1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4323 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Reforestation. Mr. Skelly –– 4323

Ministry of Forests scaling practices. Hon. Mr. Waterland replies –– 4323

Disposal of hazardous wastes. Mrs. Wallace –– 4324

Sealed washrooms on Gray Line buses. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 4324

Constitution Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 16). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4325

Mr. Hanson –– 4326

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4329

Mrs. Dailly –– 4331

Mr. R. Fraser –– 4332

Mr. Lank –– 4333

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4334

Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 9). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4336

Ms. Brown –– 4336

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4337

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

On vote 34: minister's office –– 4338

Mrs. Dailly

Ms. Brown

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Blencoe

Mrs. Wallace

Presenting Petitions –– 4346

Human Rights Act (Bill 11). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 4347

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like the House to welcome 16 grade 11

students from Esquimalt Senior Secondary School who are touring the

building today with their teacher, Mr. Bowker.

Oral Questions

REFORESTATION

MR. SKELLY: I have a question for the Minister of Forests.

Last Thursday the minister said that the major new federal funding

commitment to reforestation announced in 1982 is purely mythical. Five

provinces have now signed major new agreements for a total of $120

million in federal funds, and these provinces have only 20 percent of

the forest resources that British Columbia has. Clearly, major federal

expenditures are being made. Can the minister therefore advise why B.C.

is the only province unable to conclude a major new agreement?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Some provinces have signed agreements. In

fact, some money is being made available for some provinces, but other

provinces who have signed agreements so far don't have the money

available from the federal government.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that in some cases, such as is the case

with Manitoba.... The Manitoba government in effect granted the federal

government jurisdiction over a very substantial part of its forest

resource in return for funds. Our forest resource and the control over

it is not for sale. We will conclude an agreement with the federal

government, I hope this year, but we will not do that at the expense of

turning the management of that resource over to the federal government.

MR. SKELLY: So that we can clear this matter up, could the

minister advise in which areas the federal government has requested

jurisdiction over the forests of British Columbia?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'd be very happy to, Mr. Speaker. Two of

the catchwords of the federal government are "visibility" and "direct

delivery." By "visibility" they wish, of course, to gain political

credit for being involved. I don't have any trouble with that. The

direct delivery

part is where I have extreme problems. Direct delivery,

according to the agreement in Manitoba, is that the federal government

shall come and directly work with licensees on area-specific tenures,

and directly be involved in the management, the decision-making and

delivery of the forest management service. That is not acceptable in

British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, will the minister not confirm that

the real barrier to progress on this issue has been your government's

approach to the negotiations, and the fact that the province is

unwilling to match the federal contribution in terms of funding, rather

than the question of jurisdiction?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Most certainly I will not confirm that fact, because

it's not true. We have been seriously attempting to negotiate an agreement

with the federal government. As a matter of fact, because we were unable to

agree with the federal government without giving away jurisdiction over our

forest resource, we instead have agreed to extend the existing agreement, the

one that was signed in 1979 for a total of $50 million to be expended over a

period of five years — that is the agreement which has just come to an end.

We have agreed with the federal government to extend that agreement for another

year. and we have signed an extension. That was done by the federal minister

responsible for forestry, Mr. Caccia. However, he has not yet received authority

from the federal Treasury Board to commit the $5.5 million which we have committed.

We have signed the agreement, and the money is allocated in our budget and ready

to go just as soon as the money is forthcoming from the federal government.

How can the member say that the reason we haven't signed up is that we haven't

got the money? We have $5.5 million; the federal government has not got that

yet. If we had been able to conclude an agreement for the $35 million, which

was to be the start of a ten-year program through which we hoped to invest $600

million in the forest resources of British Columbia, I feel every assurance

that we would have had that funding from our treasury.

MR. SKELLY: A final supplementary. Given what happens to

federal government funds destined for higher education, health and

social service programs, I can understand their concern about allowing

the money to be turned over directly to the provincial government,

because it may not end up going into forest management. So that's one

concern we have with this government. And I have no further questions.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I understood that question period was for

the purpose of asking questions and getting information. The member

just made a mini-speech.

MINISTRY OF FORESTS SCALING PRACTICES

However, the member did ask a couple of questions yesterday in my

absence. The questions were taken as notice by my colleague the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), who acts in my capacity when I am

absent from the House. As I read from Hansard ,

the question yesterday by the member for Alberni is as follows: "A

question to the acting Minister of Forests." Strangely, he always seems

to ask these questions of the acting Minister of Forests when I'm

absent. The occasional time when the member for Alberni does appear in

the House, he asks my colleague a question on my behalf. But I'm very

happy to respond to him. "With reference to the minister's statement on

April 5 that he will take action to issue supplementary stumpage

billings to B.C. Forest Products at Shoal Island, does the minister

also plan to supplementary bill the operators of the other five

log-sorting operations where defective scaling practices were employed

as well?"

First of all, I did not say that I would take action to bill B.C.

Forest Products. I said that if the independent assessment being

carried out by the regional manager in Vancouver — who is charged under

the Forest Act so to do and has been so directed — concludes that there

was in fact a shortage of scale and that B.C. Forest Products was not

fully billed, I will take action to make such a billing. I said that in

spite of the legal advice which I have from the ministry, which states

that we really don't have that authority. The reason I'm doing that is

that there is contrary legal advice. There is legal advice

[ Page 4324 ]

obtained by the ombudsman and others to the effect

that we do in fact have such authority. So if an assessment of the

amount of timber that went through Shoal Island indicates a short

scale, we will issue such a bill.

The member went on to ask if I would also take action to "bill the

operators of the other five log-sorting operations where defective

scaling practices were employed...." That flowed into the supplementary

question which he asked, saying: "I have a second question for the

acting minister. Has the minister done an investigation to find out

what the stumpage losses were at the other five sites mentioned by the

ombudsman?" The answer to that question will also answer the first

question. When it was learned that there was a possibility of some

problems with the manner in which logs were being scaled at high speed

for the Shoal Island sort, we immediately investigated the other sorts

as well. We did check scales — which we're doing on a continuing basis,

in any event — and these check scales indicated that in each case the

degree of accuracy was well within that which is normally possible in

sorting. Any discrepancy was less than 3 percent, and that is the

degree of accuracy you can expect from the scaling of logs. It is not

possible, on a consistent basis, to measure them any more accurately

than that. Because we found that the efforts did not exist, I take some

exception to the member making statements such as "...where defective

scaling practices were employed as well." It was not the scaling

practice, Mr. Speaker. We had a problem with the recording, if we had a

problem at all, at Shoal Island. These recording methods were changed

at the other sorts, in spite of the fact that we did not have a

problem. But in case those sorts speeded up somewhat, in which case the

problem could perhaps develop, we changed the recording practice to

make sure that we would not have such a problem in future.

[2:15]

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the

Minister of Environment regarding hazardous waste disposal. The

minister has suggested that there will be lots of opportunities for the

public to scrutinize Genstar-IT's proposal for a hazardous waste

disposal site near Ashcroft once these plans are finalized. Will the

minister agree that an after-the-fact scrutiny of finalized plans is a

farce, unless it involves a formal public inquiry into this scheme and

includes funding for public interveners?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty with

that member's question. How do you scrutinize a proposal that has not

yet been put together?

MRS. WALLACE: Yesterday the minister complained to the House

that he had spent the weekend working in Vancouver at a special-waste

information symposium. I understand that at that symposium a

recommendation was agreed to for a six-month waiting period after the

release of Genstar-IT's final study and the application for the permit.

That was agreed to by both Genstar-IT and the public participants

there. That recommendation is being forwarded to the minister, I

understand. Has the minister decided that he will accept such a

proposal?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, it was clearly stated by me

and clearly understood at that symposium that the recommendations from

that symposium would be presented to me. That's part of the

arrangement. I'm interested to note that the member's great interest in

this special-waste problem, with a great deal of information, does not

extend to taking

part in that. It seems to extend to questions written

by research people.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't quite understand the minister's answer.

I am concerned or I wouldn't be asking the questions. Certainly he has

not advised me whether he is prepared to agree to that recommendation

that there be a six month waiting period, after the study comes down,

before the permit is issued. That was the question that I asked, and

the minister has not replied to that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, as I understood the question

the first time, it was: would the ministry be prepared to accept the

recommendation? I thought I had replied that I'm accepting the report

and the recommendation from that. You're now asking me whether I will

agree to a recommendation which I haven't seen and hasn't been made to

me yet.

MRS. WALLACE: Obviously the minister is not prepared to say

whether he will accept that recommendation. What he is saying is that

they can send the recommendation to him, but he has not agreed that he

will accept it. I thought he attended that symposium, and he should

have known what those recommendations were.

A further recommendation from that symposium, which he did attend —

and I'm sure he must be aware of this recommendation — was that a

tri-party committee be set up consisting of a representative of

Genstar, a representative of the government and a representative of the

workers, or the union, if there were such involved, which would

continually monitor any hazardous waste disposal, transport, storage or

treatment site. Can the minister inform the House whether or not he is

prepared to go along with such a committee to monitor hazardous waste

in this province in the forthcoming period of time?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know how I can possibly make it

clear to that member that there were a lot of things discussed. There

was a great exchange of a lot of useful information, and there were a

lot of positive suggestions. I have, to this point, not received any

recommendations. I don't know where the member got her recommendations.

When I left the conference at about a quarter to twelve on Monday to

get back to the House, there had been no formal recommendations of any

kind made to me. I have not received any since. I can hardly agree to

any that I have not yet received. I don't know if I can make it any

plainer than that.

SEALED WASHROOMS ON GRAY LINE BUSES

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for

Comox (Ms. Sanford) asked a question regarding transportation and

buses. The question was: was I aware that since privatization it has

been the policy of Gray Line of Victoria to lock and seal the washrooms

on the buses operating on Vancouver Island? Further, the comment was

made that the member for Comox was informed that this policy of

[ Page

4325 ]

Gray Lines had already resulted in a number of unfortunate incidents and is

of considerable concern to both the passengers and drivers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that if that has been a concern in

the past few days since the private entrepreneur has taken over that

service it must have been a question in the past five years, because

that policy has been in place for the past five years. The present

operator is simply following past practices. The decision not to have

washroom services and to have the washrooms locked on those buses was

made some five years ago by PCL. It was because there was a short

enough time between stops to be of service to the customers. For the

past five years they have saved in maintenance costs in that respect. I

hope that information will be of some use to the member for Comox.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

HON. MR. CHABOT: In moving second reading of Bill 16, the

government believes that the tremendous growth of population in certain

electoral districts is sufficient reason to increase the number of

members representing the people of British Columbia in this House. At

the same time, we believe there are strong arguments for maintaining,

for the most part, existing electoral districts. If we can be permitted

to present these arguments in a reasonable and rational way, Mr.

