the outcome, but if there is a conflict between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Employment and Investment. . . . Of course, I appreciate that the latter's mandate -- and I suppose I have no difficulty with that -- is trying to get as many jobs as possible.

I would hope, and I seek some assurance from the minister. . . . While it's under the purview of the MEI, if the assessment dictates that it ought not to be done, will the outcome of the environmental assessment override the Ministry of Employment and Investment's drive to get jobs? In other words, I would hope that if the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, through their evaluation, identifies the very legitimate, grievous concerns about that, the project will, based on that, not go ahead.

Hon. C. McGregor: I want to reiterate for the member that this is not a full environmental assessment; this is a process designed to parallel an environmental assessment process, because this does fall under the purview of the Minister of Employment and Investment. While I can appreciate that the member would like me to make a decision prior to that review, I certainly cannot. There's a lot of work that has to be done before any decision would be made.

[ Page 5566 ]

P. Reitsma: I appreciate that. I expect that the terms of the review parallel to the application will be done as they should be done, and I too look forward to the outcome. That concludes that portion.

With the minister's indulgence, I've got one more question on something else, and towards the end of the estimates I have some others on Parks, actually. Could the minister enlighten me: is there an environmental youth team that is under the ministry's command, if you like?

Hon. C. McGregor: The E-team is actually managed by B.C. Parks. We were hoping that we could handle questions related to that when the staff from Parks are here.

P. Reitsma: I have absolutely no problem with that, because I have some other questions under Parks. Thank you very much.

R. Thorpe: I'm wondering if you could advise how many FTEs there are in the water management division.

Hon. C. McGregor: We're attempting to get that answer for the member. They're working on it. Maybe we could proceed to another question.

R. Thorpe: Could you tell me the total budget for the water management division?

Hon. C. McGregor: Water management is not a division. We want to be clear with the member so he understands that it's actually a branch underneath the Environment and Lands headquarters division. The water management and corporate services branch has a budget of about $4 million and 50 FTEs.

R. Thorpe: Excuse me for referring to it as a division, but I was reading a document that had been prepared for the government by the government. I would have thought that. . . . Anyhow, the branch.

Those 50 FTEs -- are they all located in Victoria, or are they dispersed in offices throughout British Columbia?

Hon. C. McGregor: Those are all in Victoria. In addition to that, in the regional operations there's a section called lands and water.

R. Thorpe: I'm sorry; I didn't understand the last part of the comment by the minister.

Hon. C. McGregor: In the water management branch in Victoria there are 50 FTEs. There are, in addition to that, water quality staff who are funded through the sustainable environment fund, and there are 20 FTEs. In the regions, under lands and water -- we don't distinguish between the two -- there are 215 FTEs.

[10:30]

Hon. C. McGregor: The water comptroller is sitting immediately behind me. The water comptroller works out of Victoria, and the deputy water comptroller does, as well.

R. Thorpe: Are they under the water management branch? Is that correct? Yes.

As I understand it, there are a number of irrigation districts throughout the province. The minister can correct me if my information is incorrect, but I understand that some of those irrigation districts have been folded up into some provincial responsibilities. Could the minister confirm that in fact the water management branch has assumed control for some former irrigation districts throughout the province?

Hon. C. McGregor: Not that we're aware of.

R. Thorpe: I have been led to believe that the Sage Mesa water district is the responsibility of the water management branch. Is the minister or the comptroller of water rights saying that that information is incorrect?

Hon. C. McGregor: We will endeavour to check, but the information we have is that the answer is no.

R. Thorpe: Just so it's no surprise, I will be asking some questions on Naramata, but I'm sure people anticipated that.

One of the concerns I have is an overall management concern. I would like know, with respect to. . . . And I want to preface this question: this question has nothing to do with Naramata. What I'm concerned about is when people throughout the province have concerns with water rights. Do the water management branch and the comptroller of water rights have a methodology for replying to whatever those concerns are or may be? Do they have benchmarks for responding in whatever manner -- positive, negative or "We'll have to do some research"? Have you established within the ministry or within the branch a methodology and a series of benchmarks for dealing with queries from water districts throughout British Columbia?