Speaker, I believe most people will find that it is correct.

All members know that the population served by members in certain

electoral districts has grown dramatically. For instance, the member

for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) has to serve over 96,000 people,

according to the latest census information. In Delta over 74,000 people

have to look to one member to help them. He also has to serve as the

Speaker of the House as well. In Nanaimo over 66,000 people there have

only one MLA to see to their interests.

It's this kind of result from the most recent census that has

prompted us to come forward with these very logical solutions. The bill

before the House favours staying with the existing electoral districts.

We have agonized long and hard over this issue, and I can tell you that

our reasons for believing in and staying with the present electoral

district boundaries are twofold.

First, we believe that to set up a system whereby the boundaries are

changed from time to time is very costly — my friend from Vancouver

Centre is now leaving and returning to his lucrative law practice in

Vancouver — and I'd like to examine these costs. You'd have to have a

boundaries commission and that costs money. The commission would have

to have a staff of researchers and statisticians. We'd have to have a

team of lawyers to rewrite the legal descriptions of the electoral

districts every few years, and we all know that when you bring lawyers

into it, it starts to cost real money.

MR. REID: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Furthermore, if you redescribe the

boundaries of constituencies every few years, you have to do the same

thing with polling divisions as well, and there are thousands of them.

They'd have to be redescribed by yet another office full of lawyers and

research officers. If you get on the treadmill of regular boundary

changes every few years, you need to redesign and reprint all of your

maps, all of your election administration manuals, many of your forms

and so on.

Our first reason for rejecting boundary changes is cost. If cost is

not enough of a consideration, how about all the confusion and upset to

voters when the boundaries are redrawn? We've all heard about it, and

we all know how upsetting it is for our citizens when they see the

federal constituencies changed all the time. Look at the situation

right now. A commission was appointed in May 1982; in June 1983 it

recommended adding five new constituencies in B.C. That means cutting

most of the federal constituencies in B.C. and redoing the maps, with

all of the costs that that involves. Those new constituencies may not

even be used in the next federal election. According to reports I've

seen from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, there is some doubt as

to whether the new constituencies will be used even if the present

federal Parliament lasts to the end of the term in 1985. We're told

there are administrative problems with implementation of the new

boundaries that quickly. What could be more confusing, costly and

upsetting? A report describing new boundaries was brought in in June

1983, but it looks like it won't be implemented for the next federal

election. How are the average federal electors in B.C. going to know

whether they're living in a pre-1983 constituency or a post-1983

constituency? When the average voter starts thinking about who the good

federal politicians are, should the voters be thinking about

politicians living in the pre-1983 constituencies or the post-1983

constituencies? Or is it post-1989, Mr. Speaker?

Most important of all, who does the average voter turn to for help?

For example, if a small businessman in the Fraser Valley, of all

impossible things, finds himself in a bit of trouble with Revenue

Canada — as some MPs have found themselves — who is his MP? He

remembers the old electoral map. It showed that he was in federal

constituency X, and he's seen a new map in the papers which says he's

going to be in a new federal constituency called Y. They're changing a

boundary from one side of him to the other. Who should he talk to?

Should he pretend the border has already been changed and talk to the

MP for the other constituency, because he figures his problem with

Revenue Canada is going to take a long time to sort out? But maybe the

present MP is the person he should go to, even though he won't be

concerned later. Maybe he'll have to ask them both to help. He's caught

in the middle, and he hasn't even moved. It's a researcher's and

planner's dream come true — a bureaucrat's dream. They've put him in a

position as a small businessman in the Fraser Valley where he doesn't

know who to turn to for help.

It could take years to correct. Look at it; look at the dates, in

fact. A federal boundaries commission sits in 1982. It recommends five

new constituencies in June 1983, and we're told that it's too late for

an election in 1985. So apparently the changed maps won't come into

effect until the federal election after the next one, maybe in 1989, or

even in 1990. Mr. Speaker, I'm a little worried. I'm beginning to think

that these five new constituencies might be out of date by then, even

before they've been used. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this

[ Page 4326 ]

what we want for our provincial electors? Don't we

want to give them improved representation soon, rather than going

through the expense and the ridiculous delays the federal boundary

reform system has brought? Don't we want our provincial electors to

know which electoral districts they live in and who their MLA is if

they have problems?

[2:30]

Mr. Speaker, these are the reasons for staying with fixed electoral boundaries

and increasing representation by adding MLAs in an electoral district where

the population warrants it. I believe an examination of the formula we have

put forward the electoral basis for the mainland and the Island will show that

these are very fair. Mr. Speaker, you may ask: why two electoral bases? I can

tell you that the government felt it was important to recognize Vancouver Island's

history as the first part of the settlement of what is now British Columbia.

We believe it is arguable that the nine Island constituencies are just a little

more complicated to represent than those on the mainland because of transportation

challenges. So we felt a separate electoral base based on the average population

served by the three MLAs in Victoria and Oak Bay–Gordon Head would serve the

other Island constituencies better than the average population served by the

MLAs in the five Vancouver constituencies specified in the bill. I believe that

when you see how the formula adjusts the two electoral bases and gives increasing

advantage to electoral districts the further they are from Victoria and the

lower mainland, you, Mr. Speaker, and all members, will see that there is equity

and fairness in this electoral base.

The process we have proposed in the amending bill is one which no

reasonably informed person can object to. A commission is established

to do the job, and what could be fairer than that? The commission will

obtain population figures, determine the population of each electoral

district and apply the formula. The commission will recommend which

electoral districts qualify for additional MLAs. The commission will

recommend whether an electoral district qualifies for a third MLA. And

if it does, the commission will recommend how to divide such a

three-member electoral district into three single-member constituencies.

Mr. Speaker, the commission will consist of three highly regarded and independent

individuals: the chief electoral officer, the Clerk of the Assembly and a judge

of the provincial court. They will revise representation regularly and without

the confusion and expense that has been the inevitable result of the boundary

redrawing process our federal colleagues have opted for. I would ask you to

consider that even though our present electoral district boundaries are not

always perfect, new boundaries, under whatever system for redrawing maps we

can devise, would also contain imperfections. I would ask you to weigh the alternative,

which is to preserve and build on existing electoral boundaries to let our electors

identify with their electoral districts and their respective MLAs.

Some members here might ask about cost. How can government think of

adding MLAs when we're downsizing everything else? Does this mean that

the civil service can now be expected to grow again? Not at all, Mr.

Speaker. This is, we believe, the most cost-effective way to improve

representation in the Legislature: to correct the imbalances that have

resulted from strong growth in certain areas of British Columbia. We're

not going to spend millions on commissions and mapmakers and lawyers to

rewrite legal descriptions of constituencies and polling districts

every few years. We're going to keep all costs of representation down.

As a matter of fact, even the commission itself will serve

uncompensated, because all of the members are already paid public

servants. We're going to provide more members, and we're doing it

because we believe that the people need more members than they have now

to look after their interests. We're saying that there is an imbalance

in British Columbia today. There's a need for additional representation

in areas that have seen very dramatic growth.

In supporting this bill, I'm asking members to recognize that this

is a fairer, more effective approach to increasing representation. I'm

asking all members to examine the electoral basis we have put forward

and to examine the schedules which give recognition to remote electoral

districts as well. This is a creative and effective new method to

increase representation in this House. It gives me great pleasure to

move second reading of this bill.

MR. HANSON: This is a very important bill. This is probably

the most important bill we've seen in this House for many years,

because it speaks to the way the people of British Columbia send people

to this House and the way decision-making is done in this province.

On this map, which is a map from the Eckardt report, are outlined

the boundaries of the electoral seats that are presently designated for

representation here in this House. This was not done by divine

intervention; it was not done by God. This was done by Larry Eckardt.

This was done by a person who was working under the direction of the

Social Credit government to effect and delineate the electoral

boundaries for the seats of this House.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In Bill 16, which we are debating in second reading today, there are

elements that we on this side of the House agree with. First of all,

I'd like to mention that. I'd like to mention the fact that the

commission, as outlined here, is a good one: the Clerk of the House,

the chief electoral commissioner and a judge of the provincial court.

We have no problem with that. At that point, I'd like to make it very

clear that we have no objection to that kind of commission.

However, what we do have very strong objection to is that the

mandate of that commission is really removed from their authority. A

school child — a person with about grade nine math — with a calculator

is now able to do the work of that commission. It does not have the

mandate to look at the things that should be looked at: such as

geographical limitations; communication and transportation; distance

from government agencies; social, economic and cultural ties; regional

and historic claims; resource management and watershed patterns; future

population; and economic growth. Those were terms of reference....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Red tape, red tape.

MR. HANSON: That comes out of the Eckardt report.

MS. BROWN: He's reading out of the Eckardt report, and I agree with you. It is red tape.

MR. HANSON: I'm reading out of the Eckardt report, issued by your government.

[ Page 4327 ]

What we have is an interesting way of attempting to achieve the

Warren commission objectives in another form. The Warren commission was

totally repudiated through all of British Columbia — the entire 365,000

square miles of this great province. Now we get it in a different form.

Rather than Mr. Warren, the former Tory leader, we now have a

respectable commission that this side of the House agrees with, but a

term of reference that is so restrictive: it's entirely limited to

population increases within existing gerrymandered ridings.

This bill freezes for ever and a day the finger of Little Mountain,

the inequitable distribution of Vancouver South, with the extension

south of 49th into Point Grey. The other gerrymandered boundaries are

now going to be frozen to be part of the terms of reference of this

commission. I feel it's unfair to the commission.

Let me make it very clear, Mr. Speaker. On this side of the House we

want more representation for ridings that have large populations in

Surrey, Delta, Richmond south of the river. That area of British

Columbia requires greater representation; there's no doubt about it.

But that doesn't mean that that increase of representation should be

based entirely, for ever and a day, on Larry Eckardt's riding

boundaries. That is a key point. On this side of the House we recognize

that places like Kamloops, areas of the Okanagan and so on are growing

areas of British Columbia. The population there requires added

representation, more members in this House. There is no question there.

But where we take serious issue.... The fatal flaw of this bill is to

enshrine forever the boundaries of the Eckardt report, which was

totally a gerrymandered distribution.

It's interesting that the Warren commission had framed in it

statistical formulas to guarantee added representation in the interior

and the suburbs of this province. However, it was also demonstrated by

the Warren formula that the formula was not consistent. The Provincial

Secretary's own riding of Columbia River should have been wiped off the

map, according to Mr. Warren, but of course they wouldn't do it, for

political purposes, and the minister knows that. His riding, according

to those statistics....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Eckardt doubled my voter population.