Hon. C. McGregor: Concerns from the public or whoever might have an issue related to water are often handled on an informal basis as a result of telephone calls, correspondence, meetings that are set up and so on. But in the eventuality that a decision is actually made, there is also a formal appeal mechanism. So if a decision of a regional water manager is made, that is appealable to the comptroller. A decision of the comptroller is appealable to the Environmental Assessment Board.

Some examples of decisions that can be appealable include the issuance of power licences, licence cancellations, regulations of power licences and other such examples. Appeals to the comptroller can be heard either by an exchange of written submissions or by oral hearings. An appeal to the Environmental Assessment Board is more formal. There are full oral hearings by a three-member panel. I think I'll leave it at that. Maybe if the member has more questions about that process, I can give more detail.

R. Thorpe: I wasn't focusing on the formal appeal processes. What I'm more concerned about is day-to-day operations, day-to-day business and day-to-day servicing of requests that are received, I would hope, mostly in writing. Do we have an established benchmark procedure for getting back to people within defined periods of time and providing direction, providing answers -- whether they be yes or no -- or providing more information requests? That's what I'm focusing on.

Hon. C. McGregor: If the member is asking if we have a set schedule by which one has to respond to a concern within X number of days, no. That isn't the way we operate. Really, 

[ Page 5567 ]

no government office could operate on a basis like that. There always has to be judgment used on the part of staff in terms of how they handle an issue.

I must say that in my experience, the staff works very hard at responding as quickly as possible to concerns that are raised. It doesn't mean that we can't do things better, and if the member has any suggestions on ways that we could improve our ability to service our clients, that's always something we can take into consideration. It's also a two-way street, and there needs to be an understanding on the part of the applicant, as well, that there's an onus on them to provide full and complete information. That helps to assist the process.

R. Thorpe: First of all, I appreciate that the minister makes a comment to defend how hard the staff works, and I'm sure she had absolutely no intention of suggesting that I was saying that they didn't work hard. In fact, hopefully we all work very hard.

I think it's important, from my perspective and from that of a number of people I talk to from across British Columbia, that there is a way that we should be looking at providing better service so we can measure our performance on service, and that is by establishing service levels. Personally, I would never expect anyone to have to comply with a published service-level schedule if people in fact did not provide the necessary information so people can provide reasonable answers. That's just not responsible.

I would like to suggest that the ministry work towards establishing service-level criteria, always knowing that there will be exceptions. We should manage the exceptions and worry about the rule -- pushing the rule through. Because time and time again, people are saying that governments are not providing service and they're not being responsible. That would be my suggestion to the minister. I don't know if the minister would want to comment on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I certainly appreciate the member's comments. Obviously there's no one that isn't interested in trying to provide better service. I hope I didn't imply in any way that the member was attacking our staff. I didn't assume that at all, but I was trying to indicate my support for the work our staff does and the fact that as a result of reductions we've had to take in the ministry, it has been very difficult for them to manage existing workloads.

We are working on new ways of doing work. In fact, we're engaged. . . . And I've spoken to other members who have been here during our estimates so far about the efforts we're taking particularly related to regulatory reform, which will give us the ability to streamline our ability to offer our service to clients. So we can establish certain criteria in terms of what information has to be provided to our offices, and, in fact, we can replace the single-licensing type of regulatory regime we have in many parts of our ministry with more of a benchmark-type system. So we are moving in that direction.

I take the member's comments seriously, and I certainly would invite him to continue to keep us informed of his ideas on how we could better manage our service levels within ministry offices.

R. Thorpe: I am encouraged by the minister's comments on regulatory reform, which happens to be an area that I have a very personal interest in. I would be pleased if the minister could keep me advised me of regulatory reform initiatives that the ministry is undertaking -- either through my colleague the critic for Environment or directly. I would appreciate that very, very much.

With respect to the water management branch, I understand that from time to time it finds itself in some legal challenges. Before I get into some specifics, I'm just wondering if the minister could advise what kind of a caseload they now have on outstanding lawsuits pertaining to issues related to the water management branch.