MR. HANSON: I'm talking about Warren. The Warren commission,

in their own formula and their statistical model, had the inconsistency

of suggesting the continued existence.

What I'm saying to that minister is that the Social Credit

government is attempting to achieve the objectives of the Warren

commission in the form of Bill 16, Constitution Amendment Act, 1984. It

really should be termed the Larry Eckardt boundaries in perpetuity act.

The central weakness of the bill is the Eckardt boundaries. There is

no reason why that commission outlined in Bill 16, of the calibre of

the chief electoral commissioner, Clerk of this House and a judge

appointed from the provincial court, could not undertake to look at

boundaries as well. We heard a litany from that minister about lawyers'

fees, the cost of drafting maps and so on. What is the cost of

democracy in British Columbia? The support of democratic institutions

and democratic process have never been the long suit of Social Credit.

They should give this fine commission the authority to look and see if

the Eckardt boundaries are in fact inequitable, to make the appropriate

adjustments for fairness to all citizens.

The popular vote separating Social Credit and the New Democratic

Party at this moment is roughly 5 percent: 49.7 per cent to 45 percent.

What they want is to hang on to Larry Eckardt's boundaries, which are

unfair and unjust. That finger doesn't have to go into Point Grey to

guarantee that minister's re-election. If she's a good minister and is

doing her job, she doesn't need the finger. That commission under Bill

16 should surgically remove that finger under hygienic conditions.

This commission outlined in Bill 16, under clause 19, should be

empowered to review electoral boundaries as well as population. The

terms that were ostensibly to be used by Mr. Eckardt and not used were

geographic limitations, communications and transportation, distance

from government agencies, social and economic and cultural ties,

regional and historical claims, resource-management and watershed

patterns, future population and economic growth. We don't want a

fossilized structure and formula enshrined only to avoid printing new

maps in the Queen's Printer. Is democracy to go down the drain in

British Columbia because we don't want to print new electoral maps?

What a charade! What a facade that that would be the argument given.

[2:45]

Let's look at this bill in more detail. I'd like the minister to

give us some clear, rational response which is a rationale for the

population-based figures for the mainland and Vancouver Island. The

mainland figure is a combination of the population of five

double-member Vancouver seats divided by 10 to give a formula.

Similarly, there's one for the Island, which is isolated to the dual

seat of Victoria and the single seat of Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Are you against that?

MR. HANSON: I want to hear an explanation for the rationale

of how it's being determined. It may mean that if the Island population

grows faster than that of the mainland, it will be increasingly

under-represented in the framework that you have laid out in this bill.

As it is presently indicated, this formula will create double seats in

Boundary-Similkameen and Delta, based on Eckardt's formula — certainly

Delta is under-represented, but we question the boundaries — Dewdney,

Kamloops, Okanagan South, Richmond, Saanich and the Islands, Cariboo,

Nanaimo, Surrey and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I've made it very clear that we agree to the

commission. We've always on this side of the House wanted an

independent commission which is impartial and not beholden to any

political party. We also want the commission empowered to look at other

factors and attributes, rather than just population increase. We feel

that that's a too restrictive, myopic view. It is too political, too

oriented to the objectives of Social Credit, and not clearly aimed at

providing access, in a democratic process, in British Columbia. We do

not want a partisan process; we want an objective process.

We have an enormous province — a third of a million square miles. We

have a total population of something in the order of 2.75 million

people. This population deserves the right to vote for people according

to their own community needs so that the boundaries should represent an

overlay of important factors that provide an integrity to the

boundaries of that electoral district. We do not want fingers frozen in

time, Mr. Speaker, We do not want inequities and electoral gerrymanders

frozen in time forever and a day and then to

[ Page 4328 ]

have increased representation given based on a

maldistribution in the first place. I think that is a very logical

point, and we are making a case for the process under which this

government is undertaking this bill. It is not fair. It is too

restrictive to say to people of this calibre: "You are only entitled to

do one thing: that is, to get out your pocket calculator and figure out

what 60 percent above a certain population base is. That entitles a

riding to an extra member." That is insufficient in a modern,

sophisticated, democratic period when people want to be concerned and

involved in the process. They want to have political accountability.

They don't want to have mountaintops, hemlock and Sitka spruce trees

voting, as we had in the Warren commission, where mountaintops and

valley bottoms were going to be determinate as a geographic factor in

the formula. We want rep by pop. That is the fairest way. We want

representation fairly.

The Eckardt commission in 1978 was unfair, and it was politically

tainted. We are going to be handing that particular instrument for

voting in our province down to our children and our grandchildren,

because Bill 16 freezes that inequity. That is unjust, and we oppose

it. We want some fairness in this process. This kind of bill should be

put to a committee of this House; it should not be brought in in a

partisan way by a minister representing one political party. In any

other jurisdiction a bill of this nature would go to a joint committee

of the Legislature. Hearings would be held, and the public would be

given an opportunity to have their opinions heard. This is not being

done. Instead, it is done at a time when there are no newspapers in

Vancouver and we are apparently on the verge of a newspaper strike in

Victoria; when the great, massive population of British Columbia cannot

be involved and have no say. They can't react to this bill, which will

determine how they are governed in the future years. How unfair could

that be?

Only a government afraid of the people that they represent would

bring in a bill like this, with provisions of these clauses, without

any opportunity for the public to know how they are going to be

electing MLAs in the future. Only a government that is reaping the

whirlwind of mismanagement of the economy, their July 7 budget, their

26 bills which came down to disaster — only a government inheriting

that kind of a response from the public would say that if it can't get

elected in the existing boundaries, or by using the commission and

giving them full powers to look at all of the tidings and boundaries of

this province, to see if they are fair, and to give the people of

Surrey, Delta, Richmond, Kamloops and so on, added representation,

which they do deserve, but to look carefully at the boundaries to see

if this Eckardt inheritance is in fact unjust.... What is wrong with

that? Why not have an independent commission do that? Instead, there

are no hearings, no public involvement and no newspapers. A bill has

been introduced to this House to enshrine in statute how we are going

to face the people in the next election, based on a 1978 electoral

gerrymander.

As I said in my very first remark, there is nothing more important

in this province than the process by which decisions are made on behalf

of all the people. There is no process more important than that. There

is no process that should be more removed from political interference

than that process. Yet what we have before us is a bill to establish an

independent commission, which is fine; we support that, but the given

terms of reference are entirely political and partisan and based

entirely on enshrining the Eckardt boundaries and in firming them up so

that future increased representation will be based on Larry Eckardt's

report. What could be more unfair or unjust? I ask the minister to

withdraw this bill.

This government has a number of years left in its mandate. It has

ample opportunity to have the courage to take this bill to the people

of this province to give them the chance — for once — to have a say in

the way people are sent to this Legislature, and to make rules and laws

about the way the people of British Columbia live. I ask the minister

to withdraw this bill, to take it around this province in a committee

and to ask the people what they feel; to get their input. There are

three or four years before the next provincial election. There is ample

opportunity for this commission, with the assistance of another

committee of this House, to travel the province and come up with a fair

process, based on all of the factors that I've outlined. What is wrong

with that? Why would a government be afraid of that? It's a simple

question. Would it be because they just want to hold on to power, and

that they want to influence the voting process sufficiently to not

provide people a fair opportunity to let the democratic process in its

fullness work in British Columbia?

Those are questions that strike to the heart of what this House is

all about, and yet the government is not interested in addressing it in

that kind of a fair way. The objective should be to establish, based on

the number of votes cast, that a fair representation is given according

to the political parties that the people wish to have represent them:

redistribution in order to achieve a fairer proportion between the

votes cast and the seats won. That is really what we want — nothing

more, nothing less. Fair.

If a system is not fair, people become cynical and bitter, and lose

confidence in the system. That is the last thing that either side of

this House should want to happen. I ask that the minister withdraw the

bill and send the Clerk of the House, the appointee from the court and

the chief electoral officer out to all the regions of the province to

hold a full and impartial hearing, which the people of this province

never received in 1978 with the Eckardt report. By sending out that

committee, the minister would be doing a great service for the people

of this province and subsequent generations. No holds barred; let that

committee come back into this House with a series of recommendations on

appropriate boundaries and seat distribution, with all the modern

comparative data from other jurisdictions, with election expense

provisions, with ceilings on the amount of money that can be spent,

with full disclosure, with proper access for the disabled to vote. We

are a province that doesn't allow people who are shut in.... I have

constituents who would have a vote in France, because it is a mail

ballot, but who do not get a vote in British Columbia. In France, if a

person is shut in because of a physical disability, they are entitled

to vote by mail ballot.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are straying from the principle of this

bill, hon. member. This is the Constitution Amendment Act and does not

deal with elections.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, you're quite right. The point I'm

making is that sending that committee on the road to have full and

impartial non-partisan hearings would enable the public to provide

input on all matters with respect to the elections; not just the

boundaries and the number of seats, but the number of polling stations,

access to voting for the disabled and so on. That's the kind of hearing

we should have, not the kind of bill that comes in at a time when the

public is not offered any opportunity for a full vetting and a full

[ Page

4329 ]

understanding of what is taking place. It affects

the decisions that affect their lives, and they are being

disfranchised. You are disfranchising the people of this province from

a process that will determine all of the decisions that affect their

lives under provincial authority. That is really unfair.

To create a smokescreen about lawyers and costs of map drawing,

bureaucracy and so on is very foolish. We should have an ongoing

independent commission that operates in much the same way as the

federal authority, without influence.

[3:00]

An HON. MEMBER: A great example.

MR. HANSON: We would be a lot better served in B.C. if we had

that kind of a structure, rather than the kind of thing offered to us

by Social Credit. With those remarks, I am going to ask one of my

colleagues to comment.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, a great injustice is being done to British

Columbia. We have the opportunity, with the lead time between now and

the next election, to put out an independent commission to the public

to have once and for all in British Columbia a fair and impartial

electoral commission. What we get instead is a commission with the

cosmetic appearance of being structurally impartial, but one with no

mandate and completely restrictive; one with a formula roughly the same

as the Warren formula, which does not offer an opportunity to take into

account all the various factors necessary in a proper and fair

redistribution. What we get instead is a partisan and political

redistribution without an opportunity for public involvement in the

most important bill to come before this Legislature in years, which

will determine the affairs of this House for many years to come. They

have a right to have a say, and you're denying it to them. You are

disfranchising them in the process. The public is going to understand

that you fear their involvement, that you fear their input, and they're

going to reject you at the polls. We welcome the opportunity to win

those added seats in Surrey, to win those added seats in Kamloops, and

to win those added seats in the interior of this province. We will win

them in spite of the gerrymander. We're going to carry our case to

every comer of this province, because this is a partisan and political

move. You're cutting the people of this province out of that process.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's interesting to hear from the member

for Victoria as the lead-off speaker on anything to do with

redistribution or representation in this chamber. The member for

Victoria is in a most enviable position, having a relatively small

population base in the province's capital of about 80,000 people,

represented by two members, and at the same time apparently not

prepared to accept a recommendation which would see similar

representation for other constituencies in our province with similar

populations.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

As an example, the population of the constituency of Kamloops is very near

that of Victoria. Victoria has 79,427; Kamloops has 77,278. We recognize that

the members for Victoria have to serve a relatively large area — 11 square miles

whereas the member for Kamloops is required to serve an area of 8,244 square

miles. We recognize that there are approximately 2,000 more people living in

the city of Victoria, but I really don't think that justifies an additional

member.

MR. LAUK: Oh, jiggery-pokery,

HON. MR. NIELSEN: ''Jiggery-pokery," the member for Vancouver

Centre says. The member for Vancouver Centre, along with his seatmate,

represents 89,000 people.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Approximately 89,000, according to StatsCan. You may not represent all of the people, but that's the number they provide.

We also recognize that they have an eight-square-mile area, and they

have two members. In fact, it's interesting to note that all of the

constituencies, with the exception of Surrey, which have two

representatives.... In 1981 StatsCan gave Vancouver East a population

of 89,000, Vancouver Centre 89,000, Vancouver South 84,000,

Vancouver–Little Mountain 80,000, Victoria 79,000 and Point Grey

77,000. Apparently those are the last statistics available. It's

interesting that with the exception of Surrey, with two members and a

population of 161,000, all the dual ridings have fewer people than the

single-member riding of Richmond, which has a population, according to

the 1981 statistics, of 96,000 people. Yet this opposition would argue

that it is improper to allow the citizens of Richmond the same

opportunity of having two members to represent them in this chamber as

is permitted in those other constituencies in the cities of Vancouver

and Victoria, and even Surrey.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Victoria was speaking about proportional representation,

which is a concept adopted by some people, and generally expounded by perpetual

losers who say: "Even though we do not win an election, let us have some

access to the chamber." There are a number of attitudes and formulas which

are offered worldwide to see that some people get in there, even though they

were rejected at the polls by the people within a constituency. So they wind

up with a small percentage of the vote across the nation, in the province or

in their state. They have a small percentage, so they're allocated so many

seats. I don't think the people of our country or our province are yet prepared

to accept that type of election. I think the people in B.C. still accept the

idea that you elect a representative from your constituency, and the person

with the greatest number of votes wins that seat.

Mr. Speaker. I wonder how many members of the opposition took the

time to be heard before any of the various commissions which have

reviewed this matter over the years in B.C. I suppose many of them made

representations to the Norris inquiry. I'm sure they did; their

government appointed that committee. They never acted on the

recommendations, however. I don't know how many made representations to

the Eckardt inquiry. I don't know how many made any recommendations to

the Warren commission. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) may

have been the only one who made any representation to the last inquiry.

Yet this is what the member is saying: send these people around so,

apparently, the NDP can ignore them again. What's the purpose of that?

But I appreciate the comments from the member. At least he doesn't find

three very distinguished public servants offensive with respect to a

commission. I think it's very noble of him to even mention that.

[ Page 4330 ]

We have had over the years in British Columbia inquiries and

commissions looking into boundary changes with respect to

representation in this House. They have taken into consideration those

matters mentioned by the member for Victoria, including historic

matters, population trends, and various geographical features. They

have done that, and they have designed certain boundaries. What hasn't

been done as consistently is to recognize the representation of the

citizens of an area. Recognizing that my own constituency of Richmond

is one of the fastest-growing areas in the province, and recognizing

that it probably has a population now in excess of 100,000, I don't

think anyone could argue that the citizens of Richmond should not have

the same right to equal or near equal representation as the other

metropolitan areas of the lower mainland. So I think the argument for

Richmond is very strong, if we're looking at population.

MR. LAUK: It should have at least one member.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Member for

Vancouver Centre, if we do have two, I only hope that your party once

again put up my good friend Mr. Steves as a candidate. It saves a lot

of costs in printing signs.

MR. LAUK: Are you accusing us of political bad judgment?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, never. He was more eloquent than most of your candidates. That's why he lost.

It's interesting to note that the first member for Victoria sees in

this proposed act all of this political manoeuvring, without for one

moment taking an opportunity to look at where the population centres

are in this province. When you look very quickly down the list, once

you're past Surrey and the Vancouver constituencies with their two

members, and Victoria with its two-member riding — with, statistics

indicate, 79,000 citizens — you're into Okanagan South with 78,000

citizens and one member; Kamloops with 77,000, one member;

Vancouver–Point Grey, a dual-member riding with 75,000; Delta, 75,000,

one member; Saanich and the Islands, 74,000, one member; Nanaimo,

68,000, one member; Boundary-Similkameen, 66,000, one member; Dewdney,

62,000, one member; Cariboo, 61,000, one member; Langley, 61,000, one

member; Coquitlam-Moody, 59,000; Central Fraser Valley, 58,000;

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, 56,000; and as it goes.

Mr. Speaker, it's clear where the areas of growth and population

are. It's a matter of simple statistics. Yet these people across the

House, for some reason, indicate that it is wrong to recognize

population. It is right, according to the member for Victoria, to have

two members represent the capital city, with a population of under

80,000, but apparently it's incorrect to have an area such as Richmond,

with 96,000 people, have two members as well. Similarly, with the other

major population centres in the province, these members argue that it

is apparently improper and only politically motivated for them to

receive equal representation — not disproportionate representation, but

equal representation.

Remember when the Warren committee made certain recommendations

which would have seen my constituency of Richmond a dual-member riding;

the same type of criticism came from that side. They stood up; they

never suggested that their dual-member riding of Victoria, with a

population considerably less, be represented by less than two, but

there was no support for the more heavily populated constituencies, in

their mind adequately represented by one. Well, I think the people of

these constituencies recognize very readily that their influence in

this chamber is not equal to the influence of other metropolitan and

urban centres in this province. That's wrong. It's fine to talk about

all these various gerrymandering.... And gerrymandering, I believe,

refers to the modification of boundaries, which this bill does not

consider. It does not consider boundary changes. In fact, it suggests

that the boundaries remain as they are. For once, let's look at

population. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) spoke about

representation by population — a great slogan, but the wrong country.

With representation by population, our good friend from Atlin would

apparently not have a seat in this House, because the population in

Atlin is 6,314 people. If you're going to have rep by pop on a strict

formula, obviously Atlin would not qualify for a member. In fact, I

believe it was in the mid sixties when there was a commission of

inquiry. I believe they recommended that Atlin no longer be a single

seat. The government of the day refused to accept that recommendation,

declaring that the historic significance of Atlin was enough to

recognize it as an individual seat. As an example, Atlin would be gone

with representation by population.

[3:15]

If we were to retain 57 members, and we went by representation by

population, clearly what would have to occur is that there would be

less dual-member ridings in Vancouver and Victoria. If you had

representation by population but retained only 57 members, you would

have to do something to reduce the over-representation indicated by the

statistics.

It's easy for members to criticize any legislation that upon

analysis would indicate that the people of this province in the areas

which are most populated might have an opportunity for equal

representation. We spoke about the popular vote. They don't speak about

the statistics that indicate the average number of votes required for a

member to be elected in certain constituencies in this province because

of single representation in populations equal to or greater than those

now represented by two. They don't want to pay any attention to that.

They're very happy the way it is now, because it provides their party

with a certain opportunity to return members disproportionately to the

populations in other centres throughout our province.

The minister's bill attempts to recognize fairness and a sense of

equity with reference to population centres. The bill also provides for

an opportunity of reflecting representation based on two models: the

metropolitan area of Vancouver and the metropolitan area of Victoria.

There was talk that if the Island population were to grow faster than

Vancouver's population, they could be under-represented. The reason the

Island representation is based on Victoria and Oak Bay–Gordon Head is

because it is recognized that the population on the Island is

proportionately less, and if you look at the statistics, they show

that. The city of Vancouver population, I would suggest, is probably

growing faster than the city of Victoria population. I would suggest

that the lower mainland area is growing much faster than the Saanich

Peninsula area of the Island.

The first member for Victoria also mentioned references to history

and so on. With that in mind, having two bases recognizes some historic

events. The Island and the mainland

[ Page

4331 ]

at one time had equal representation, and

adjustments were made to try to retain some of the representation on

the Island, rather than looking strictly at population statistics. So

there is an opportunity for the Island ridings to benefit from the

smaller constituencies, on the average, on Vancouver Island.

Very briefly, in the rest of the province, looking at the areas that

members must serve in the interior and coastal ridings, the bill

reflects that there should be some consideration given to citizens of

those areas with respect to the geography, distances and the number of

settlements contained in those constituencies. It is recognized, and

that includes Atlin, which is provided with a 20 percent advantage over

the population base to recognize the characteristics of that

constituency. Others are recognized at 15 percent and others at 10

percent to take into account both population and geography and number

of settlements within a constituency.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House don't expect the

opposition to intelligently review, digest, understand or support such

legislation.

MR. LAUK: Who is making that judgment?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm making that judgment.

Mr. Speaker, there's an excellent reason why they shouldn't. Why

break the mould of years of NDP, who suddenly appear to be offering

intelligent comment on what the Provincial Secretary has produced? The

members opposite are offering only a political review of the

Constitution Act amendment. There is no argument put forth on behalf of

the citizens in these constituencies with the large populations. The

opposition has divided the province into Social Credit and NDP

constituencies, regardless of the future outcomes of any elections.

They have designed and designated certain areas to be red or blue, or

black or white, or orange or black — whatever colours they might be. I

don't accept that a constituency belongs to a political party. The

constituency belongs to the citizens of that area, and they will decide

who represents them in the House and which political party will triumph.

On behalf of those areas of the province, which for years have been

underrepresented in this House because of the inability of former

commissions and governments to recognize that we represent people in

this assembly, I congratulate the Provincial Secretary for producing a

formula which takes into account that under-representation. We will

hear charges from the opposition. In fact, they could save a lot of

time if they just referred to their debate when the Warren commission

report was before the House, because nothing has changed. There are the

same complaints. You take away the personality of a commissioner, so

that you no longer have that attacking of Eckardt, Warren, Norris or

whoever might have been the commissioner. You assign three public

servants to do the job. You have no boundary changes, so you take away

the gerrymandering charges. Yet they still attack it. There's only one

thing left they're attacking: that is, representation and population.

The only thing they're saying — they won't say it directly, but they're

saying it indirectly — is that areas with large populations that are

not NDP should not have equal representation. I haven't heard any

member on that side suggest that Victoria, which has a population of

79,000, should not have two members. But I've heard them say that

similar constituencies in the province with similar population

shouldn't have two. There's something wrong with that line of thinking.