[10:45]

R. Thorpe: Would it be possible for the minister to advise me what that one is?

Hon. C. McGregor: The issue is over the export of water. The lawsuit is with Aquasource Ltd., which held a water licence on Freil Lake that was cancelled in 1991 after we brought in the Water Protection Act, which banned the export of bulk water. They are seeking in the courts to have those licences restored.

R. Thorpe: That's quite interesting. Perhaps my information isn't correct. I only received it yesterday. It had nothing to do with this, but you may recall that I mentioned Sage Mesa earlier in my conversations today. I was led to believe that there was an action in place in Sage Mesa, and the next court date is scheduled for February 3, 1998. Perhaps someone would like to check into that. I don't want to tie up the estimates with that, so just to assist you a little bit, it would be site 53 in Sage Mesa, and the apparent owner of the property is a Mr. Enns. If you require further information, I'd be pleased to share that with you.

I guess my question, and where I was going on this particular issue. . . . Well, let me ask a question. Does the ministry use outside counsel whenever it has a legal dispute or disputes? Does it use outside counsel, or does it use internal government lawyers?

Hon. C. McGregor: Legal staff is assigned through the Attorney General ministry.

R. Thorpe: My question would be: when you are looking at a case, is there some kind of an assessment that you go through with respect to the potential costs of defending or prosecuting a case vis-�-vis the cost of making repairs? Is there an internal assessment before you would proceed to legal action?

Hon. C. McGregor: As a part of discussions with legal counsel, we indeed do an assessment of the situation before making decisions.

R. Thorpe: With respect to a document dated December 17, 1996 -- and without getting into any of the details of the Naramata dispute, for which the award hearings have been concluded and it's anticipated that some findings will come down in the next few months -- there were a number of recommendations. I'm just wondering what is happening within the water comptroller branch and the water rights branch with respect to implementation of any of the recommendations of this report.

Hon. C. McGregor: We are engaging in a full review of the recommendations that came out of that review. But there are, in particular, a lot of implications for local government. So we want to make sure that we explore the implications of that with stakeholder groups before proceeding.

[ Page 5568 ]

R. Thorpe: Could the minister perhaps shed a little light on which particular recommendations they have to have discussions with regional governments on?

Hon. C. McGregor: In particular, there are a variety of alternative models for management of water utilities that are put forward. We do believe that it may be timely to change the way in which we manage water utilities, but we don't want to do that without exploring the models in some detail with those who are impacted by it, including local governments.

R. Thorpe: Is it fair for me to conclude that such review will be done in cooperation with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the UBCM?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes. I am a member of the joint council with the UBCM, and these are matters that we talk about on a fairly regular basis. I would assume that once we get to a point where it needs to have that level of discussion, this matter will obviously be discussed in that setting, as well as with other local governments and with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

R. Thorpe: I'm sure that that table has many, many issues on it. Where would one see these types of issues fitting on the list of priorities that are dealt with, with UBCM at the round table?

Hon. C. McGregor: Agendas are developed jointly between the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the chair of UBCM. I certainly don't anticipate that we'd have any trouble getting it on the agenda to have it discussed.

R. Thorpe: I guess my concern is that where there is smoke, there is eventually a fire, or another fire. I understand there are in excess of 200 different irrigation districts throughout the province. Forgetting the financial cost of the Naramata situation and focusing in on the human cost -- the community cost -- I would hope that the government, through your ministry and through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, would place this as a high priority.

Representing Naramata -- it falls in my riding. . . . I have to tell you -- all politics aside -- that the stress that has been put on this community, for a variety of reasons, is in many ways irreparable. So I would urge that the minister undertake to drive this at the table so that the difficulties that have been encountered in this community can be either minimized or completely avoided in other communities throughout British Columbia.

There is just one other thing I want to say with respect to. . . . We can always pass along the bad news; it's easy to do that, unfortunately. For the record, I just want to tell the minister and the staff, that the staff at my constituency office. . . . My constituency assistant, Mike Reed, works with Ken Jefferies in the Penticton office. We do know that they are going through trying times and changing times. It's important for us to recognize that we have tried very hard to develop a very good working relationship with the office and with the staff and that they have done, in our view, an excellent job in our area. I think it's important to share that with you.