Mr. Speaker, it's pretty obvious what has happened with the

opposition with respect to this bill. They've read it for a change:

they understand it, and they recognize that the large population areas

of our province, when this bill becomes law, will have the opportunity

of something close to equal representation. I think they recognize that

where the province is growing, those people generally support the

Social Credit Party. They're a little bit nervous about it, and I don't

blame them, In fact, seeing the latest national polls, I would be

nervous too if I belonged to that party.

The bill goes a long way to recognizing some of the inequities of

the past, and I think the Provincial Secretary should be congratulated

for his far-sightedness with respect to this.

MRS. DAILLY: Before the last speaker goes out, I would like

to congratulate him and say that I enjoyed his speech because I was

able to follow it from page 9161 of September 14, 1982. He delivered it

even better this time, and I pay him full compliments. It was done very

nicely.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: He's learning. He's getting better every year.

It was an an interesting debate and defence which he put up. I in

turn would like to reiterate briefly some of the reasons why we can't

support it. Despite what the Minister of Health said, we too are

concerned about equal representation and fairness for the citizens of

British Columbia. We share that concern with the members of the Social

Credit government.

We did say that we are pleased that they have seen fit to appoint

this three-member commission, but the point of argument that the

official opposition has with the bill is based on the fact that we feel

this bill has hamstrung the commission you have created. They have been

given a very limited frame of reference to deal with a major change

which will affect the future politics and representation rights of the

citizens of British Columbia. We feel that if the Social Credit

government were really sincere in their approach to equity, they would

not have based the commission's terms of reference on a report which

was not well received by the public of British Columbia when it was

presented to the House several years ago. I thought we had fought that

debate, and I think the public had shown that they agreed with the

official opposition, and did not feel that that bill was couched in

fair and equitable terms. How could an opposition then stand up on

behalf of the people they represent in British Columbia and agree to

support, once again, what we considered was an inequitable approach to

the whole matter of changes in future representation in this

Legislature? That still stands, and here we are being asked to approve

once more, in essence, what was brought forward by the Warren

commission. That is one of the basic reasons why we cannot support this

bill.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I also find it interesting that in his major comments on second

reading the Provincial Secretary emphasized cost over and over again. I

know that the government is in financial trouble, and that they are

looking for ways — out of desperation they must — to save money. But we

do not feel that the people of British Columbia would be too overly

concerned with an approach that might cost somewhat more

[ Page 4332 ]

than we have laid before us here through this bill.

I would like to suggest to the minister that, even though we have no

quarrel with the basic commission makeup.... I personally would like to

have seen something that has never happened before in this Legislature:

the opportunity for an all-party committee. I think I've been bringing

that up for many years now. If we had had such an all-party

committee....

I know that the acting Speaker, who has just taken the place of our

Speaker, would agree with me. He has served on many all-party

committees. And I know that the Speaker — along with many other

members, I'm sure — knows that there is considerable value to be had

out of all-party committees, although I should not bring the Speaker

into this debate.

[3:30]

However, I would like to say to the minister that an all-party

committee could sit down and hopefully divorce itself from a lot of

this partisanship and the adversarial position that has been taken — by

both parties at times, I agree — on matters of great consequence. If

the Social Credit government had been truly interested in seeing a bill

come through on a major change such as this without acrimony and with

cooperation, I think they would have been very wise to just once set up

an all-party committee to look at this. If we could have sat down

together, face to face, in a committee room, out of the heat of this

chamber, I think we could have produced what would perhaps have been a

more equitable bill, so that we would all have been part of this bill.

It is not just because we didn't have that opportunity that I'm here

to condemn the bill. I still believe that to state, as this bill does,

that there are going to be no boundary changes — as I understand it —

is really a very inflexible approach to this change. I know that the

Minister of Health stated many times over in his argument that the NDP

wouldn't want to move on that because of certain ridings which we now

hold politically. The NDP has never said that. We accept the fact that

if you want true equity, you should be moving into some form of

boundary changes. If we leave it with just the representation based on

the population and no boundary changes, we will have entrenched areas

and pockets in this province that are not providing equitable

representation.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: The Provincial Secretary says I'm wrong; I hope he will reply to that in time.

I would like to make another point. The Minister of Health referred

to our designated critic for the Provincial Secretary, the first member

for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), as having stated that he was in favour of

proportional representation. That is not a position of this caucus.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, that's what he said.

MRS. DAILLY: If he said it.... I asked him directly. I didn't

hear him state it, and I just want to make it clear that that is not an

official position. I have never personally — and I know the party has

not — taken that as an official position.

I do think this matter of cost should be looked at more carefully by the minister.

I think he should say to himself: "Look, am I producing a bill based entirely

on my concern about cost, based entirely on getting the thing rammed through

fast? If I'm doing this, am I doing justice to equitable representation?"

The Minister of Health claims that the party he represents is interested in

equitable representation. The NDP claims the same.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask Mr. Speaker to consult standing orders and ring for a quorum.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the second member for Vancouver Centre, counting from this position, I see a quorum in the House.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I kind of lost my train of thought

there, but I'll try to pick up by simply saying that I've tried to make

the point as clearly as I can to the minister that we are concerned

that the minister has seen fit, through this bill, to limit the terms

of reference, based on a former report which was not adopted by the

NDP. As I have stated that before, I will not repeat it. I'm also very

concerned that we are approaching these major bills which affect so

many citizens without proper input from the opposition through an

all-party committee.

With those brief words, I will now take my seat and hope that the minister will have time to reply later.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, it may come as some surprise to

members that I intend to support this bill put forward by the

Provincial Secretary, which I read and which I frankly endorse. I like

the idea that the bill removes the possibility of character

assassination for the people involved in doing the calculating. I think

that's very important. I also endorse the idea that we will not get

into the constant hassle of where the boundaries will go; whether it's

on this street or that street. That's settled and we can leave it, and

I think that's very important. We can get down to the business of

finding out where people are living and where the populations are

moving, and that's in fact what this bill addresses. Whether or not we

like it, the population chooses where they're going to live, not us;

and if they choose to move from one riding to another, they still

deserve the right to be represented. In this bill they will have that

chance.

The member for Victoria commented that a grade 9 or a grade 5

student with a calculator could figure out when you would have

increased representation in the House. Frankly, I don't consider that

to be objectionable. In fact, I think the purpose of the legislation

and of everything we bring forward is in fact to make it as easy as

possible for everybody to understand what is going to happen when

population changes take place. We should be prepared, whether we sit on

this side of the House or that, to consider everything put forward.

Whether I sit with the government or on the opposition, I can in fact

support this bill; I believe it gives fair representation to everybody

in the province, whether they come from the small riding of Atlin or

the big riding of Richmond. So I have no problem with the bill. I think

it will be fair. I think it will remove all the parts of other

calculations in this respect which have caused acrimony and wild

speeches, which have caused people to go off in all directions, making

it difficult for those involved in the process to come out with a

report without having their own names washed and stamped on on the way

by.

Without saying much more, Mr. Speaker, I would say quite clearly

that it is a bill I think I can vote for without any trouble. It's a

bill I could support no matter what side of the

[ Page

4333 ]

House I sat on, and it's a bill that I'm sure the opposition will ultimately come to like.

MR. LAUK: I'd like to speak not officially on the part of the

New Democratic Party — our critic has given the approach that we're

taking to the proposed amendment to the constitution — but for myself

for a moment, particularly about the city of Vancouver and its

representation, for better or for worse over the years, and the number

of MLAs that represent the constituencies in the city of Vancouver.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK , Yes, particularly from Point Grey and North Vancouver–Seymour.

In doing so I want to point out that I do agree with the proposition that a

lot is made of how many constituencies there are, and in what areas, and how

they have traditionally voted and so on. I don't personally take too much

objection to Richmond receiving another seat and Surrey receiving a third seat

and so on, because it is my full expectation that after the next general election

those seats in particular will be NDP, as well as a good number of other seats

currently held by the Social Credit Party. From a strictly partisan point of

view I'm not greatly exercised about increasing the representation for those

areas, because they will definitely be NDP in the short term and then thereafter

for the long term.

I am reminded of the debate, and the very vigorous debates we once

had in this chamber.... Since the new people have arrived on the back

benches of the Social Credit Party, those debates are no longer what

they used to be. As my colleague for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) can

remember, over the years there was a bit more colourful eloquence. Do

you remember George? Well, George was here, and I think that one of the

previous constitutional amendment debates should be referred to, in Hansard ,

to give us some perspective and have the chamber reflect on the

philosophy behind these amendments. A certain member at that time —

page 2,657 of Hansard , June 26, 1978 — said among other things: "Shut up, Graham."

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, and thank God for the people of this province that he hasn't.

This hon. member said:

These allegations of gerrymandering are just nothing but utter

nonsense. Anyone with an ounce of any common sense realizes that boundaries

don't determine how people vote. The people themselves determine how they'll

vote.

And about one year later that person was defeated.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Steves?

MR. LAUK: George Kerster. I accept what he said at that time. I wish to associate myself with his remark.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I remember George.

MR. LAUK: We all do, very fondly. I remember the day he fell over in his seat.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I remember the day he beat your leader.

MR. LAUK: After the member for Coquitlam, as he then was,

fell out of his seat, the Minister of Public Works had him outfitted

with a jolly jumper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you think we could get back to the principle of the bill, and possibly show deference to former members of the House.

MR. LAUK: Yes, that's very well put.

I would like to defend two propositions, and one is this: the city

of Vancouver, no less than an area like Atlin or Columbia River or

other historically constituted constituencies, has a historical

significance.

HON. MR. CHABOT: And the historical right of representation.

MR. LAUK: And the important historical right of

representation — I thank the hon. minister — is this, insofar as Atlin

and Columbia River.... It's a community with geographical significance.

no less the core of the province's major metropolis. That core needs

strong representation not only in the individuals who represent those

constituencies but in numbers as well. And to argue for a reduction

even in relation to other ridings.... If you say let's have more seats

in Richmond and Delta, I say let's have more seats in Vancouver. Now

hear me out, and I'll try to explain why. If you read the history of

the metropolises of New York, Chicago and other American cities, you'll

see that when the seat of the state government moved in power over the

years from the core of the city to the suburbs and to upstate New York,

the core of the city suffered from lack of representation in Albany,

the state's capital. It suffered very much from lack of representation.