J. Wilson: Since we're covering water here, I had an issue in my constituency regarding a proposed water project on Bootjack Lake. I have a letter here, dated May 20, that was addressed to the Hon. Cathy McGregor and is from Ron Williams. I'm wondering if the minister would be able to tell me whether anything has happened since May 20 -- whether there has been an update on this problem or whether it's as it was.

Hon. C. McGregor: We're not aware of any change in status related to that issue. We will endeavour to find out more information and get an update.

J. Wilson: I would like to bring a couple of things to the attention of the minister here. I'll read the first paragraph of this letter into the record:

"I am responding to your letter of January 30, 1997, regarding the Mount Polley mine in the Bootjack Lake watershed. In your letter you state that: 'All concerns brought forward by participants were addressed.' I would like to state that I do not feel that the concern I brought forward was dealt with in an equitable manner. In fact, the issue I have raised about the reduction of the Bootjack Lake watershed has been ignored.

"You state that I should continue to work with the Mount Polley public liaison committee to address my concerns, but they indicate that it is not in their mandate to discuss these matters. What good, then, is a public liaison committee?"

[11:00]

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

J. Wilson: Could the minister describe to me the impacts of a substantial reduction in the forest cover in a watershed? What happens with regard to the flow of water when you clearcut a large portion of a watershed?

Hon. C. McGregor: Generally there would be a shorter, more rapid freshet as a result of a clearcut. So more water would come down sooner and could lead to drier spells later on. In terms of the limitations on a clearcut, that is covered by the Forest Practices Code. If the member wants a more detailed discussion around the Forest Practices Code, I would suggest that it is more appropriate to direct those questions to the Minister of Forests.

J. Wilson: I believe the percentage is something like one-third that is allowed in a watershed at one time until greenup occurs and you reach the three-metre height, or whatever it is. I would just like to refresh the minister's memory. The letter continues:

"I also believe the point you made regarding the issue of 32 percent of the Bootjack watershed had been harvested, resulting in an estimated 20 percent net increase in the water yield over 

[ Page 5569 ]

natural flows, was grossly incorrect. While clearcutting a third of any watershed may increase the annual water budget, it most certainly will not have the same flow characteristics as a natural, forested watershed."

The 32 percent removal of forest in that watershed. . . . Could the minister tell me: is this from logging, and will it be in addition to the 9 percent that will be removed by the Mount Polley mine?

Hon. C. McGregor: The member has a lot of very detailed questions about this particular situation that require a lot of technical information that we don't really have available here. But I would be prepared to offer for the member a technical briefing with our staff, so that these issues can be fully explored and canvassed. I appreciate that the member has some concerns, but it's not likely that we'll be able to get into the details and answer his questions as part of the estimates process.

J. Wilson: I appreciate the fact that it is a detailed question, and I can also understand that you do not have the staff present. A technical briefing would probably not be necessary if the minister would be willing to supply me with the actual figures through her staff. What I want to know is: does the 32 percent figure that the minister presented to Mr. Williams take in the percentage that the mine will, in effect. . . ? Actually, I should rephrase this.

I believe the 32 percent is in regards to logging. This is a major copper mine, and I'm sure the minister is aware of this. As this mine is developed, and through the term of its life, it will permanently remove 9 percent of the area in this watershed. We're taking the top off a mountain there; it's an open-pit mine. This is something that will probably take 100 years to green up. The life of the mine plus the work that has to be done to go in and re-establish a base or a landscape, it so that we can actually get forage growing and then trees growing on it again. . . . It will take many years before we have forest cover on this mine. So this is a much longer-term effect than we would have from clearcut logging.

What I would like to know is the percentage of clearcut logging in that watershed. I know what the percentage will be from the activity of the mine. Then I can look at it, and I can make an assessment in my own mind as to what's happening here and what some of the potential is for future logging in that watershed, or whatever.

I would like to just finish reading this letter into the record. There are a few other points in here that I think are relevant and that we need to consider. I know this gentleman. He's a very environmentally sensitive individual. He has a project, he's conscious of what happens, and he's concerned about what could happen. It hasn't happened yet, but there's great potential for this to develop. He would like to take measures to not only have some security in his own line of business but also to add a level of comfort in there, which the Minister of Environment should really be concerned about.

"You state that 'at this time, the fisheries branch does not support the installation of a controlled structure at the outflow of Bootjack Lake,' because of the significant issues associated with fish migration, capability, monitoring and maintenance of the control structure."

"The current situation at the outflow of Bootjack Lake has nearly a century of man-made materials strewn around the ditch that is now the reversed outflow. This includes fallen-down log cribbing and wood flumes full of rusted nails and spikes. In addition, there is the remnants of a measuring weir from the 1980s that almost totally obstructs the creek. On top of all this, the beaver is constantly at work building dams along the creek. All of this represents a far greater threat to issues concerning the fishery and public safety than a planned and maintained structure.

"While the ministry and Mount Polley Mining Corp. continue to monitor the angler effort and catch success of the Bootjack Lake fishery, no water level or flow monitoring of the watershed has occurred since the development of the mine. This is surprising, as you readily admit that the mine is removing at least 9 percent of the entire Bootjack Lake watershed, but say this will have no measurable effect. How will we ever know, if no measuring ever takes place?

"Now that your ministry and the Mount Polley Mining Corp. have just rebuilt the earthen plug at the old Bootjack Creek outflow, I would like to propose the Morehead Creek outflow be cleaned up and the measuring weir made active for future water measuring. I would propose that water data be collected for a period of one year and a decision be made on my outstanding water licence application for storage and release on Bootjack Lake-Morehead Creek. This is certainly a fair proposal and one that will certainly improve the current outflow of Bootjack Lake into Morehead Creek."

This is a very logical project to go with, in my mind -- maybe not in everyone's. I think it's a win-win situation for everyone. I would like the minister, if she would, to comment on this briefly.

Hon. C. McGregor: I certainly appreciate the concerns that the member raises in the letter that he read into the record. As I said to him earlier, we will get an update on the situation, and we can come back with that information.

However, I'm sure the member is aware that we as a ministry do have responsibilities under the Water Act. In particular, section 9 gives us the authority to require a licensee to meet technical expectations. I'm sure the member isn't implying that we should do otherwise, but there may be some way that we can provide some assistance to this licensee.

[11:15]

Hon. C. McGregor: Actually, I have in front of me the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks '97-98 multi-

[ Page 5570 ]

culturalism action plan, and we'd be happy to provide a copy to you. I don't know how we didn't manage to file an updated one. It is in fact a priority within the ministry, and there's a lot of ongoing work.

I'll just point out some of the goals and objectives that we have as a part of our plan: to provide fair and equitable access to service programs and opportunities; to support the MELP equity and diversity advisory committee with ongoing efforts regarding multiculturalism initiatives and plans; to raise awareness and promote understanding about multiculturalism within the branch; to encourage branch staff to value diversity and support multiculturalism activities; to identify multiculturalism issues and provide recommendations to address these issues; and to incorporate statements about multiculturalism into branch plans. Those are our goals and objectives. We also have communications objectives, as well as structural change objectives and awareness and education objectives.

As a part of our efforts, of course, we have distributed the multifaith calendar throughout the ministry. Indeed, it is right in my very own office, as well.

V. Anderson: Are there specific programs in multicultural orientation and competence which are given on a regular basis, either to new staff or ongoing staff? With whom would you be working in developing those programs?

Hon. C. McGregor: As a part of our orientation program we do include a component related to multiculturalism values and awareness -- particularly related to equity and diversity. Of course, we do work in developing that agenda with the multiculturalism branch of the Ministry of Attorney General.

V. Anderson: Does the ministry have its own multiculturalism advisory committee, and is there a representative on the Interministerial Committee on Multiculturalism? Who might that representative be? What might be the budget for multiculturalism within your ministry?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, indeed, we have our own committee. In terms of who works with the Multiculturalism branch, that would be Judy Gibson, who serves as our manager and advocate for the program. In addition to her salary, there's a $20,000 budget for this line, which can be increased, as needed, for training and orientation.