I think that we can't let that happen to the city of Vancouver. So far

there has been no damage done to the core. The core has been protected,

because it has been represented but also because other members of this

chamber have had a sense of responsibility with respect to the city as

a core of the major metropolis of the province. Historically, it's

important that any commission and any government recognize that the

core and centre of the city has to be fully and equally represented,

even if it means that several members represent fewer people in that

core because of population shifts in and around the greater Vancouver

area. I think that those historical considerations must be part of the

plan for any commission in deciding the number of seats.

[3:45]

Secondly, I want to point out that I completely agree with my

colleague from Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) when she suggests that there

be an all-party committee to deal with these matters. I know that some

of my colleagues have argued for an independent commission, and so on,

I believe in politicians, not just in political parties. I believe in

the political process, and I'm sick and tired of those of our

colleagues on either side of the House who are constantly apologizing

for the profession we have chosen for either the long or short term. I

think we should stop apologizing for who we are. We are people who

have, in many cases, worked very hard to represent our constituencies,

and I think that we deserve to respect ourselves and have others

respect us for that effort. I also think that we bring to our jobs and

to our tasks as representatives in this chamber an understanding of the

kind of people, communities and groups we represent that cannot be

translated into the expertise of a so-called independent

[ Page 4334 ]

commission. With the greatest conceivable respect

to appointed judges, before whom I have practised these 16 or 17 years,

I have not always been greatly impressed with their knowledge of human

life and their expansive and broad view of human behaviour at all

community levels. I have, on the other hand, been impressed with the

degree of that understanding on the part of politicians from whatever

party. I have concluded, therefore, that those individuals who have

been elected and gone through that crucible to get to this chamber have

in their backgrounds and understanding a certain wisdom and perception

that is not always available to people in other walks of life. It is

for that reason that I argue that the suggestion by the hon. member for

Burnaby North should not be dismissed out of hand, and should be

seriously considered by all of us.

There are a few occasions — they should be kept to a minimum — when

an all-party committee is the vehicle through which change should be

made. One of them must be any constitutional amendment. Why should our

constitution at the provincial level be second-class? It's not. It's a

constitution that deserves the kind of consideration that all parties

can give to it. The federal constitution had federal-provincial

consultation and all-party consultation; whether adequate or inadequate

we can argue down the pages of history. A constitutional amendment

should and must have an all-party review, at which the views of the

politicians can be brought to bear on such an important subject as

representation — by population, by geography, by historical context,

whatever. We are the people, for heaven's sake, who know these things

as well or better than anyone else in the community. We do not have to

defer and apologize. We do not have to call upon some sort of

mysterious expertise from an independent commission to achieve these

goals.

If on the one hand this so-called independent commission appointed

by the government becomes simply the puppet of the government, a sham

and a fiction, we should avoid it. If on the other hand we appoint a

commission that is truly independent, it'll take away what is rightly

the decision of this chamber and its members, and in a proportion — in

terms of partisan representation — of the party representation in this

House.

The other area where I think all-party committees should be

established — probably even permanent all-party committees — has arisen

recently, and should be of serious consideration while we're dealing

with constitutional amendment; that's a members' services committee.

We're one of the few jurisdictions that does not have a members'

services committee. The backroom nonsense and quiet negotiation about

members, and the constant genuflecting and apologizing for who we are

and the job we do, has got to stop. An all-party members' services

committee would help a great deal to solve that problem. In times of

economic crisis of a serious nature, such as the one we've experienced

for the past three years, an all-party committee to review the economy

itself should be permanently in place out of this chamber. Those three

areas are the only three areas I can see, other than maybe occasionally

a major tax reform, like assessments and so on. Those three should be

permanent committees in these days: certainly a constitutional

amendment committee always property constituted, travelling and

listening; and the member services committee; and in times of economic

crisis an economic committee.

These amendments are too important to be left to the judges and the

lawyers. They don't understand the same things that we've been able to

understand over the years. It's not difficult. It's not something

you're born with; it's something that grows with you as you represent a

constituency over the years. You acquire these skills and these

wisdoms. You don't acquire these skills and wisdoms in a courtroom or

in another job. For heaven's sake, some people in this chamber have

been here for a good many years. Why do we waste that kind of talent,

sitting around listening to each other's same old speeches? Why don't

we use that kind of talent to do something for this province?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to oppose this bill on a couple of grounds. I

think that mere representation by population is giving the wrong

message to whatever commission is appointed. Although it's an

improvement over past efforts of this government, it is not much of

one. Secondly, I argue on behalf of the members of this chamber that

they should have a role in the preparation of constitutional amendments

before they're introduced for second reading. That role should be by an

all-party committee. I would urge the minister to consider that,

perhaps even lifting this bill before second reading is completed and

referring it to an all-party committee of the House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I have just a few words in closing the

debate. I think that some of the members opposite forget the full

intent of this bill. The intent of the bill is to recognize the growth

in population that has taken place in selected constituencies of

British Columbia.

We heard from the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), who smears

by innuendo two respectable British Columbians: Derril Warren, who has

made a contribution to British Columbia, and a former judge by the name

of Mr. Eckardt. Here in this chamber he constantly continues to heap

scorn and abuse on these individuals, which I think is very

disrespectful to people who have made their contribution here in

British Columbia. I think that young member should hide his head in

shame for those kinds of allegations of impropriety against two

respectable British Columbians.

I'm not going to rehash everything that has been said. But I do want

to repeat that the legislation and the formula included in the

schedule

give special recognition to Vancouver Island because of its unique

position in our history. The one thing I want to repeat is my

dissociation from the statement made by the first member for Victoria,

in which he advocates representation by population. You can have

representation by population when you have a unique little situation,

but when you're talking about an area as large as British Columbia, and

in the words that I spoke to the member for Vancouver Centre, areas

that have a historical right to representation, such as Columbia River,

Atlin and Skeena as well.... I think most members opposite would

strongly support me in that statement. I don't think that

representation by population will work in British Columbia. I have to

say that those kinds of statements would have to emanate from a young,

junior, naive, urbane MLA. It comes from him. I want the people to know

that the member for Victoria is against rural seats throughout this

province. If he had his wish, ridings such as Columbia River would be

done away with. I'll let the people in Columbia River know of the

attitude of those NDPers, who want rep by population. They want to do

away with Columbia River, as they attempted to do

[ Page

4335 ]

in the redistribution when they were government.

They are attempting to advocate that same kind of policy of confusion

and hate against ridings that have historically returned members of an

opposite party to this Legislature.

I want to say that there is some confusion over there. I think the

member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), who says there is no provision

for boundary changes should read the legislation and see that there are

provisions. They failed to take into consideration that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the ability — or this particular

assembly — to refer certain matters to this commission for examination

and reporting back, either to this assembly or to the Lieutenant

Governor-in-Council. They don't want to talk about those good,

wholesome aspects of the legislation. No, they want to ignore them;

that's typical of that little socialist bunch over there.

1 listened to the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who

argued for special treatment for the city of Vancouver at the expense

of the other voters throughout British Columbia. I listened to that

little member, Mr. Speaker, and I think this formula....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Personal references are unparliamentary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, that big member, then.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let's avoid personal references, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm glad to see the kind of support that we

have from the opposition on the question of this legislation, which

does recognize the growth that has taken place in certain regions of

British Columbia. Under those circumstances, I move that the bill be

read a second time now.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of

the House after today.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on this motion....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is that a debatable motion?

MR. LAUK: Yes, it's a debatable motion. May I be recognized for the moment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order only. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that

motion is debatable in the aspect of its referability to the Committee

of the Whole, and not in any other way, and that is the point which I

wish to debate.

In my view it is unfortunate that the Provincial Secretary was not listening

to the major part of my suggestion that this matter be referred to an all-party

committee of the House before it is reviewed any further in the chamber, either

by Committee as a Whole or by third reading. It seems to me that we have a tremendous

opportunity here to demonstrate to the public of British Columbia that the members

of this chamber can work together to achieve, in and around the province, unanimity

and a certain degree of consensus, with respect to representation, so they can

have confidence in the very democratic system. It seems to me that what we need

to do, rather than having a motion of referral to the Committee of the Whole,

would be to have the minister accept an amendment by one of the members of this

side of the House to refer this matter to an all-party committee with power

to travel in and around the province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this

debate that the second member for Vancouver Centre is putting forward

at this time might be completely out of order, so I was wondering if he

would hold off his debate until such time as you find out whether he

has the right to make this point or not. I could debate the wisdom of

referring it to the Committee of the Whole, because then it gives each

and every member the opportunity of debating it

section by section, as

we look at it in Committee of the Whole. So, as I have the floor, I

might as well....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I rule now that the motion for committal is

not debatable. If the member wishes to entertain an amendment, that

would be debatable during the committee stage.

MR. LAUK: Under standing order 1 or 2, I am asking the Speaker to refer me to the authority, so that I can review...

[4:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: Standing order 9.

MR. LAUK: ...standing order 9, so I can....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Check Beauchesne. He may tell you.

MR. LAUK: Is he French? Is that like Chabot?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In the first place, standing order 42 says that no member may speak twice to a question.

MR. LAUK: No, I'm referring to standing order 9. I want you to ignore standing order 42 for the moment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The standing order prohibiting any further

debate on this motion, as outlined, is standing order 45(1) and (2).

The motion is referral to a committee.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Second reading of Bill 9, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Attorney-General will be here momentarily.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader has introduced the bill for debate, and I would like to debate it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion would have to be made by the minister piloting the bill before it becomes debatable.

MR. LAUK: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There can be no point of order.

[ Page 4336 ]

BUILDERS LIEN AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

HON. MR. SMITH: I had intended, Mr. Speaker, to speak on a

bill that was before the chamber earlier. I was so much enjoying on the

box the speeches of the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

I have the honour to move second reading of this bill. For many

years there has been a desire to have reform of builders lien

legislation. We've had recommendations for some time from the Law

Reform Commission and from other groups of the bar requesting an

overhaul of this piece of legislation. What we have done here is to

bring forward some rather specific changes to deal with the Builders

Lien Act in a limited way. The purpose of Bill 9 is to reintroduce the

legislation that we tabled in the last session, flowing from the

recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, and to respond to the

construction industry. The amendments which we're introducing will

increase much-needed cash flow in the construction industry and also,

in reducing the holdback, should stimulate and assist the construction

industry.

In addition, the measures will greatly improve the climate for

investment. We have been following recommendations here that were made

to us by the Amalgamated Construction Association of B.C. and the B.C.

Construction Association. The reduction of the holdback, I think, will

be generally approved by the industrial sector. It should also be

approved of by the labour sector. The information provided by the

Construction Association suggests that about $2 billion worth of work

in a normal year is possible from that industry. On this basis it's

estimated that a one-third reduction in the holdback could release as

much as $200 million or $300 million into the economy in advance of the

final completion of construction projects.

The bill also includes amendments that eliminate some of the minor

frustrations encountered by persons who use the Builders Lien Act.

These include the elimination of duplicate filing of lien claims in

court registries and land title offices, the use of personal service of

notices as an alternative to service by registered mail, and amendments

to clarify when a lis pendens needs to be filed and when the registrar

can cancel the lis pendens.

In short, Mr. Speaker, we believe that we have incorporated into the

Builders Lien Act the attributes of streamlining, effectiveness and

fairness, and that we have addressed one of the major problems that the

old act gave rise to and assisted the construction industry in doing

so. I have great honour in introducing the bill for second reading.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, everyone — the labour council, the

building trades contractors — agrees that the act needed to be changed,

upgraded and completely overhauled, so I don't think there is any

problem with that. Unfortunately, it's not as good as it could have

been. I just want to talk about some of the ways in which the act can

be improved in case the Attorney-General has an open mind on this

subject and may be willing to entertain some amendments.

Our first concern with the act is that it reduces the percentage of

the holdback. What that means is that under the original act it was

possible to hold back 15 percent of the money owing to a contractor

until one was completely sure that the job was satisfactorily

terminated and all of the subcontractors and everyone else had been

paid. This act lowers that amount to 10 percent. We believe the

holdback is the only kind of safety net or security that many small

subcontractors and employees have against non-payment from general

contractors. To the extent that less money is now going to be held

back, their protection is reduced as a direct result of this bill. I

think this is very unfortunate — certainly we do — coming as it does at

a time when more and more of the operators and contractors are

non-union, when they are perhaps a little bit less stable and less

dependable. If ever there was a time when subcontractors and employees

needed the protection of the holdback section, we think it is now. We

would be prepared to support the minister if he were willing to amend

the bill further to return to that 15 percent figure, because we think

it's really important. I notice that the Attorney-General is looking

up, Mr. Speaker; so I hope that means he is willing to take this into

account.

The problem, again, are the inequities created in the system when we

find that lower holdback there, which would not, in many instances,

cover in full any bills run up by the general contractor, either in

terms of employee wages or bills to his subcontractors. The fact that

we have in this province, unlike other provinces, a single holdback

system means that we need better safeguards and protection, because if

the one system doesn't work, if that breaks down, it means that your

subcontractors and employees are completely vulnerable; their safety

net is gone, and they have no recourse anywhere in terms of either lost

wages or lost payment for their goods and services. So I would like to

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the bill is not satisfactory in this area of

reducing the holdback from 15 percent to 10 percent.

The other suggestion which was made was that the holdback should be

held in trust. Apparently this was not accepted. I understand it was

opposed by the banks. In closing the debate, maybe the minister can

explain to us why there was not an insistence in this bill that the

money held back be placed in trust where it could accrue interest, if

nothing else.

Another concern we have is that when a lien is placed against a

building, the owner of that property is not notified. There is no

compulsion, either through legislation or any other means, to notify

the owner that a lien is about to be placed against that building, and

whether this is a satisfactory action.

There was a letter or some correspondence between the Attorney-General and Nicole Parton of the Sun

dealing with this particular issue. At that time the Attorney-General

responded that he was looking into this; he was anticipating a report

with some recommendations from the director, and he and his cabinet

colleagues would give full consideration to that report. The report

suggested that a filing fee should be charged for liens; secondly, that

liens should be held in a pending file until property owners are

notified to see whether there was a good cause; and thirdly, that a

copy of the lien should immediately be made to the property owners.

These are three very good recommendations. However, all of them failed

to show up in this particular piece of legislation. They are not on the

order paper, but I'm certainly hoping that tucked away in his waistcoat

somewhere the Attorney-General has some further amendments to this bill

which would in a positive way deal with these recommendations.

The coverage of rental suppliers which was requested has still not

been included in the legislation. To that effect, I have placed an

amendment on the order paper, which I certainly hope the government

will be willing to accept.

[ Page

4337 ]

[4:15]

1 notice that one of your colleagues, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member

for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), also has an excellent amendment, and I'm

hoping that that, too, will be accepted by the Attorney-General. I

think these two things would greatly enhance the bill and certainly

would make it work better for the people it's supposed to protect.

As it presently stands, it has earned the title of the Kerkhoff

amendment, because it doesn't really do anything for workers, for small

contractors or for building suppliers. It really only allows non-union

contractors to build into their contracts less protection for the

people who work for them or who do contracting jobs for them.

So I'm hoping that when the Attorney-General rises to close this

debate on second reading he will tell us that there are further

amendments and that the amendments will incorporate the ones on the

order paper submitted by me and by the member for Dewdney, as well as

the amendments which would have been incorporated in the

recommendations dealing with the notification of liens, the mailing of

notification to property owners and the filing of a fee prior to a lien

being placed against a building.

HON. MR. SMITH: The proposal of putting the holdback back to

15 percent is not acceptable. The purpose of the bill is to try to free

up funds that are now being held for a considerable period of time,

funds upon which interest is being paid and which are having the result

of increasing the cost of these jobs and also of increasing the price

that people who purchase space or rental accommodation are paying. All

of these things are affected by tying up major amounts of money.

According to the representations that we have had, in answer to the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds, and the studying my staff has done of this

over quite a period of time, you are not going to alter the position of

the tradesmen the member is speaking of under this bill. If the

protection is not adequate now — if that's what she believes — that

situation isn't going to be altered by a reduction from 15 percent to

10 percent. The small tradesman, regrettably, is not going to be

protected by hanging on to a 15 percent figure.

We also looked at proposals either to put the funds in trust or to

have a bonding alternative. We found that both those other alternatives

for dealing with this were fraught with additional problems, and

particularly fraught with problems under the scheme of the old act.

I don't pretend that what we've done here is any more than some

streamlining to make it a little more efficient and to free up the

funds by reducing the holdback. We haven't purported to address the

whole scheme of builders' liens. There are some who will argue in the

marketplace — and these are not bad employers, either — that the very

presence of lien provisions is a dubious protection, certainly under

the scheme of this old act. So I can't say that I'm satisfied with the

Builders Lien Act; I'm not. I do feel, though, that it was important

that we take some steps and do something with it. I am most receptive

to some further long-term overhaul of this legislation.

The member talks about the problem of non-notification for filing of

a lien. The theory, of course, is that the filing of the lien in the

registry is publication and notice to all. That's the legal theory of

it. The reality of it is that whenever someone files anything against

your property, whether a judgment or maybe a filing under the Wife's

Protection Act or lis pendens or anything, you are not aware of that

unless you do a search. You don't receive notification of that. To

build in a full notification system in the land registry system would

be a considerable step forward in documentation. I guess it would

always be an incomplete system, because you would have persons who had

moved, with new addresses. The theory of the registry has always been

that the notice to the person is the endorsement on the title, and that

is revealed by a search. I'm trying to think of occasions where notice

is given. I know one occasion is that if you're going to cancel some

kind of charge that a person is the holder of, notification is usually

given to the charge-holder that his charge is sought to be cancelled.

But owners don't get the notification that the member has been speaking

of. It would be a major step forward in administration and cost to

provide that. I know your point. I hear your point. Notification is

supposed to be filing; you just have an inkling that it's there unless

you go and search. More appropriately, you certainly know it's there

when you try to dispose of your property or try to raise some more

financing on it, take out a second mortgage or do any secondary

financing. You can't raise any of it until you've dealt with the lien,

then you've got to come into a court and pay the whole of the disputed

amount — those are usually the terms — in order to get that charge or

lien released. If the member can give me some long-term assistance on

how we should deal with builders' liens in the long term.... I tell you

that my head is perfectly open on this. I don't pretend that we've done

anything but made a start here. It's a good first step, but more needs

to be done. I think we need to look at an overhaul of the whole system.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 9, Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1984, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, earlier today

the government House Leader asked leave and received leave to proceed

to public bills and orders, which is where we are at the moment. I want

to submit to you that, having done that, we need to follow standing

order 25 and follow the orders of the day for today, which says that

the next item to be called after public bills and orders is private

bills, of which there are none listed on the order paper; the next item

following that is public bills in the hands of private members, of

which there are some. I submit that that's the way we should proceed,

in the orderly fashion. Once having proceeded this far into the order

paper, we need to take the next step and deal with private bills; there

being none, we then proceed to public bills in the hands of private

members.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's an interesting argument, and I've heard it before, hon. member, but Committee of Supply always has precedence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Committee of Supply takes precedence.

[ Page 4338 ]

MR. HOWARD: That's an interesting proposition put forward. I

put to you, Mr. Speaker, that the motion passed with respect to

Committee of Supply said that it shall take precedence over all other

business, except the introduction of bills and question period, until

disposed of. It has been earlier disposed of for the day by the

government House Leader, who asked leave to override it and proceed to

something else. The House gave him that leave — gave unanimous consent

to put Committee of Supply to one side, notwithstanding the motion that

we passed to that effect. Public bills in the hands of private members

is the next order of business.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: "Until disposed of, " hon. members, means

until the business of Committee of Supply is completed. The motion does

have precedence, and we call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 34: minister's office, $199,325.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I realize that a considerable

amount of debate took place on the the estimates of the Minister of

Health when unfortunately I was not able to be here. I hope that I will

not be repeating to the minister any questions that were asked before.

But I did take the opportunity to read some of his comments in Hansard , in reply to our other members, so I hope I won't be repeating any of those that were answered to our satisfaction.

There are a number of points I'd like to start off with, following

some of the comments made by the minister. The first one I'd like to

perhaps have an answer on is that the minister agrees, as we all do on

this side, that the enormity of the health bill is there facing all of

us, and we in the opposition would like to cooperate and offer some

constructive opinions to the minister on the matter of containing

health costs. At the same time we are very concerned that the moneys

which are being spent in this province on other projects could be

diverted into health. That does not mean, however, that we don't have a

responsibility to also suggest where we consider certain efficiencies

could be made. The minister stated that he did agree that efficiencies

could be made. He mentioned — very quickly, from what I can gather

there — that he has made changes in the management of hospitals, or

arranged for them. He said he was pleased with things like that. But it

didn't seem to me that there was any overall explanation of his

ministry's approach on these efficiencies.

My first question to the minister is to ask him about what he is

doing to create more extended-care facilities for our citizens and

thereby cut back on the use of acute-care beds for citizens who would

be far better served in, and would like to be in, extended care. I ask

that question of the minister because it seems to me that the Social

Credit government, which professes to be so concerned about restraint

in all matters, always seems to approve a number of capital

expenditures for hospitals prior to an election. We're all very pleased

to see more and more hospital beds being created, particularly when

there is a concern today about long waiting-lists to get in. But some

of these new capital expenditures have produced beds which are not even

open yet because not enough operating money has been provided to the

local hospital boards. I consider this a sort of reverse sense of

priorities. It seems to me that it would be far better for the minister

to concentrate on extended care. I'd like to know, first of all, just

what his plans are for the movement into more extended-care and fewer

acute-care beds at this time in the province of British Columbia. Also,

can he explain to us why some of the capital expenditures which he has

approved, and which have now created new hospital beds, don't have the

operating costs following along to make them active? Those are two

basic questions.

[4:30]

I would also like to comment on an answer he gave during the last

period of the Health estimates. He stated that he was very pleased with

some cooperation with medical practitioners to contain costs. Yet that

was just a blanket statement, Mr. Chairman. He gave no examples of the

discussions with the medical practitioners and what has come out of

them to work together to contain costs. I wonder if he could give us

some examples.

I would also like to ask him another question on the matter of

billing numbers. I realize that there was an amendment accepted for the

Canada Health Act regarding the right of the province to restrain the

issuance of billing numbers, pointing out that this right should not be

given to the provinces. I think the challenge has been given to the

provinces, particularly British Columbia, to find less authoritarian

methods of trying to deal with the inequity of distribution of doctors.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what he's planning to do about

that. Is it true that he has already moved fairly severe regulations in

the area of billing numbers through his ministry?

I have a considerable number of questions to ask, but I don't think

that at this time I should throw too much out at once. Perhaps the

minister would answer a few of those.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The emphasis on beds over the past number

of years has been to the non-acute area, be they extended-care beds or

intermediate-care beds. I don't have the precise number of beds which

have been opened over the last couple of years, but it would be in the

thousands with respect to intermediate care. That has been by far the

greatest growth area in institutions or hospital beds. We are

attempting to reduce the percentage of beds available for citizens in

the acute-care level on a per capita basis and include and expand our

extended or intermediate care. I think the member would appreciate that

frequently the patients who are in an extended-care facility or in an

intermediate may be very similar in their condition and their health.

The extended care is part of the hospital program, and extended care at

one time had a cost-sharing basis with the federal government.

Governments frequently chose to build extended-care facilities rather

than intermediate-care facilities because of the cost-sharing formula.

You wound up with facilities which could possibly have been built

elsewhere at lower cost and lower maintenance level than we have now.

As the member would know, we are also attempting to persuade and

encourage certain hospitals to reduce their number of acute-care beds

by changing over to extended-care facilities — the same beds but for

extended care. That has been accepted by a number of hospitals. I will

find the numbers, if they're important, with respect to how many have

actually been constructed over the past few years. A

[ Page

4339 ]

considerable number have. I know that I've opened

at least eight, possibly ten, intermediate-care facilities over that

period of time, which has seen the number of beds grow considerably. It

is important to recognize that intermediate- or extended-care beds do

not necessarily relate to lowering the use of acute care, because when

you open extended- or intermediate-care beds you are frequently dealing

with a different clientele. People who require the acute-care

facilities still require them. There is no question that there are some

people occupying acute-care beds who could be served in lesser

categories, such as extended or intermediate. It's a problem we're

faced with across the country, and we are attempting to come to grips

with it.

The member asked about efficiencies. We have undertaken over the

past couple of years — particularly last year — a program to invite

hospitals and other institutions in the province to come forward with

their thoughts with respect to amalgamations or consolidations. It is

not just the administrative costs we're looking at, because frequently

the savings at the administrative level are not necessarily that high.

What we are looking at is a cooperative spirit between different

facilities to utilize that which is available in a certain region in a

much more efficient manner.

The Vancouver area is the one that comes to mind most readily. We

have had discussions with hospitals in greater Vancouver, and others,

with respect to utilizing the facilities which are available. The

questions become very obvious. Should all of the hospitals be offering

the same service to the general population? Should some be specializing

in certain areas while others abandon that particular field? We've seen

that occurring where a hospital will specialize in a certain surgical

procedure or specialty, therefore amalgamating the staff — the

expertise — rather than having it spread too thin among too many

institutions.

We are also asking the Vancouver area hospitals to look very closely

to their emergency ward systems: whether it is necessary to have

emergency wards in almost every facility, or if it is better to

concentrate your emergency wards in fewer facilities with more staff,

equipment and expertise. That is one area where we believe there is

considerable saving to be had if we can lessen the duplication and

competition between hospitals. We feel there is no need for hospitals

to compete with each other, unless it is in the search for excellence;

there is no need to duplicate some of the available procedures.

Mr. Chairman, the extended- and intermediate-care question is very

well known and canvassed, and I think we're in complete agreement that

it is best to satisfy the needs of the patient at the level of care

which is required, rather than which is available, and we are working

toward that. We have had some interesting discussions with the B.C.

Health Association and individual hospitals about proper levels of

numbers of beds and so on. I don't know the precise dates, but as an

example, in the week of March 7 we had 1,115 vacant acute-care beds

which technically are open, a good number. It indicates that even with

as much attempt at management as you have, you are still going to have

a vacancy rate because the hospital bed may be available but the

patient is not in the locale and does not require that specific

treatment at that time,

whereas in other parts of the province there's

a shortage. We are trying to work that out, and we think we can do that

through hospitals' cooperating much more.

The member spoke about BCMA, and I mentioned earlier that they have been cooperating,

to some degree. My remarks probably meant in comparison with previous times.

The cooperation with the BCMA today has improved considerably,

compared with a couple of years back when there was a very bitter

battle raging. The BCMA has come a long way in working with the

ministry in trying to resolve some of the problems. The member asked

for some examples. It is not difficult to speak to an individual

physician — in fact, most of them are quite approachable and agreeable

— but as an organization and group there are sometimes minor

difficulties. Usually it comes down to the discussion of compensation;

frequently it comes down to talking about money and costs. Through the

patterns of practice committee and some of the other committees, the

BCMA have agreed with government on certain procedures, including

examining the billing practices of some of their members and some of

the fee schedules, and that is a continuing process. I am sure the

member would be interested to learn that one of the fee schedules, as

an example, was reviewed. We felt it was too high, we compared it with

what is paid in other provinces, and the BCMA agreed that it should be

adjusted down. That in itself does not represent a huge amount of

money, but it certainly represents the procedure we would like to see.

Certain fees paid to medical practitioners now were designed at a

time when the labour element was much greater than it is today because

of advances in technology, and we are asking them to take that into

consideration, particularly in laboratory procedures. Where at one time

you might have had a biologist working on a test in a time-consuming

manner, today it is done through a machine and duplicated many times

over, and yet the fee

schedule still suggests the manual labour aspect.

We are also asking the medical practitioners to examine the fee

schedules which are paid to them as specialists when much of the work

is done by a technician. We ask if it is justifiable to pay the full

professional and specialty fee when much of the work is done by a

person who is not a professional, from the medical point of view. We

are simply asking that now; we haven't insisted. They argue that indeed

it is justifiable, but we question that very seriously.

I don't have a copy of the Canada Health Act before me at the

moment. I may have one somewhere; I know I was very familiar with it

last week. It was suggested that the Canada Health Act was amended, and

it was suggested that the amendment would make it impossible for

provinces to limit billing numbers. Our analysis of that amendment

suggests that a province still can have the capacity to limit billing

numbers, even though, I understand, the MP who put the amendment

forward intended to block that. I don't think they've done it, and I

think the law would permit us to maintain some system of controlling

billing numbers.

I mentioned earlier that we have some agreement with the medical

profession about limiting billing numbers. I think philosophically they

are opposed to government interfering with anyone's ability to practise

medicine wherever he wishes. I think we agree with them that they

should be able to practise medicine wherever they wish, provided they

qualify. Where we don't agree is that they should be able to bill the

Medical Services Plan in the area of their choice. We argue that we are

simply overdoctored in certain areas of the province, and that means

excessive amounts of money being spent for what should be adequate

service to the community. But I think we can still come to an

agreement. We do have local manpower committees and a provincial

manpower committee, and they do review applications for billing

numbers. We must bring about some control over the numbers of doctors

located in certain areas of the province.

[ Page 4340 ]

[4:45]

The member would be interested to know that other provinces are

examining exactly the same question. In their major metropolitan areas

they have the same concern, and they are looking at limiting the number

of physicians who would be able to have a billing number in the plan

while practising in certain locations.

The great frustration, I suppose, with respect to spending and costs

in the health system is the open-endedness of the programs. I give

great credit to the hospital administrators and the boards, who over

the past couple of years have made great strides in containing costs.

We are hoping we can do the same on the medical practitioners' side. I

regret to advise the committee that the proposals we have put forward

to the professional organizations have not been totally embraced. There

has been some reluctance. But we have had good cooperation. We're no

longer at war; at least we can sit down and discuss matters when

permission is granted.

I hope I've covered most of those areas, and I'll try to get those precise numbers of beds which the member wishes.

MRS. DAILLY: I thank the minister for the detailed response. I have a few more questions to follow up on this.

The matter of the limiting of billing numbers: he mentioned, as he

had before, I believe, the manpower committee. My question is, who

makes up that committee? How is it appointed, and who makes that

decision? I can see if I were a young intern planning to practise I'd

be somewhat concerned if one of the senior doctors is going to be

completely in charge; not that the senior doctor is going to be

malicious or mean about it, but I do think there has to be a feeling of

fairness if you're even going to embark on this. That doesn't say that

I endorse the idea, actually. I think there should be other incentives

that could be used. But I would appreciate hearing who makes up the

billing committee.

I noted that when the minister was speaking in the estimates before

he made a very interesting statement. I'd like to read it back to him,

to get further comments. He said that the reduction in the number of

acute-care beds and the number of services provided had not fallen off

in the next year. That seemed to me a most interesting statement. The

minister has said that even after you have a reduction in acute-care

beds in a hospital, the services that go along and are provided haven't

fallen off. The services, in other words, stay the same. I was

wondering if the minister would not consider that a most interesting

thing for his ministry to follow up on. I wonder if they are intending

to do so. I would hope that if that is a fact, which the minister has

stated, his ministry would be interested in finding out the reason for

that.

The area I want to continue on and deal with is the matter of cost

efficiencies. I would like the minister to comment on why it appears

that under his ministry — not only under his ministry, but all that

Social Credit ministers have held — we have not seen any concerted

effort to try to encourage and move on the group health clinics. I know

you've talked about it before in the House, but when we're talking

about the need for efficiencies I always find it interesting that you

seem to jump over that aspect, which in our opinion is a very credible

way to deliver health services. The minister is well aware that the

doctors in these areas — most of them; not all of them — have been on

salary. The whole idea of cooperation in services and giving the nurse

the opportunity to work in a more highly skilled manner.... All of

these things, from what I've seen, appear to not only benefit the

patient but also, perhaps, help costs. I think it's been proven that

the group health clinics can produce equivalent services for l