V. Anderson: I would appreciate receiving a copy of the plan. I commend you for using the multifaith calendar. The government were embarrassed recently when they set up a multifaith committee and decided they had to reschedule because they had not looked at the calendar which people had available before them. As I see across the room there, the calendar you have is on file. It's probably an outdated one, but I would be happy to present you with an updated one which someone else in your ministry. . . . I see you already have it in front of you, so I commend you on that.

Thank you very much; I appreciate your responses. Back to the critic now.

L. Stephens: I have a few questions which I do every year around groundwater for the Fraser Valley. As the minister knows, British Columbia is the only province in Canada that doesn't have groundwater legislation. There was a $320,000 Project Enviro-Health report in 1995 that identified a lot of the issues around groundwater, specifically in the Fraser Valley -- the Abbotsford-Sumas, Langley-Brookswood and Hopington aquifers. It identified pesticide contamination and some higher levels of nitrates, which they believed came from too much farm animal manure being spread in piles, too much fertilizer and too many faulty septic fields beside rural homes. These are some of the issues identified as contributing to this.

There's also the issue of dropping well levels in valley aquifers, and I think there was an Environment ministry report done in February -- it was a bulletin -- that noted that almost half of 150 provincial groundwater monitoring wells now have dropping water levels, compared to about one-quarter of the wells during the late 1960s. It says the levels are dropping in aquifers on Vancouver Island and in the lower mainland, where most of the water is pumped out.

That is certainly true in our area, which is experiencing rapid growth. Some reports say that we're the fastest-growing area in Canada -- certainly in British Columbia, I think. We have a number of golf courses that suck up a lot of water. We have agricultural facilities that suck up a lot of it, as well. We have a fish hatchery that uses a lot of water. So our water level does fluctuate. I know water levels do fluctuate from time to time, but ours is experiencing some rather severe fluctuations, and a number of individuals have had to redrill their wells deeper to access that well water.

A number of ministers have been promising legislation: the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, and last year the member from Prince George. The Minister of Environment last year was quite confident that he would in fact have some legislation on the table this year to consider, but that has not come to pass. I understand that the ministry is putting out another discussion paper, so I'd like the minister to perhaps bring me up to date on what the discussion paper is about. Who has it, if it's out there, and have there been any responses?

Hon. C. McGregor: I appreciate the opportunity to talk a little bit about this issue, because I did mention it in my opening statement. It is a personal priority of mine.

I come from a community where water quality and access to water is a very important part of the debates which are ongoing, particularly around water quality. We draw our water not from a groundwater source, as the member talks about in her area, but rather from the river. Nonetheless, the issues remain the same -- access to the quantity of water that's required, not just for individual consumer purposes but also for industrial uses and agricultural uses, as you rightly point out.

I do have a strong commitment to this issue. We are planning to put out an action plan in the fall, and it will include issues related to groundwater as well as drinking water and clean water. It's fair to say it would be focused on critical areas, so one could assume that it will have specific reference to the aquifers that you made mention of on Vancouver Island and in the lower Fraser Valley, where you quite rightly point out that we've had some impacts, particularly from nitrates.

There are ways that we are managing that issue in particular, in terms of manure management plans and in terms of the meetings that I have personally had with the agricultural community in the Fraser Valley and the efforts that they are making as an industry to manage manure in a much more effective way, to keep the nitrates out of the water. It is, of course, a health-quality and water-quality issue for consumers, not just in your area but in any area where there are aquifers that are easily contaminated. In the Fraser Valley we 

[ Page 5571 ]

know that it's the condition of the soil on top of the aquifer that makes it easier for contaminants to leak into the aquifer, so we have to take particular care in that part of the province. I fully expect that the action plan will deal, in some great measure, with the critical areas in your area.

L. Stephens: The action plan, I presume, has come from the consultation process or the discussion papers. What groups were involved in coming up with this action plan?

[11:30]

L. Stephens: The agricultural community is a very large part of our area, as the minister has acknowledged. We know that in coming to grips with some of these issues that pertain to them particularly. . . . Is it the Ministry of Agriculture, or is it the Ministry of Environment that would be responsible for monitoring manure-pile coverage, if in fact that is one of the requirements? I guess there are two questions here. The minister mentioned the agricultural management plan. What are the requirements or the policies of the Ministry of Environment around the management of farming practices? Let's start with that first question.

Hon. C. McGregor: This issue is managed by our ministry. We have an agricultural waste regulation under the Waste Management Act. We have criteria in the ministry that we use for monitoring it, which we call "best management practice." We set out some goals related to that best management practice, including avoiding certain times of the year in terms of when you spread manure, as well as making sure that it's spread on growing crops so it's absorbed, rather than in the runoff.

In terms of how we monitor it, we do involve the farmers in that. There is a voluntary code. Actually, one of the first meetings I had as a minister was with the agricultural community, talking about the way in which peers are used to model best practices to encourage their peers to use the best practice. Our staff provides assistance in that regard. So that is used as a sort of front line in terms of trying to ensure compliance with the regulation.

In the eventuality that compliance cannot be achieved, then obviously we have an ability to go in and issue a charge.

L. Stephens: I have a couple of questions. The first one is: are there policies on covering manure piles for the winter and regulating the disposal of poultry manure? Are these part of the component of the plan for the agricultural community? Is there a set of guidelines that are clear and laid out to make sure that everyone understands what is required?

The second question is: as far as the compliance is concerned, what kinds of remedies does the ministry have to enforce compliance?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, there are requirements when you're storing manure to have it covered. Poultry manure would be covered by a best-management practice, covering when it can be spread and so on, in the same way as other manure would be managed.

In terms of compliance, my opening statement on this in terms of trying to describe the process we use. . . . In the less serious cases we use the farmer's peer group to encourage the person to use a more appropriate practice. But -- as I'm sure the member can appreciate -- if the discharge is much more serious than that and there are going to be very serious effects on a water supply or on fish, in particular, we have to take action immediately. So through this winter we've had to issue a number of tickets -- about five or six, I believe. They can be ticketed with a fine of up to $2,000, and we can also. . . . Sometimes it leads to a legal investigation about whether there's been a violation under the Fisheries Act.

L. Stephens: Again, for us in the Fraser Valley these issues are becoming quite important. It's pleasing to see that the ministry is dealing with it in a way that's going to, I hope, try to resolve the agricultural and the rural and the residential difficulties that we are facing around urbanization. That includes agricultural land use, air quality and all of those kinds of things.

I want to talk a little bit about the well records system. I know the minister has met with the B.C. Ground Water Association, and they have a number of issues that have been outstanding for a number of years now, too. On this particular one, the status of well records systems that should provide information on locations and types of wells for a variety of individuals. . . . For the real estate people that I can think of -- again, in my area where we have one-, two-, five-, ten-acre parcels -- no one knows whether there's an abandoned well or a well on the property.

Could the minister talk a little bit about whether or not a well records management system is in place, and what kind of information is contained in it?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. C. McGregor: We do have a water information computer system, and we have met recently with the Ground Water Association. They did raise a number of concerns. We had a meeting as recently as last week to discuss how we might accommodate those concerns within our current system.

L. Stephens: One of those concerns, I know, is a well records system. Perhaps the minister could talk about the state of the well records system in the province and what her ministry is doing in that regard.

Hon. C. McGregor: I want to make sure that we're talking about the same terms. While the member talks about well record systems, that's not the term we use. We have a water information system, and we put the well information into that water information system. So we are talking about the same thing. Generally the concern is the historical data that has been accumulated by the Ground Water Association, as I understand it. In the past year we have put about $20,000 or $30,000 into entering that data into the system. There is a continuing backlog, and that's a concern. That's one of the issues that was addressed in the meeting.

[ Page 5572 ]

L. Stephens: What is being done to address the backlog, and what are some of the concerns around the historical data of the well records?

Hon. C. McGregor: There were actually two concerns raised. It's really the amount and the type of data that we have in our system. The Ground Water Association's request for the addition of information to that system. . .would cost the ministry between $150,000 and $200,000 to change our water information system. Obviously that's a very significant cost to us, and not one that we can enter into lightly, so our discussions with the Ground Water Association have been to talk with them about what their priorities are in terms of information management, so that we can try to address those.

Seeing the hour, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada