1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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, SEPTEMBER 14, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9151 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Homeowner Interest Assistance Act (Bill 79). Hon. Mr. Brummet

Introduction and first reading –– 9151

Oral Questions

Employment development bonds. Mr. Stupich –– 9151

Jem Productions. Mrs. Dailly –– 9151

Sale of timber rights near Terrace. Mr. Howard –– 9152

Northeast coal. Mr. Leggatt –– 9152

Tabling Documents

Provincial Capital Commission balance sheet, March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 9154

Science Council of British Columbia annual report.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 9154

Universities Council of British Columbia annual report.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 9154

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

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 9154

Mrs. Dailly –– 9154

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 9158

Mr. Nicolson –– 9162

Mr. Ree –– 9165

Mr. Cocke –– 9167

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9172

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would like to welcome today my mother and her friends from Parksville, Mr. and Mrs. Hugh Lamont, who are here in the gallery.

Introduction of Bills

HOMEOWNER INTEREST ASSISTANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Brummet presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Homeowner Interest Assistance Act.

Bill

79 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT BONDS

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I started a series of questions to the Minister

of Finance about the employment development bonds — so that he knows

I'm still on that topic. Has the minister decided to table precise

estimates on the disposition of the bond proceeds and the financing of

the various interest subsidies and tax subsidies which go along with

this latest vote-buying venture?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Those details will be outlined in due course. A number of them relate

to future government policy and a number of matters have yet to be

finally resolved.

MR. STUPICH: I think we're getting close to the time when they will

be resolved.

When

this legislation was debated in the House, the minister agreed that the

funds could be used for northeast coal development as a job-development

program. Can the minister now confirm to the House that the funds

raised from the sale of bonds will indeed be used for the northeast

coal project?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I believe that that

reference was made among a number. I think the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) nods in agreement. It was one of several examples which was

identified. I would not want the official opposition to conclude,

however, that because it was used as an example the likelihood of that

activity is of any particular significance. The precise utilization of

those funds is to be determined. It has been determined in part by my

colleague the Minister of Human Resources and Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy), who is chairman of the employment committee. In addition,

Mr. Speaker, that also relates to future government policy.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to follow that up just briefly, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister assure the House today that none of the money raised from the

sale of these bonds from 1982-83 will be used for job-development programs in

connection with northeast coal development?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I would think that the answer would be that I could offer that

assurance. However, again that relates to future government policy. I

would refer the member to the long-standing rules in this House, and in

other Houses, with respect to questions in question period about

government policy that has yet to be finally developed.

JEM PRODUCTIONS

MRS. DAILLY:

My question is to the Provincial Secretary. Could the minister confirm

that a company involved in the production of six 15-minute television

films, paid for at taxpayers' expense, is one Jem Productions?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

That's an interesting question, on which I don't have the information

readily at hand. However, in view of the interest displayed by the

member for Burnaby North, I will take the question as notice. As soon

as I can get the information, I'll bring it back and satisfy the

member's curiosity.

MRS. DAILLY: This is a new

question, and I will preface it with the fact that the only information

on which the minister is correct is my riding. He doesn't yet seem to

know anything about his portfolio.

Would the minister confirm that Mr. David Brown, a former political adviser to the Premier, is a director of Jem Productions?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

That strikes me as being a supplementary question to a question taken

on notice. However, as I said a little earlier, the member is curious

about this particular matter, so I'll take her supplementary question.

Even though I appear to be out of order in accepting a question that is

out of order, nevertheless, I'll take that one as notice and bring back

the information as quickly as I possibly can.

MRS. DAILLY:

Would the minister file with the House the cost and details of the

contract between the provincial government and Jem Productions?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do you qualify that as a new question, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: It is a new question.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh. It strikes me as being a supplementary question to the first question.

I'll

be glad to look into that and see if there is a contract. I'm not aware

if there's a contract or not. I'll be glad to take the question as

notice and bring the information back as quickly as possible.

MRS. DAILLY:

Would the minister advise the House what the total cost of production

of the six 15-minute films and the two-minute films presently being put

together by Jem Productions will be?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Absolutely. I will.

[ Page 9152 ]

MRS. DAILLY: Would the minister advise the House what vote these productions will be charged against in the public accounts?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, with all due respect, I think that the

Chair has allowed a very wide latitude in what could be construed as

possible supplemental questions. I think at this time, since all of the

questions have been taken on notice....

MRS. DAILLY: I have one final supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: We'd have a new question....

MRS. DAILLY: Then I shall have a new one. Thank you.

Will

the Provincial Secretary assure this House that those films in which

David Brown, the former political adviser to the Premier, is involved

will not be used in Social Credit Party campaign films?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is yes.

SALE OF TIMBER RIGHTS NEAR TERRACE

MR. HOWARD:

I'd like to pose a question to the Minister of Forests. I'd ask the

minister if he can confirm that he the minister, consented in January

of this year to the sale by MacGillis and Gibbs Ltd., a company that

was in existence in Terrace, of harvesting rights to some 40,000 cubic

metres of the allowable annual cut timber in the Terrace area to

Whonnock Industries Ltd.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm

going to have to take that question as notice, because I can't recall

every consent and decision made by my ministry and by myself over the

years. I will make every effort to get back to the member as soon as I

can.

MR. HOWARD: Could I ask another question then, Mr. Speaker?

Can the minister confirm that the price paid for the sale of these harvesting rights — public property — was $900,000?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, since the question has already been taken

as notice, with the particulars explained, it would be very difficult

to pose that question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a

point of order, more and more we seem to be deviating from the practice

of the House on this matter of supplementary questions. In all the time

I've been here since question period was established — both the time I

was in opposition and since I've been a member of government — it has

been the practice of the House that there be no opportunity for

supplementary questions at the time a question is taken as notice. The

time for a supplementary question is when the question is answered in

the House. Then there's full opportunity for those supplementaries to

be asked.

Each time we deviate from the practices of the

House, which have been long established and well developed, we weaken

the opportunity for the House to function effectively. I'd like the

Speaker to take that question and perhaps come back to the House with a

ruling at some later time.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon. members, rather than go into the merits of the argument at this

time in question period, may we defer any further comments on this

until question period has concluded, at which time we may then pursue

it, in order that question period may be pursued to its fullest in the

House.

MR. HOWARD: Broadway Bob has still got his

brains in Times Square. I did not ask a supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker. I asked a specific question. Can the minister confirm that the

price paid for those harvesting rights — public property — was $900,000?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The question asked was taken as notice. This is quite obviously a

supplementary to that question. If the member is really interested in

seeking information, as is the purpose of question period, I can

certainly assist him. If he would like to bring me a list of those

questions he would like answered, I'd certainly dig out the information

and get it to him. I'm sure this information is also available through

normal ministry channels.

MR. HOWARD: It would be a waste of time directing any communication about forests to that minister. He obviously knows nothing about it.

the minister aware that one month after he consented to the sale of

those harvesting rights — I charge that he did this — MacGillis and

Gibbs Ltd. went into receivership, some 40 to 50 workers have lost

their jobs, and there is now no possibility of getting MacGillis and

Gibbs plant back into operation because there's no timber supply

available to them?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I have taken

the member's question as notice. I understand that question period is

not a time for members to make speeches, but rather a time to ask

questions on urgent matters about which they want information.

MR. HOWARD: It's also a time to receive answers, Mr. Speaker, a fact which seems to escape the minister.

Can

I ask the minister one other question then? Can he advise the House

with respect to the sale of those harvesting rights which he approved —

a sale for $900,000 — how much money was received by the Social Credit

Party?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member,

clearly the Chair is at a very real disadvantage when the member stands

on what appears to be a new question, which on reflection, I'm sure,

the member will realize bears much more similarity to a supplemental

than it does to a new question.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEGGATT: My

question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. First of all, would the minister finally confirm that the

government of British Columbia has decided to borrow all the funds

necessary for railroad construction on the northeast coal project? In

other words, has the pay-as-you-go promise got up and went? Will you

finally confirm to the House that we are borrowing for that Anzac line?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I would have to refer him to the Minister

[ Page 9153 ]

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is the fiscal agent for the British

Columbia Railway, that railway that is doing so much to create jobs in

this time of need in this great province of British Columbia.

MR. LEGGATT:

My next question is directed to the same minister. Earlier in this

session the minister went to great lengths to deny reports from Tokyo

that Japanese interests had obtained control of the Quintette mine in

the northeast coal project. Will the minister now confirm that the

Japanese have in fact obtained management control in Quintette, to the

effect that as much as a single truck additional to that contract

cannot be purchased without Japanese approval?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, you know, I wish that poor guy would get things straight once in a while. I did not deny that....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

What we were talking about and what the member was talking about.... He

was standing up trying to tell the public of British Columbia that the

steel industry of Japan would have control over the northeast project

in setting the price of coal. I had to spend a couple of weeks going

around the province, Mr. Speaker, just to tell people that the member

for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) was in error. Now he's got the whole

thing twisted around again. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I'm

glad that the Japanese steel industry, with its vast experience in

developing coal mines throughout the world, is taking a look at this

project, and certainly they are wanting to find out how much money is

being spent and where. So far as I'm concerned that's a good stamp of

approval in the international marketplace, because the Japanese steel

industry has vast experience in that area.

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, with respect to the points raised in question

period, Mr. Speaker, I was listening carefully to the questions and

there's been some objection taken by the treasury benches to Your

Honour's ruling on these questions, which has been, substantially, I

think, in the view of any right- and reasonable-thinking member of the

House, a correct view. The point is this: that a specific question

asked of a minister does not preclude a new question on the same topic

if it requires a separate answer and a separate piece of information.

It could well be, for example, that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) could not remember giving direct consent or approval and has

to look up his notes. On the other hand, he may well have known the

full contract price for the sale of the timber rights. The minister did

not claim to be completely ignorant of the transaction, and therefore

the Speaker was quite correct in ruling that it was not a supplemental

question but indeed a new question.

It seems to me — and

this is why I stand at this time to continue the point of order — that

the ministers, knowing full well that an election is forthcoming, are

taking questions on notice, knowing that they will never be required to

come up with the answers before the electorate has had a chance to deal

with them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has made his

point. Again, I'm sure we're all aware of the responsibility we have to

follow our standing orders and, of course, the precedents that guide

us. I commend that highly to all members.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, the only way I can get the floor is on a point of order to

ask leave of the House to table a copy of a letter that I wrote on July

29, 1982, to your predecessor relating to procedural matters in the

House.

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT:

Yesterday, dealing with the emergency debate, Mr. Speaker, I asked the

Speaker to give a ruling on the emergency debate that I presented to

the House on the serious unemployment in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope to have that later in the day, hon. member.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

On a point of order concerning the issue raised in question period

today, Mr. Speaker, I commend to you the ruling of Speaker Schroeder on

June 30, 1982, to be found on page 2 of theVotes and Proceedings for

that day: "...as a proper supplementary question seeks clarification or

explanation of an answer already given, there cannot be a question

supplementary to a question taken on notice."

So the issue

you will have to face, Mr. Speaker, is whether it is a new question or

a supplementary question. The fact that a member on either side of the

House phrases a question without using the word "supplementary" does

not in itself mean it is not a supplementary question.

MR. HOWARD: Could I deal with that point of order? I want to raise a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, clearly, we seem to be passing into a debate situation

more than points of order. The member has already raised one point of

order and another point of order has been responded to.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I submit to you that the point of

order raised by the government House Leader, with his affected accent,

does not properly reflect the facts that occurred during question

period. I want to reiterate them to Your Honour when you're considering

this matter.

My first question related to an action of the

minister. The second question, which was not supplemental, related to

whether he had knowledge of what was done by two parties outside the

jurisdiction of his ministry. They're two separate things. The third

question, which was not a supplementary, had to do with whether he was

aware that the result of anything that may have taken place before,

which he consented to, resulted in driving 40 to 50 people out of work

and denying them any future opportunities.

MR. SPEAKER:

Let us not canvass the discussion again. The member was permitted to

raise those questions. Again, the Chair is at some disadvantage when a

member indicates that he is going to rise on a new question. The Chair

would appreciate the consideration of all members, when they direct a

question, that it not be a supplemental.

[ Page 9154 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in order to help you keep the House....

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point of order, hon. member?

MR. COCKE:

This is a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. It's a point of order

with respect to the decorum of members in our House. When the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), referring to my colleague, says "what an

animal," I think it's time this House somehow or other gets back to

work in terms of the government and their....

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the balance sheet of the Provincial Capital Commission for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982.

Hon.

Mr. McGeer tabled the fourth annual report of the Science Council of

British Columbia and the eighth annual report of the Universities

Council of British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 80, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued)

HON. MR. CHABOT:

This morning, just prior to moving second reading of Bill 80, the

Constitution Amendment Act, 1982, a great deal of agitation appeared to

be emanating from the opposition. A number of interruptions were taking

place, and they seemed very agitated about this piece of legislation.

Before

being interrupted — the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) would say "so

rudely interrupted" — I was saying that you cannot put a price on fair

representation or the right of individuals to voice their opinions at

the ballot box. Bill 80, being presented here, offers short- and

long-term solutions to the question of equitable representation in this

province. The recommendations of Mr. Warren's commission give this

Legislature the chance to move British Columbia forward; and anyone who

votes against this bill will be denying British Columbians their voice

in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MRS. DAILLY: First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on your ascension to that position.

The

stench that is emanating from this bill is simply overpowering in this

chamber. This bill has been brought to this House by a dying

government. This government is dying and won't accept the fact that,

with the public of B.C., they are finished. Through this gerrymandering

bill they are attempting to perpetuate themselves in power.

The NDP opposition want to give fair warning to the Social Credit government

and the Social Credit Party that the people of B.C. have had enough of you

and your corruption.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. Again I must caution all members that

parliamentary language in the heat of debate always tends to be a

little more volatile. I would ask the member whether upon reflection

she might wish to withdraw that particular remark.

MRS. DAILLY:

It is going to be very difficult for me as the leadoff speaker and for

my members who are going to follow me to try to couch our debate in

what you would call decent terms, because we're dealing with an

indecent government.

MR . SPEAKER: Nevertheless, hon. member, I must ask that the term "corruption" be withdrawn in its connotation.

MR. COCKE:

On a point of order, in all practice and precedent in this House when

referring to either a political party or a group there has never been

any discussion or interruption from the Speaker with respect to terms

such as the member enunciated; when it refers to an individual it's an

entirely different proposition. But when it refers to a group it's

quite legitimate, I suggest.

MR. SPEAKER: I

appreciate the comment by the member who has just risen. Nevertheless

when that term is brought to bear on the government, it includes

members, and as such there is a varying difference. We must appreciate

the fact that we have rules that guide us in this chamber. With the

has the ability to express herself in terms that are acceptable in the

parliamentary method.

MRS. DAILLY: There is

corruption in this province. It is a form of political corruption which

we have had placed upon us in this Legislature by the Social Credit

government. It is through this bill that I intend to bring forward to

this House.... In time the official opposition will bring forward to

every citizen in British Columbia what is being brought forward by a

government which, as I said, will not accept the fact that their days

are numbered. In their desperation to perpetuate themselves in office

they have decided that the only way they can do it is by bringing

forward to this House a bill that is the ultimate in gerrymandering.

But,

you know, Mr. Speaker, if I may take you and the members of this House

back in history, we should not be shocked or surprised that the Social

Credit government is indulging in this reprehensible manner of dealing

with constitutional reform. We have just to look at the history. In

fact, we can go back to the 1952 election, just prior to Social

Credit's coming in, when the Liberals, the Conservatives and the

beginning of the Social Credit government were on the scene in British

Columbia. May I take you back to that period and show you the kind of

history of this province that we hoped we were finished with? Instead,

in 1982 we find a government that is becoming the champion of

gerrymandering, not only in Canada but in the whole continent of North

America. Two cases by one government of gerrymandering.

There's

no question in our minds, before I go into the history of what has

happened to this province, that the Eckardt report was gerrymandering

and that Gracie's Finger was premeditated. It became such an

embarrassment to this government that they had to withdraw it — but not

because they believed it was wrong, not because the Deputy Premier

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) would accept the fact that it was a total

embarrassment. They only withdrew it under the heat of political

pressure.

I want to take you back and show you what the NDP,

and formerly the CCF, have had to put up with, as well as the people of

British Columbia. When you try to make the opposition the victims of

gerrymandering, you are insulting

[ Page 9155 ]

every

citizen in British Columbia. Just prior to the 1952 election, the

Liberal administration.... I thought this would be of particular

interest to the Liberals who sit on that side of the House couched in a

cloak of...what shall we call it? We don't know what the Social Credit

is.

Just prior to 1952, the Liberal administration in

British Columbia, with the support of Conservative members, passed

legislation which established a preferential voting procedure

throughout the province. Do you know the purpose of this reform? It was

to facilitate the election of a free enterprise government and

foreclose the possibility of the election of a CCF government. What has

changed? In 1952, the purpose of that government was to do anything

they could to keep out the CCE. In 1982, we are faced with a dying

government that is desperately once again trying to keep the NDP from

power. They can't do it by their ideas, they can't do it by their

policies, so they are going to use political corruption to keep us out.

Those

of us who have studied B.C. history are aware of what happened — the

CCF was kept out of power. The interesting thing is that in 1953 we

again have a B.C. election, but this time the Social Credit candidates

actually obtained a plurality, despite the preferential. So the Premier

at that time — Premier Bennett Sr. — naturally decided to abolish

preferential voting and return to the single plurality, because it was

going to benefit his government and his party.

Then we move

to 1966 and another opportunity for a government to have a change in

boundaries, and look what happened. There was an editorial in the Province for Thursday, February 17, 1966, entitled "Mr. Bennett's Margin of Safety:"

"So Premier Bennett just couldn't resist tampering

with the Angus royal commission's plan for redistribution. What a pity.

It's puzzling too, isn't it? Does Premier Bennett really think the

possible margin of safety afforded by retaining a couple of

government-oriented northern ridings is worth inviting opposition cries

of political meddling and gerrymandering?"

It's history repeating itself.

Then

we come to 1978, a Social Credit government again. In the meantime, the

NDP appointed a three-person commission. I want to remind the House

that the NDP has been asking for, and I personally have moved

amendments asking for, an electoral reform in this province, which this

Social Credit government does not want to touch because they want to

have the opportunity to manipulate election reform in this province.

What's

really interesting, Mr. Speaker, are the two reports I have in my hand

here. Most of us received them today. You'd think they were both

Warren's report, wouldn't you? Well, as a matter of fact, one is

Warren's report. Guess what the other one is. The other one is

Eckardt's report. Both bound the same. What a farce! Why didn't you

just put on it "The Social Credit Party Election Reform"? What's the

difference?

Here is a government that picks its own person —

one person — in the case of Judge Eckardt, a former Social Credit

candidate, to rearrange the seats in British Columbia. And what did

Judge Eckardt do?

MS. BROWN: Don't call him a judge.

MRS. DAILLY:

Whatever his name was at the time. Well, Judge Eckardt. What did he do?

He eliminated three NDP seats. Imagine that! I can't understand that.

One person appointed by the Social Credit government and what does he

do? He comes up and he eliminates three NDP seats. It's a very strange

coincidence.

What's even stranger, Mr. Speaker, is when

you read — if I can find it here — what Judge Eckardt used as his

rationale for doing what he did in eliminating the three seats. If you

can bear with me, I'll just find that particular item. What he did — in

the meantime, I think I can pretty well remember it — is that he

decided — and now I've found it, Mr. Speaker.... I want to read you a

quote from Eckardt just to show you how this Social Credit government

used these reports to manipulate the seats in their favour. Judge

Eckardt said:

"It's necessary in a parliamentary system 'to have

a relatively intimate atmosphere.' It is disruptive if you cannot see the

colour of the eyes of those on the other side of the floor, let alone the colour

of the shirt of the fellow" — how do you like that one? — "in the

corner of the room. You pay attention to the people you know. You tend to ignore

the people you only know by name or reputation."

And so it goes on. That folksy little statement there is the basis for Judge

Eckardt deciding that he shouldn't increase seats at that time, but instead

should eliminate them.

The

only other fact behind the elimination of three NDP seats was: "We are

concerned that this chamber could not afford to physically hold any

more seats." Now we know the basis upon which hundreds of thousands of

dollars of taxpayers' money are spent by the government to produce an

electoral reform that will just try to perpetuate them in power.

Judge Eckardt, on the basis of our not being able to see the colour of

each other's eyes across the floor, decided that he couldn't enlarge

this House. Do you know why? Because the Social Credit government at

that time was worried about those three seats. They were held by strong

NDP members, so they wanted them eliminated. And eliminate them they

did. But the people of B.C. were not fooled: they still elected those

three members from the NDP. And they won't be fooled with this report.

Therefore the government of that time — the same government that sits

over there now — in 1978 used the colour of the eyes and the fact this

chamber isn't big enough to eliminate three members from NDP ridings.

what happens? They then appoint another one-person commission, even

over the objections of the commissioner whom they appointed. And what

comes out of that? The complete reverse. This time they're not worried

about whether this chamber can hold enough seats or not. It's not

concerning them at all. They're not worried about the colour of the

eyes that we can't see across the floor. What they're seeing is: "Oh,

we've got a couple of little ridings" — in size and population, that is

— "such as Cariboo and Peace River. Do you know, they always go Socred.

The time has come for us to double the seats there so we can maintain

Social Credit in, those ridings." So in 1978 it's obvious Eckardt was

told to eliminate on the basis of the colour of eyes in this chamber;

and then in 1982, again, we have the government manipulating and

increasing the seats in Social Credit ridings.

Mr. Speaker,

how can those members, who are supposed to be honourable members of

this Legislature, sit there and be part of a plot and a plan by their,

whoever it is, government? You're all responsible; you're all part of

it. How can you sit there and allow yourselves to be part of a plan

that is not right,

[ Page 9156 ]

that is reprehensible, that is unethical and that is politically corrupt?

are debating this important bill and the Premier of this government is

not even in the House. He is out electioneering — preparing for the

election. Even though he's out there announcing programs, those

programs are so weak that he still has to ensure his government; he has

to manipulate electoral reform in this province to try to ensure their

seats. They are so unsure of winning on whatever their policies are

that they won't leave this chamber until they can manipulate the

change. Let me tell you, you won't leave this chamber easily. The NDP

opposition intends to make sure that the people of this province know

what a reprehensible, unethical government is in power in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, the interesting thing is that the things I'm discussing today

with you have been completely backed up and endorsed by people who are

in no way, shape or form NDP advocates. In that light, I would like to

point out to you some of the recent comments that have been made in

some very conservative journals about the possibility of this Social

Credit government going so far as to manipulate electoral reform in

this province for their own purposes. Some of their own members are

shocked. I can't understand how some of those so-called honourable

members can sit there throughout this debate and not say: "Look, we've

had enough. We can't be part of it." Does power mean so much to the

Social Credit government that you want to corrupt the whole political

process of this province? What an example to set for the young people

of this province, who are cynical enough today about politics. Now

they're going to find out that the government that has been in power in

this province for seven years has maintained itself and is trying to

maintain itself in power again by manipulating and changing the rules

of the game to suit its purpose.

We have the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) piously talking about wanting to get

schools back to the values, and religion back in the classroom. I say

let's bring some Christian ethics right here onto the floor of this

House. In the same Christian ethic, I want to make it clear that all

the other religions and their values would be welcomed here, if this

House could be based on those values. So that is really hypocrisy

coming from that Minister of Education. Set the example, but don't go

around this province speaking out of both sides of your mouths.

Even the Vancouver Province ,

September 9, 1982, said: "One Riding, One Member. "Electoral Reform

Commissioner Warren's plan for six more two-member ridings and one

three-member riding in B.C. is a poor stopgap measure.... Multi-member

ridings tend to stay around in B.C. once they're in place...." They go

on to point out how they are not really fair because the party that is

in power in that riding usually maintains and perpetuates itself. It is

pretty obvious what the Social Credit government is doing. They know

it's wrong to perpetuate multi-member ridings, but if it will get them

elected, they're going to do it. This whole government never bases

itself on what is right ethically. What they are doing is: "What can we

do to keep in power?" What price power! To listen to the new Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) talking about the values of democracy and

what price on a seat.... How can he sit there when he knows that if the

Warren commission followed its own mathematical formula his seat

wouldn't even be in this House any more? We hope that when he closes

the debate, if he wants to get into the rationale of that, he will

explain to us why he is still going to be sitting here if he manages to

get elected. I will tell you, if you try to go out on the hustings with

this kind of political corruption, you are finished.

The

point is that the Social Credit government is attempting to rationalize

the acceptance of the multi-ridings in Social Credit areas....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Step outside and say that, big mouth!

MR. BARNES: You go out. I'll tell you outside.

MS. BROWN: Pick on someone your own size!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. The member for Burnaby North has the

floor. It is her right to be heard uninterrupted. It seems most

illogical that we're talking about democracy and are not even allowing

a member who has taken her place on the floor of this chamber to say

what she has to say. I ask members to bear that in mind and permit the

member to carry on, as is her right. It is our responsibility to hear

her.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I

just hope you will accept the fact that this debate will be emotionally

charged. There is no way we can avoid it. We'll attempt to keep within

the bounds of the rules of this House. But you know, Mr. Speaker, we

don't have a very good example. We're asked to keep within the bounds

on the floor of this House, but that government changes the rules for

their own election purposes. Two wrongs don't make a right. I know that

if the NDP fall into this same politically corrupt manner of the Social

Credit government, there's no hope for this province. Some party has a

responsibility to point out to the public of B.C. what is being done to

them by the Social Credit government.

In the Province

editorial of September 9 it was stated: "There's no question that some

ridings" may need larger seats, but "correcting such imbalances is an

ongoing practice in a province as large as B.C.... The imbalances

should be corrected in ways that do as little harm as possible to the

ideals of ballot-box democracy. Multi-member ridings do more harm than

good." Here is theVancouver Province , which is not noted to be

a political supporter of the NDP, coming out and expressing their

concern about ballot-box democracy. That's what it's all about.

The Province goes on to say:

"The

citizen in a two-member riding has two votes while those in others

merely have one. Furthermore, multi-member representation favours the

party strong in those ridings, and in this case the Socreds must be

gleefully rubbing their hands. If the traditional form prevails they

can pick up five or six more comfortable seats. Mr. Warren may have had

little option under the government's terms of reference...."

That's

interesting. There's almost an implication here that there was some

direction. The NDP is not afraid to come right out and say that that

report was manipulated by the Social Credit government.

[ Page 9157 ]

Then

Mr. Warren goes on to say that all these ridings should be abolished.

It's almost ridiculous when you have a man who makes some very strong,

cogent arguments against everything that he ends up recommending. It's

unbelievable. One is certainly led to question whose hand may have been

involved in the final decision on recommendations.

I mentioned the Vancouver Province . The Vancouver Sun

of September 9 also expressed concern and shock that ridings such as

Cariboo and North Peace River should have an extra member. They said it

has been

"recommended on the basis of a

mathematical formula that has absolutely no relevance to the needs of

either the constituents or their representatives. Mr. Warren might as

well have awarded another seat to the riding with the most lakes, the

most mountains or the most dogwood trees. By using a geographical ruler

to put two Social Credit ridings ahead of other areas...."

Let

me point out that there are nine other ridings that are larger in

population than these two ridings that magically were selected to be

increased. But the interesting thing is that the majority of those are

NDP-held. "Mr. Warren destroyed his own credibility and opened a

political Pandora's box that will make the Gracie's Finger wrangle

seemed like a high school debate." This is from the Vancouver Sun :

"The Social Credit Party is probably overjoyed with Mr. Warren's

report. But before acting on it the government should carefully

consider one thing." It goes on to point out to them the cost of the

seats, etc. Here again we have the Premier speaking out of both sides

of his mouth. He's telling everyone to pull in their belts, but at the

same time he's saying he really feels sorry for the MLA for Cariboo and

the one for Peace River. They need more help, so let's give another

$650,000 to create those new seats at a time of restraint.

don't care if the Provincial Secretary wants to say the NDP puts a

price on democracy. We put a price on justice and proper electoral

reform in this province, and on honesty. That's what we put a price on

— above all, honesty. How that Provincial Secretary can sit there and

present this bill and try to rationalize it.... I want to assure him

that there's no way the people of this province can accept this bill. I

assure you that if you intend to ram this bill through before the next

election you are going to regret it. The people of B.C. do put a price

on democracy; they put a strong price. They want their political

leaders to have some form of political morality, integrity and honesty.

If you persist in bringing in this bill, you do not have political

morality, you do not have honesty, and you are suggesting to the people

of this province that you are politically corrupt.

Back

again to Gracie's Finger. That, of course, was one of the most overt

signs of an attempt by this government, who were just a little bit

afraid that they might not get those two members elected from

Vancouver–Little Mountain, so they took the chance. They don't do any

subtle gerrymandering. There's nothing subtle, nothing silent, about

the gerrymandering by the Social Credit government. Do you know why?

Because there's a basic arrogance in the Social Credit government that

they think they can get away with it. They think the people of B.C. are

so busy with economic problems right now, what are they going to care

about a few little seats being changed here and there? Let me tell you,

when you underestimate the political standards and ethics of the

citizens of B.C., you don't belong in office.

You know, Mr.

Warren collected over $400 a day. I could be corrected, but I

understand it cost about $2.5 million for this whole exercise. Is that

correct? Whatever it was, we know it was a considerable sum of money

that would mean a lot to people who are out of work today. Whatever the

total came to you can correct me. What I'm saying is: what a waste of

money!

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: All

right, so you can correct me on the figures, Mr. Provincial Secretary.

Apparently that's the only argument you're going to have with me, that

you can disagree with me on the cost. Whatever the cost is — I don't

care if it's ten cents or a hundred thousand dollars — it was a

complete waste of money. You used the taxpayers' money to manipulate

yourselves into what you think will be power again. Let me tell you,

from your point of view, it is going to be a waste.

When we

again go through the fact that Mr. Warren, in bringing out his

recommendations, ignored his own formula completely.... By the way, Mr.

Speaker, while I'm on my feet, I just recall the two and a half million

dollars which I know Mr. Provincial Secretary will come back with,

referred to, I think, the total cost of something other than the

redistribution by Mr. Warren. Is that correct, Mr. Provincial

Secretary? We'll hear from you later on that.

The matter of

the cost of this has been questioned by a number of people in the

province at this time. They look at it this way: they say, if you're

going to have redistribution why should it not be done properly? What

was the great haste to rush this redistribution program in? In the

dying hours of the session we find that Mr. Warren is appointed. Two

and a half months later Mr. Warren brings in a report. All of a sudden

we are all rushed back into the Legislature under the presumption by

the people of B.C. that the Premier of this province has some

legislation that has to do with the economy to be brought forward here

this week. Isn't it interesting that the only legislation that we're

dealing with at the moment is on this electoral reform, which I want to

point out again apparently is the whole reason for this exercise here

this week.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Somebody says "tommyrot."

Where

is the Premier today? He's not making his new announcements on the

floor of this Legislature where he should be. He's making them outside

as the start for his political campaign coming up. He can't even face

the members of this House. He has to go out and do a big PR hype job.

We and all his little army, including that new Provincial Secretary,

are left here to attempt to defend the worst manipulation and

gerrymandering this province has ever seen, while the Premier is

outside hoping that he can get some PR and divert the public's

attention from what's really going on here in this province.

do know that the people of B.C. are concerned about the economy. The

very fact that the Social Credit government has had to manipulate

electoral reform in this province, I repeat, shows that they don't have

the answers. They're afraid to go to the polls, so the only way they

can go to the polls is by gerrymandering. It's pretty reprehensible

that the people of B.C. are going to have a chance to judge what they

think of a government that is so devoid of policies on which they can

win an election that they have to manipulate and create multiple

ridings in Social Credit ridings.

[ Page 9158 ]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

editorials that have come out and the hot-line moderators, many of whom

we know are certainly not NDP supporters, have expressed almost shock

and dismay at the fact that even their government, or the government

which they may support, would be so blatantly unconcerned about ramming

through an electoral reform for their own political, crass purposes. I

think that when you find that some of your own supporters are

concerned, it's about time you looked at yourselves. I think it's about

time that you should say to yourselves that perhaps it is true that

power does corrupt.

Some of you have been sitting in those

offices as cabinet ministers for seven years now. Obviously you've

become out of touch with some very basic, decent standards that should

exist in our society. You have become so obsessed, apparently, with the

power of your ministerial responsibilities that you don't want to give

them up fairly. Instead, it has become necessary to rig the rules of

the game and enter into the next campaign based on political

manipulation.

We could go through report on report,

editorial upon editorial, which points out that there is no rational

reason for the acceptance by any government of a report that is so

hastily drawn and so blatantly geared to the ensuring the Social Credit

government's re-election. I want to point out again that we have two

blue copies here; one is the Eckardt report and the other is the Warren

report. All I can say is, that you're not very subtle about many

things, so why don't you come right out in the open and simply entitle

these reports "the Social Credit Party reform bill"? That's what it is.

There

are a great number of speakers in the NDP official opposition who want

to take

part in what we consider the most important debate that has

taken place in this province in many years, because what is at stake

here is the survival of honesty and decency in government. If those

members over there and that Provincial Secretary put this bill through,

I can assure you, you're not going to win on it. But even in presenting

it in this House, as I said at the beginning of my speech, you have

created an odour in this chamber that is going to take a long time to

remove. It is a stench that will take many, many years to remove. You

have done irreparable damage to government and to your positions here

as legislators by presenting this gerrymandering bill.

I say

to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Social Credit government: stand up and

show some shame. Show that you understand that you are destroying the

principles of freedom and democracy in this province if you persist in

putting through this, what I would have to call, totalitarian,

centralized, manipulative bill. Democracy is at stake if this bill

passes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: With respect to the bill

before us, and the report which produced the bill known as the Warren

commission report, to which the member who just took her seat referred

several times, and the information which was contained within that

report, and a few comments about the recommendations made by

Commissioner Warren with respect to increased representation by MLAs in

the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.... The report, as

produced by Mr. Warren and his staff, described the population shifts

in the province of British Columbia, along with reference to

geographical features by way of square miles in the existing

constituencies of the province. The reference to population along with

square miles seems to have been considered by previous commissions with

respect to equitable representation within this Legislative Assembly.

Mr.

Speaker, Commissioner Warren mentioned in his report that it was not

his intention to make boundary changes, with that one noted exception

in the Little Mountain riding. The members who have discussed this

matter in the House, either in this debate or in previous debates by

way of points of order, or other methods whereby they have obtained the

floor, have made reference to the report as "sleazy," "corrupt, " and

the member for Burnaby had some new phrases she tossed in. I ask the

members to consider some of the recommendations made and to also

consider who was making the comments with respect to this report, which

they believe to be a great threat to democracy within our province.

The

member for Victoria commented today about this report — how

unacceptable it is and so on. It's worth noting that Victoria, with a

population of 79,000 people, has two members in this assembly — 79,000

citizens in Victoria, with two members. That 79,000 comes close to the

average within the metropolitan areas of Vancouver and Victoria; in

Vancouver it's about 42,000 per member, and it's somewhat less, but

similar, in Victoria. So here we have a member for Victoria complaining

that we shouldn't add more members, but he didn't suggest Victoria

should have fewer members with its 79,000 population. Two members for

Victoria. Do we take into consideration the geography of Victoria — 11

square miles? So geography is apparently not a consideration the

commissioner would have taken into consideration.

constituency is Richmond. It is not a large constituency

geographically; it's only 50 square miles. One member for Richmond,

with a population of 96,000 people and growing very rapidly — 96,000

people in 1982. The population in my constituency of Richmond, with one

member, exceeds the population of Vancouver East, Vancouver Centre,

Vancouver South, Vancouver–Little Mountain and Victoria, all of which

have two members. I would suggest that if members in this House are

saying that this report, which they refer to as corrupt and sleazy and

everything else.... If they're suggesting that the recommendation

contained in that report that the constituency of Richmond, with 96,000

people, for some twisted socialist reason....

MR. COCKE: It was your commissioner that created that situation.

MR. KEMPF: Keep your mouth shut for a moment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) not to interrupt.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, if these socialists are suggesting that the 96,000 people

in Richmond somehow do not deserve two representatives to serve their

needs in this constituency in this assembly, but yet can support two

representatives from their ridings of Vancouver East and Victoria, and

if they somehow believe that the city of Vancouver requires all this

representation and that's okay, I can't understand it. Nor can the

people of Richmond including the NDP association in Richmond which

recommended to the commissioner that there be two seats. In fact, all

of the submissions from Richmond were almost the same — from all sides.

[ Page 9159 ]

Richmond, with 96,000 in population and growing, is certainly in line for two seats, as recommended by commissioner Warren.

Some

of the members opposite who have been making so much noise.... If you

look at the numbers, New Westminster, as an example, has a population

of 38,000. That's about the average. New Westminster is not a large

geographic area. Nelson-Creston, with one member, has 39,000. That's

about average throughout the province.

Apparently

Commissioner Warren and his mathematicians and statisticians and the

rest of them decided to take two matters into consideration:

population, population growth and geography. If you look at the list of

population you'll find Surrey the largest with 161,000 people and

growing. The commission provided an additional member. Richmond, with

96,000, gets an additional member. Vancouver East, Vancouver Centre,

Vancouver South, Little Mountain and Victoria already have two. The

next largest population centre was Okanagan South, with 78,000 people,

and the commissioner recommended two seats in a 1,100-square-mile

constituency — by interior standards, it's relatively small. Kamloops

was the next one, with 77,000. That's almost as large in population as

eleven- square-mile Victoria, but this opposition party would say the

people in Kamloops should be denied a second member, even though they

have 2,000 less than Victoria. But because Victoria is held by the NDP

and has two seats, and Kamloops is not held by the NDP, it's a sleazy

report and should not be adopted. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly) said it destroys democracy. The member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) says right on. The people in Kamloops and the people in

Richmond, according to the opposition, the citizens, are unworthy of

equitable representation in numbers in this House, according to them.

They talk about manipulation and they talk about democracy and the rest

of their jargon that's so easy to throw around. They think they

invented democracy. That's why they changed the name of their party to

the New Democratic Party — because somebody suddenly discovered what

they believed to be democracy.

It's good enough to have

79,000 population in an 11-square-mile constituency of Victoria and

have two members. That's okay, but it's wrong to have two members for

77,000 population in Kamloops with 8,000 square miles and several

communities — not the nice little precincts in Victoria. Two members

are okay in Victoria, but don't put two members in Kamloops. The growth

areas of British Columbia at this time are represented by Social Credit

members for a good reason: people who grow are people who are positive.

Those areas of the province which are positive and are growing support

the Social Credit Party.

The eleventh area of population in

the provincial constituencies is Delta with 74,000 — same discussion,

same argument. Delta's not that large geographically, with 73 square

miles. What's the population? Seventy-four thousand. It's okay to have

two members in Victoria, but it's wrong to have two members in Delta

with 74,000 people and a somewhat larger geographic area. Delta happens

to be represented by Social Credit, therefore it's wrong, it's

undemocratic and it's sleazy, and it continues on. We find Cariboo,

with 61,000 people, which is below these others of 77,000 and 75,000.

But as I mentioned, the commissioner's report took geography into

consideration in its balance and formula. Cariboo is 34,000 square

miles and has many centres of population.

MR. COCKE: And 31,000 registered voters.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The member for New Westminster makes a very good point about registered

voters. The member for New Westminster presumes, I presume, that a

person who is not a registered voter is not a constituent. I presume

that if you have young children in a constituency in a growth area,

such Richmond or or Delta or Surrey, the MLA doesn't represent them

because they're not registered voters; therefore they should not be

represented. We go by population, people's needs — individuals,

registered or not. The member can argue that all he wants. He can call

it sleazy, and the rest of that group can call it sleazy. Believe me,

I'm sure they are very familiar with that word.

The

designated speaker from Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) read some newspaper

articles. If there's one thing all of us in this chamber know, it's

that newspapers always have all the answers after the fact. When Mr.

Warren was holding his commission hearings throughout this province, I

didn't see those newspapers produce their formula and their answer.

Once something is printed, it's easy to take it apart. Any report is

easy to take apart. The Vancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun

have all the answers. Ever since John Fryer said, "Hey, we like your

idea," they were anointed. They now have all the answers to all

questions. Of course, the difference is that neither theVancouver Province nor the Vancouver Sun was asked to bring in a report. Commissioner Warren was asked to bring in a report — and he did.

was suggested that Surrey, with a population of 161,000 people, have a

third member; Richmond, with 96,000 people, have two members; Okanagan

South, with 78,000 people, two members; Kamloops with 77,000 people and

8,000 square miles, two members; Delta, with 74,000 people and 73

square miles, two members; Cariboo, with 61,000 people and 34,000

square miles, and North Peace River, with 31,000 people and 62,000

square miles.... But because most of these areas are represented by the

Social Credit Party, it's undemocratic. It's okay to have Vancouver

East, with 89,000 people and nine square miles, have two members. It's

okay to have Victoria, with 79,000 people and 11 square miles, have two

members. Apparently that's not undemocratic; it's New Democratic. It's

okay to have one member in Burnaby North for 51,000 people. Why

shouldn't Richmond be equally pleased to have one member with 96,000

people? It's all right for Burnaby-Edmonds to have one at 40,000:

that's about 47 percent of Richmond's population. Burnaby-Willingdon,

with 43,000 — that's all right. That's about average for the

metropolitan area. Richmond is not average. It has in excess of double

the population, and the others are almost double. In Surrey, it's more

than that.

So it's undemocratic to give equal or nearly

equal representation to the people who live in Surrey, Richmond, Delta,

Okanagan South and Kamloops just by population alone. It's

undemocratic, according to the socialists. But it's not undemocratic to

have similar ratios in constituencies that are held by the NDP. They

come out with all this garbage about their being the bastions of

democracy, the protectors of human rights and everything else that's

nice and motherhood and pure and proper. They talk about manipulation.

They offend a person who accepted a job as commissioner. They question

whether that individual was manipulated, whether the government

interfered. They brought in the Norris commission. It wasn't brought

in, I should say; it was referred to by the member. It was due October

31, 1975. An order-in-

[ Page 9160 ]

council

of October 30, 1975, extended the deadline to November 8, 1975. On

November 3, they called an election. Therefore, we determine that the

party of the day, the NDP, were unaware on October 30 that they were

calling an election on November 3, and the extension of the receipt of

this report did not occur to avoid this report being received, made

public and acted upon. Coincidentally, the report was extended one

week, and an election was called. The report was never acted upon, or

Burnaby would have had four seats.

You wouldn't present the

thing. You extended it, changed the terms of reference and modified the

deadline. You brought the thing in and called an election before it

could be tabled. You talk about wasting money. You hire a commissioner

and staff, go around and spend months and months to gather this

information, and you haven't got the guts to even accept it. You talk

about wasting money. You wasted money calling an election five days

before this report was returned to the government. What happens to the

report? In the chute. Talk about wasting money!

You mean to

tell me that you're going to go through all the trouble of hiring a

commissioner and staff, holding public hearings all around this

province, and then not even make it possible for them to present that

report by changing the order-in-council and calling an election? What

good is the report then? Talk about phony! It's reminiscent of their

style.

They called the election for two reasons, among

others. They didn't want to bring in a budget. This would indicate that

they didn't want to bring in this report, so they extended it to a

point in time where they really couldn't accept it because the

Legislative Assembly was dissolved. They talk about sleazy and the

waste of public money. The Norris report may have been a very good

report, but it was too bad that it was rendered........

MRS. DAILLY: If it was so good, why did you get Eckardt?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

No, I said it may have been good. Your government had it, commissioned

it and threw it in the garbage. Order-in-council extended that deadline

to November 8 to ensure that an election was called.... Unless they

didn't know they were going to call an election and it came in a vision

in the night.

The citizens of Richmond have a message for

the socialists. They do not appreciate being told that the 96,000

citizens living in Richmond are unworthy of equal representation by

number in this Legislative Assembly. The people of Richmond live in the

shadow of the big city of Vancouver, just as the people in Coquitlam,

Burnaby, New Westminster and others do. The city of Vancouver for many

years has had certain privileges afforded it by this Legislative

Assembly, including their own act, and always including strong

representation in this assembly — as it should be with the major city

in the province.

But the communities around greater Vancouver no longer look upon Vancouver

as the only act in town around the lower mainland. They demand equitable treatment.

Richmond's population has been growing by leaps and bounds. When we had

15,000 people living in Richmond we shared with Delta, a constituency known

as Delta. Later, when the population of Richmond reached such proportions it

finally received its own seat, Richmond. As our population grew past 50,000,

60,000, 70,000 and 80,000 we were still sitting there watching Vancouver

with a population 10 times ours but 10 or 12 times the members. We watched and

watched, and as our population neared 100,000 we thought maybe it's about

time we got some form of equitable representation by numbers. We are not arguing

the point that Vancouver East has 89,000 or Vancouver Centre has 89,000, or

Victoria has 79,000 and we have 96,000. We'll call it even. We'll

take our two seats and they can have their two seats. The people of Richmond

have every right to demand that they have the same number of members in this

House as these other metropolitan areas.

They

call it sleazy. They call it undemocratic. The people in Richmond who

go to vote get half a vote each — if you want to use numbers. One

member for 96,000 people; Victoria has two members for 79,000 people.

They get two and a half votes. It's undemocratic to make that

equitable. Surrey, Richmond, Kamloops, Okanagan South, Delta and so on

— these people, I believe, are citizens who made their representation

to the commission. They indicated that they would like to be treated

fairly. They would like to have an equal voice in this assembly as

these other areas now have. I don't think that's undemocratic. It may

not be New Democratic, but we know their style.

Mr. Speaker,

it doesn't offend members on this side of the House to hear that type

of garbage argument, because we expect that. The people in the

constituencies, however, are offended by the comments by their leader

who just got sunstroke in California and finally got back. He decided

it was sleazy and it was this and it was that. The people are offended

for a number of reasons. First of all, to say this report is sleazy and

should be thrown away and not acted upon.... People of my constituency

of Richmond are saying: "Who do they think they are, telling us we're

second-class citizens? Why should the 100,000 people in Richmond be

represented by only one member in this House, when NDP ridings have two

members and a smaller population and a smaller geographic base.

Second,

and perhaps more important, for some reason these members who claim to

believe in democracy, the system, the structure and all the rest of

that identify constituencies and future members as belonging to a

political party. They suggest that certain constituencies in the

province belong to a political party. Seven new seats may be added. My

understanding of our system is that those seven seats will be decided

by the voters in the constituency, not by the party. If constituencies

belong to a political party, as those people believe, then presumably

the representation in this assembly would never change. Richmond at one

time had an NDP member. Delta at one time had an NDP member. Some of

Vancouver Centre at one time had Social Credit members. Kamloops had an

NDP member. Now these people have decided they belong to Social Credit.

Well, maybe the people will say that. I understood, at least, that it

was the people's right to make that decision, not the socialists' right

to determine that.

MR. MITCHELL: They will.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's correct. They will, Mr. Esquimalt, and this is exactly the point.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) not to interrupt.

[ Page 9161 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, the members have suggested that this report was designed

to give added representation for political purposes only. That's what

they suggested, despite the numbers, the population and the equitable

distribution of seats in this assembly. I think a person who reads the

report and looks at those numbers may be persuaded that these

constituencies deserve equitable representation in this chamber. Had

the commissioner suggested that the Vancouver constituencies —

Vancouver East, Centre, South and Little Mountain, all with populations

under 90,000 — be reduced to one member, then I know the people of

Richmond would say it was becoming more equitable. I know it's tough to

drive around those eight-square-mile constituencies, but some of them

managed to do it. The Leader of the Opposition from Vancouver East has

got nine square miles, but he's got two members.

AN HON. MEMBER: He lives in Victoria.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

It's a longer trip to get there from Esquimalt, where he lives. But

once he gets there it's only four and a half miles if they split it in

half; so that's not too bad. The other member can go from Point Grey,

where he lives, to Vancouver East. So they can visit it and it's really

not too difficult to get around twice a year.

I really find

the arguments coming across the floor from the NDP on this bill to be

very self-serving. They tell us that it's undemocratic to give equal

representation to a constituency. That, according to them, is

undemocratic. It is undemocratic to allow the 96,000 persons in

Richmond to have two members in this assembly, but it is not

undemocratic to allow the 79,000 people in Victoria to have two members

in this assembly, or two members from those Vancouver constituencies

having two. Richmond's population exceeds that of every constituency in

this province except Surrey, which has two members. So it's

undemocratic to allow Richmond to have two, and Kamloops and the

others. Undemocratic, according to them — they who think they invented

the system.

The matter will not be resolved in this chamber.

The legislation may be passed in this chamber, but the matter will not

be resolved. The matter will be resolved at some time by the people of

the province, by the people who live in those constituencies. When the

next election is called in this province, one of the most interesting

propositions on the hustings — and I look forward to it in Richmond —

is to ask the NDP why they nominated a second member — to bring about

the end of democracy, presumably. They're saying to us that it's

undemocratic, that it's going to destroy democracy to bring seven more

members into this chamber, yet they will be nominating people to get

those jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope not.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Apparently they will. The NDP association in Richmond spoke to the

Warren commission and they recommended two members. They hadn't got the

official line. The leader was in California and they didn't know who to

call. They weren't sure. They thought for a moment: is it asking too

much to have two members when you have almost 100,000 population? I

don't think so, they said; I think that's reasonable. That's what they

asked for. But now apparently it's going to threaten democracy and

probably curdle milk or something.

The bill before us is

pretty straightforward in what it suggests and what it says. It talks

about establishing a permanent three-member commission. I think that

concept and idea has been put forward by every royal commission or

commission of inquiry into electoral reforms since day one. We support

the concept of a permanent commission. I just hope it doesn't get mired

in endless bureaucracy, that they get to do a job. Elected members and

others would offer them some very good thoughts and suggestions as to

how the whole matter can be resolved at some time in the future.

are looking at the facts as they are before us today. To repeat,

members of the opposition have come up with terminology today, with

respect to this bill and to the Warren commission, that it's sleazy,

it's corrupt, it's going to destroy democracy. When you look at what

the bill says.... The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), who was

speaking before me, never really referred to the bill. She referred to

the Province editorial, the Sun

editorial and all these other references, but not to the bill itself,

to what it says and what it does. No numbers were used because they

would expose the truth. I'll go back over it for a moment, because

maybe some of these members haven't had the opportunity of reading the

report themselves.

It's undemocratic, according to the

socialist NDP, to allow Richmond, with 96,000 people, to have two

members. The same thing for Okanagan South with 78,000, Kamloops with

77,000 and 8,000 square miles, Delta with 75,000 people and 73 square

miles, Cariboo with 61,000 and 34,000 square miles, North Peace with

34,000 and 62,000 square miles. They call that undemocratic. They

apparently do not feel that Victoria, with two members at 79,000, is

undemocratic, because they happen to have those seats. These are other

areas. Vancouver Centre, whose member has just entered the chamber, has

89,000 population and two members. That's pretty reasonable

representation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sometimes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Well, they have one and a half members. That's not undemocratic

apparently. But to provide equitable representation to those growing

areas of British Columbia is going to destroy what they consider to be

democracy. That's a pretty sad comment. They talk about

inconsistencies. They talk about the commission's not solving every

problem in the world; but they don't refer to some of the other

constituencies in the province.

The member for Burnaby North

(Mrs. Dailly) said W.A.C. Bennett refused to accept a recommendation

that Atlin no longer have a seat in this House, and I remember that. I

remember W.A.C. said Atlin was a historic part of this province; it was

one of the original areas and deserved a member. We have a member here

from Atlin, and I'm sure that we will continue to have a member here

from Atlin — not very big in population, but big in size. They have a

member and they have had a member for many, many years.

think the argument will find its way. The resolution will be reached

when the people of the province, in those constituencies, tell the NDP

what they think about denying them equal representation in this

chamber. That's not a very complicated message for anyone to

understand. The NDP suggested that it's undemocratic to bring about

more equitable representation. I would suggest that their version of

democracy is very self-serving and very restricted. The people of

Richmond, Delta, Kamloops, Okanagan South and

[ Page 9162 ]

elsewhere

will have the opportunity to speak to these people in no uncertain

terms as to how they feel about being represented in an equitable way

in this chamber. And who knows, that could occur in a couple of years.

MR. NICOLSON:

Just having heard the Minister of Health, one recalls a speech that he

made earlier when he was defeated as a Conservative candidate in a

federal election. He said that the reason he had lost was that people

want to be conned and cheated, and it looks as if perhaps he's learned

his lesson, hearing him try to misstate what has been said so far in

this debate by others.

MR. RITCHIE: Born a socialist....

MR. NICOLSON:

No, a person doesn't get born a socialist. A person has to mature, grow

and think and then become a socialist. And I'm not afraid to be called

a socialist, and I hope that the members opposite won't be afraid to be

called fascists, because that's what this particular piece of

legislation is all about. It's a gradual erosion of the democratic

process, which is exactly what happened to the Reichstag. It wasn't

overthrown by violence. It wasn't a sudden attack of people coming in

armed with weapons to overthrow democracy. It was a gradual erosion

during the 1930s, year after year, of various democratic principles and

people stepping aside. There was the very famous saying: "When they

came to get the democratic socialists I didn't object. When they came

to get the labour union leaders I didn't object, because I wasn't a

union leader. When they came to get me there was no one else left to

object."

It is rather interesting how inured people can

become when you become a full-time politician. You can forget the kind

of motivation that I'm sure members on both sides of this House have

when they first come into this House; yet I'm sure the people on the

other side have put themselves in a mindset where they can see no

threat to democracy from this type of one-handed, arbitrary action.

Talk

about a mathematical formula. I'm one person in this House that has a

degree in mathematics, and I can tell you that there is a fundamental

error before he even gets to the second line of his so-called

mathematical formula. He actually changes the definition of what he's

talking about, and I don't want to bog down in that stuff. What did

they use all these mathematics for anyhow, using "sigma," the sum of

the terms from one to I, and talking about the X of I term being, if

there are N terms in a series etc., and this being a summation.... That

was only put in there to distract and to try to put some kind of a

frosting, an icing, a sweetener on what is a very rotten, unhealthy

type of food underneath all of that nice frosting, that nice icing.

Oh,

that lovely icing: the three-man permanent commission. If you look into

that you find out that it's to be set up by a select standing

committee. Where do we ever get fairness from the select standing

committees? We have 26 members to 31 in this House, but we don't get

anywhere near that kind of a balance on the committees that are

selected by the select standing committee, which has a predominance of

Social Credit members.

There's no democracy there, and

there's no democracy in this bill. We're not against fair

representation for Richmond; we're not against "rep by pop." But a

formula like this where the terms of reference set out in the

order-in-council absolutely limit and hamstring any commissioner that

would take this job.... The greatest criticism of Mr. Warren is that he

would even accept these terms of reference in the first place. Having

accepted them, there was hardly much more that he could have done.

recall sitting down with the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson) when

these terms of reference were first announced. He told me about five of

these ridings that were going to have a member added. If that doesn't

sound like a stacked deck, what is a stacked deck? What he didn't tell

me about was the ridings of Cariboo and North Peace River.

The

member who just spoke referred to my riding, Nelson-Creston, and said

it's an average riding, with quite an area and an average-size

population. Yes, indeed, my riding has a larger population than

one-half of the population of the Vancouver–Point Grey riding at this

moment. If you take the Vancouver–Point Grey riding and take into

account that there are two seats in that riding, you come up with each

member really representing 37,768 people,

whereas in the Nelson-Creston

riding there are 39,053 people. But there is a little difference

between them. One riding is about ten square miles — certainly you can

go across in a pretty quick bus ride. My riding is about 6,000 square

miles. It's not nearly as large as North Peace River, but I'll get to

that. There are eight organized municipalities in Nelson-Creston.

Vancouver–Point Grey is but part of the city of Vancouver and the

University Endowment Lands, which are under a special kind of

quasi-municipal entity. Nelson-Creston has eight organized

municipalities — that means eight mayors, eight councils. There are

three full school districts and part of a fourth school district there.

Vancouver–Point Grey is but part of the Vancouver School District.

Yet

that member says that we're only concerned about this very small type

of change that's being made where the government took something that

was predetermined, which was spoken about freely by the member for

Delta when he wrote out which ridings would be added to, and surely

enough, that was the case with the semi-urban ridings of Richmond,

Surrey and Delta. The thing that was not mentioned by that member was

the change in North Peace River and Cariboo. The Okanagan was known

ahead of time.

Somewhere along the route they must have

taken one of their Goldfarb polls and found out that they needed even a

bigger fix than this to win the next election. Isn't that what we've

been called down here for? You have the Premier saying that we've been

called down here to bring about his recovery measures, and the first

order of business — the symbolic first bill tabled in this session — is

this fix for an election. It's as if the fix that we had back in 1978

with the Eckardt commission wasn't enough.

You have to

wonder why we need this fix. What they want to do is ensure that

probably even if the NDP gets 55 percent of the popular vote, the

people of British Columbia are going to have to put up with another

four or five years of Social Credit. They've wrecked the economy in the

Kootenays, in the Alberni Valley and in many communities in the north.

It's not enough that there's nobody working at Kootenay Forest Products

in Nelson, there's nobody working at Louisiana-Pacific in Salmo, and

there's not a single logger employed up in Nakusp, after they've dumped

on to BCRIC what was once a very thriving and very productive timber

enterprise, CanCel. Only one mill works in Creston — two of them are

completely shut down. The minister allows logs to be hauled out of

Creston to a mill many miles distant in Cranbrook. They want this

redistribution so that this can go on for another

[ Page

9163 ]

four

or five years. Well, I'll say that the Goldfarb poll might have shown

that you mathematically had to fix a couple of ridings, that you

couldn't just go for five, you had to go for seven, but it didn't tell

you that when you brought this in this was going to be a wild card,

that this was going to alter the very thing that you were trying to

measure.

The people of British Columbia are fair-minded and

they're not going to stand for this kind of unfair politics. This is

going to affect you in all those marginal ridings that you hold where

you didn't put in the fix. There are going to be some people overturned

that nobody on either side of the House could have expected to be

overturned in Social Credit seats, because people's sense of fair play

is going to change the very thing that you thought you were measuring.

Yes,

I have faith in people's ideas, in their sense of fair play and

democracy. I know that people have been waiting for an election, and I

know that the people of this province feel they have been cheated by

this act before the next election takes place. For the past three

years, the single most common question I have been asked by

constituents, by people outside of my area, by anybody who knows I'm

connected with politics, is: when is the next election? They want to

send you a message. This act of yours is going to change your

statistical base and your statistical measurements, so you had better

go back to the drawing-boards.

Let's look at the ridings of

Nelson-Creston and that very large area of North Peace River. North

Peace River ranks 45 out of 50 ridings. Some of our 57 seats are in

two-member ridings, so it presently ranks 45 out of 50 in population.

Nelson-Creston is a little above it at 39. Somebody says it's about

one-tenth the size and that's probably quite true. North Peace River

has an area of 62,000 square miles, Nelson Creston only 6,299 square

miles. But it was H.L. Mencken who said, "For every complex problem

there's a solution which is simple, neat, plausible — and dead wrong."

happen to be familiar with that North Peace riding. Indeed, one of the

areas up there is named after my father-in-law, the late Frank Golata.

There's a Golata Creek, a Golata Creek Hall. He pioneered up there

before there was an Alaska Highway, many years ago. He first went into

that country in 1912. I have a little bit of an understanding of the

Alaska Highway and some of those communities up there. I've looked at

the latest Census Canada figures for that riding, and I've looked at

the major, population centres. The largest would be Fort St. John with

a population of 13,891, as compared to Nelson, the largest centre in

Nelson-Creston, with 9,143. Second largest is Fort Nelson with 3,724,

then Hudson's Hope with 1,365, and Taylor with 966 — almost 1,000.

That's 19,946, so almost 20,000 people of the 31,000 population, or 63

percent, live in those four urban centres.

In the eight

Nelson-Creston urban centres that I previously mentioned — Creston,

Kaslo, Nakusp, Nelson, New Denver, Silverton, Salmo and Slocan — there

are 18,124. Only 46 percent of the Nelson-Creston riding is in the

urban centres. The others live in unorganized rural areas.

MR. SPEAKER:

One moment, please. I'll ask the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) not to walk around the Legislative Assembly and interrupt.

The minister may take his place or leave the chamber.

MR. NICOLSON: The Nelson-Creston riding has far more rural

people than it does urban. The very converse applies in North Peace,

where only about 11,000, or 36 percent of that riding, are rural

people. In Nelson-Creston, while about 21,000 people live in the rural

areas, North Peace has only 11,000, or half as many rural residents.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, I'll get to the interruption by the member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). I can't remember his portfolio;

he's been kicked out of so many. He's even a two-time loser in

Agriculture.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) to please

come to order. I'll ask the member to address the bill.

MR. NICOLSON:

What are the real route miles to service these areas? Nelson-Creston is

an H-shaped riding in which one can travel more or less southward from

Nelson to Salmo, over to Creston, or to the Balfour area across the

Kootenay Lake ferry, and southward through several little communities

down to Creston, all of which demand a lot of attention.

also requires a detour to another area — Riondel. Riondel has a grid

system of streets and roads. It has several hundred people living in

it; it has a community water system and a senior citizens' meeting

hall; but it's not even counted as an organized municipality. It has

all of the organization and all of the needs of an urban area without

an urban government. It requires representation from MLAs and from

regional district personnel in order to maintain services, because they

really live in the form of a village without the encumbrance of a

village council.

The same could be said for Ymer, which

again has a grid system of streets and roads, most of them paved —

again, a very highly organized community with a lot of the needs, but

without a council to represent them.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON:

To the hon. member, it's certainly not a ghost town. It isn't 7,000

population as it once was. Indeed Ymir once was a constituency in the

Legislative Assembly, back in 1912.

Mr. Speaker, if you look

at the route miles that are required to travel to Nakusp through New

Denver, Silverton and Slocan, or having to travel to Kaslo, Meadow

Creek, Argenta, or Johnsons Landing; looking at those areas, not going

to the end of the riding; not going out to Goattell, or the Nelway

border, which is not often necessary; but going to those places where

they expect to see you regularly, including the main route miles

between these centres which I have named, Nelson has about 538

kilometres.

If you look at the road system connecting Fort

Nelson, Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope and Taylor, you're looking at not

much more than that; you're looking at less than 600 kilometres,

virtually the same distance — 597 kilometres to be exact. Although that

is a huge geographical area, there are no constituents living up in the

headwaters of the Muskwa River and the Prophet River. There are stone

sheep up there, Mr. Speaker, which used to be in great abundance and

are still in great numbers. There are also grizzly bears there. One

does not find people resident out in some of the vast areas of muskeg

that cannot be inhabited or farmed. Indeed, most of this rural riding

is contained close to Fort St. John. If one

[ Page 9164 ]

were

to look at North Peace River intelligently, rather than simply and

coming up with a simple formula, one would see that it is indeed more

of an urban riding than a rural riding. More of the people in North

Peace River live within organized municipalities with their municipal

governments to look after their needs than in Nelson-Creston. Indeed,

its rural population is one-half of the rural population of

Nelson-Creston.

The member for Boundary-Similkameen

interjected and said: "What about Boundary-Similkameen?" Yes, there's a

large geographical area, and that's what we're saying on this side of

the House: that boundary redistribution should first of all be set up

by both parties. It should be a unanimous choice, the way we chose the

auditor-general and the ombudsman. It should not be something set up by

the cabinet, who have the greatest vested interest, under restrictive

terms of reference that lead to only one conclusion, and that is that

you're going to add to the five seats that were predicted to me by the

member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson) the day these terms of reference

came down — and then to have the surprise of North Peace River and

Cariboo ridings.

If we were to look into these terms of

reference, it would not be the expedient, simple, political thing to

do. But the proper thing to do under these terms of reference would

have been to look at the whole of Vancouver Island. Having looked at

that very quickly, I can assure you that you could justify putting in

one more seat outside of Victoria and outside of Saanich — that is,

from Cowichan to the north end of the Island. You add up the population

in those ridings, and you can certainly see that another riding could

be put in there.

There are all kinds of exceptions that

could be made. It isn't only Richmond that might be underrepresented.

We have to look at some kind of formula that is not oversimplified, one

that recognizes the complexity of representing a rural area. If you

take a whole bunch of people.... I don't care if you put them into

600,000 square miles and they all cluster into two small communities.

If there are only 30,000 people there, then they only require one

member. It's when you have very large geographical areas, such as the

Atlin riding, where if you want to go into the community of Atlin you

actually have to drive up out of the riding, through the Yukon and back

down into Atlin.... Of course, that's always been recognized in this

House by every electoral boundary commission. To compare the difficulty

of representing that riding and to say that the riding adjoining it,

which is approximately the same magnitude in area, deserves two members

is stretching anybody's credulity. It requires the wilful suspension of

disbelief not to see the evil, the danger, the threat inherent in this

step toward eroding democracy. Democracy is not going to be....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON:

No, this is not a revolution. This is an erosion. You know that both of

them will have the same effect in the long run if unchecked. So this is

a gradual wearing away of something that has been built up in this

riding. Certainly everyone in this province and in this House really

knows in their heart of hearts that a lot could be done to improve the

electoral representation.

The other thing is: look at the

cost of this at this particular time. If you have come into this House

and been here so long that you don't think that an additional $700,000

a year, which is the figure in the Warren report, is in the very

poorest of taste at a time when we're talking at both the federal and

provincial level of restraint, if you can't see that people care....

Whether the money spent is $700,000 or $700 million, people recognize

the symbolic insincerity in making this move at this time. You can

quote figures from other provinces. You could also look at Quebec and

Ontario. We are the third-largest province behind them. We probably

should fall somewhere in between.

If the purpose of this

bill is fulfilled, it will be to perpetuate this government, which has

no other motivating force than to perpetuate itself in power. They have

wrecked the economy. They have dogmatically looked at anything that was

good in this province, anything that had hope, anything that showed a

pride and had the stamp of "made in British Columbia" on it, and have

systematically dismantled all of these things. If this bill goes

through and if it succeeds, and if my prediction is wrong — I trust it

won't be — and if the intent of this bill succeeds, we will see a

perpetuation of a government that likes to spend money on itself. Once

it slides by this election, we will see more of the activities of....

It will be Broadway Bob II. We'll see more people sitting in cabinet

benches who convince themselves that while they're on a vacation on

some island in Hawaii really they're on government business because

maybe they're the Minister of Highways and they drove down the highway.

It might take them six or eight months to convince themselves that it

was government business, but they'll get around to putting in a voucher

and claiming that as being a government expense.

They'll

probably be a little bit slicker in covering these things up. They'll

probably learn how to bury things even a couple of plies deeper so it

will escape the notice of somebody. Maybe it will escape the notice of

researchers from the opposition who've been denied access to do a job

on behalf of the people of British Columbia by scrutinizing government

expenditures. In fact, maybe they'll destroy the public accounts

committee, and say: "Now that we have an auditor-general we don't need

one." Perhaps that will be the step. If this particular piece of

legislation of creating seven new Socred seats succeeds, then maybe

that's going to be one of the final results.

If this bid to

create seven new Socred seats succeeds, maybe we will see a further

multiplication of the housing cost of the Ministry of Forests, which

went up from $3.5 million to over $19 million in just two years. Think

what they can do in four or five more years, Mr. Speaker. Give that

bunch four or five more years and it's going to cost $200 million just

to house the Ministry of Forests if they keep up at the same rate.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

can't afford to allow this bill to pass. We can't afford that chance.

We can't afford what this bill will bring if its intent succeeds; and I

pray that it doesn't. If the intent of this bill succeeds, we're going

to have spending running out of control and we're going to see a

continuation of things such as renting fishing boats at $800 a day for

senior government civil servants in the deputy minister's office to go

out fishing for a couple of hours. That's the kind of waste we're going

to see at the taxpayers' expense. Only they won't be satisfied with an

$800-a-day boat. It will probably be an $8,000-a-day boat that they'll

be going for next time.

Interjection.

[ Page

9165 ]

MR. NICOLSON: I certainly checked it out.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON:

It certainly won't fly with the public. There are just so many things

of government expenditure with this government; the public can only be

expected to absorb so much of it.

When will we get the truth

on northeast coal? We won't get it for another five years if the intent

of this bill succeeds. We'll never see those contracts tabled. But we

know now that Denison Mines can't even buy a truck without getting

their orders from Japan.

It was ironic to hear the minister

say how much the Japanese know about open-pit mining. I'll tell the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), who knows something about open-pit mining, who has the

leading technology in the world: Canadians. We show the Americans. We

can show the Russians, Europeans, Australians or anybody about open-pit

mining, because we developed the technology and machinery. It's

something we should dam well be proud of.

MR. HOWARD: They don't trust Canadians.

MR. NICOLSON:

No, they don't trust Canadians. They have to go outside of the

province. If this bill succeeds in its intent to create seven more

Socred seats, we're going to be living further with so-called leaders

who tell us that we're nothing but hewers of wood and drawers of water.

We are the creators of high technology in this province.

We've

got a lot to be proud of in this province. If this bill fails in this

House, or if the people of British Columbia see that this bill fails to

buy the Socreds another five years in power, then we will start to see

a province where the leaders can be proud of the people that they're

trying to represent, and where the leaders will be appreciating and

also trying to keep up with the people of British Columbia in the ways

they want to go instead of trying to keep them down, ruin initiative

and destroy, destroy, destroy.

If this bill succeeds we'll

never see the reopening of what is just a 15-year-old plywood plant in

the city of Nelson. We'll never see the reopening of a lot of the mills

and a lot of the jobs that have made this the strongest economy, over

the long haul of years, in Canada. If this bill fails to pass this

House, if a few of these members haven't been in here so long that they

are so blinded to the threat that's represented by this bill, or if

ultimately the people of British Columbia react to it the way that I

feel they're going to react — if they turn their back on this

government, as has done the constituency secretary who served the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) for many years, and as

have done other Social Credit members of conscience, people who

remember some of the original beliefs and the philosophy of Social

Credit when Social Credit had a philosophy, people who remember when

Social Credit was not in bed with the Liberal Party....

Mr.

Speaker, some of those people are going to turn their backs on Social

Credit in this election. I believe in those people. I believe they will

turn their backs on this government and that they will not give this

group, this Liberal-dominated group, this group that will do anything

to maintain itself in power.... I think that these people will say that

this is not fair. They'll say, "This is something I will not close my

eyes to," and they'll say, "Even if it means voting NDP," which I'm

sure will be difficult for some of the people that I have in mind —

very good friends of mine, but some people will find it very difficult.

I know they'll find it impossible to vote for this government to keep

it in power another four or five years, because of this act.

This

act is so one-sided, so transparent, so shoddy and so cheap that very

few people will be able to turn it aside and ignore it. This thing is

going to be like a piece of masking tape that kind of sticks to your

heel when you walk through somewhere, and you're going to have the

damnedest time getting rid of it. This bill has surprised everybody.

That Derril Warren would come in with the recommendations that he did

bring in.... The real coup was the North Peace River decision. I want

to say again that North Peace River is more urban than it is rural.

Let's not try to con anybody here. Two thirds of the people in that

riding live in organized municipalities; almost half of them live right

in Fort St. John. A goodly number live just outside of the borders of

Fort St. John, and if you were to include that area of greater Fort St.

John, that would be over 50 percent of the population of that riding.

it's fine when the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Brummet), who used to stand back here as a backbencher and get up and

make his little country speech.... He'd speak on behalf of rural folk.

It's good theatre. But let's not kid anybody. You can't kid kidders,

and that member represents two-thirds urban people and one third rural.

I represent over 50 percent rural-living, rural dwelling people, and

there's probably a lot of other ridings throughout this province that

do as well.

What this area formula assumed.... It really

must have been.... I don't know this particular mathematician. I don't

know every mathematician in British Columbia, if indeed he is from

British Columbia. Maybe they went beyond our borders, as they did for

some other advice. They went to the Lakehead University to get some of

the advice for this, Mr. Speaker, as if some of our British Columbia

mathematicians and economists wouldn't be good enough. But of course

maybe they wouldn't have come up with these kinds of results. What this

thing has assumed is that what we've got here is a plum pudding, and

somehow, if you put all the raisins into the cake and you stir it up,

the raisins are going to be distributed evenly throughout the cake.

This is not a plum-pudding model; this is more like magnetic filings.

You've got a few magnetic poles: Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Hudson's

Hope and Taylor. They're varying strengths.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly conclude his speech.

MR. NICOLSON:

They are poles of varying strengths. People are attracted toward those

poles, and they are not scattered all over those 60,000 square miles.

This

whole thing is a fraud and a sham, and I'm sure that the people of

British Columbia will see through this if the members on that side

can't.

MR. REE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to

compliment you upon your election to the Chair and for the opportunity

of speaking to you at this time. I trust you will convey the comments

to the appropriate individuals, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker.

[ Page 9166 ]

The

debate we're receiving from the opposition today is most ludicrous.

They are indicating that they are against this report, any

redistribution and any change in representation for the people of this

province. In other words, it's a democratic argument we're into today.

We're talking democracy and the results of democracy. We're talking

about people representation and their form of government.

The Warren commission was appointed some time ago. Commissioner Warren went to every member of this House. He

went to the political parties and asked for their input. I would like

to read the comments of Commissioner Warren as they relate to the input

from the New Democratic Party. On page 20 of his report, Mr. Warren

says: "I must report that initially the New Democratic Party central

office in Vancouver, B.C. refused to supply me with the addresses of

the constituency offices for each opposition member of the Legislative

Assembly." Somehow the constituency addresses must be secret. They

refuse to give them out. The people of this province are not entitled

to receive notice of where constituency offices for the NDP are located

— maybe because they don't want to represent the people or do anything

with the people. Why they are secret I don't know; but maybe that is it.

went further to say: "I am also now informed that, after my sending the

letters to each opposition member of the Legislative Assembly, the

caucus of the New Democratic Party has decided not to respond to my

letter." They did not put forward propositions, submissions,

suggestions or anything else to Commissioner Warren in order for him to

consider the mandate with respect to distribution. They were silent.

Commissioner Warren sought public information. He advertised in the

newspapers. He was on public talk shows. The opposition had all the

opportunity to put forth their suggestions at that time. I understand

that there was the odd one in Delta from the NDP who supported Mr.

Warren's eventual findings — he accepted the recommendation. He appears

to be about the only one. Other than that, the NDP remained silent.

They did not wish to contribute to democracy and proper representation

of the people in this province. They had no interest in putting forth

any suggestions for proper and responsible representation for the

people of this province. And they say they are democratic.

Mr.

Speaker, I couldn't use the word in this Legislature, because I know it

would not be acceptable as to what their democracy is.

AN HON. MEMBER: What word would you use?

MR. REE: It has the initials of b.s. They are not democratic.

They

will use the term "fascist." I believe the member for Nelson-Creston

(Mr. Nicolson) used the term "fascist." I stand to be corrected, but I

believe the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) used the same term.

It was used by another member of the opposition in the House yesterday.

In fact, one of them even called out the term "Nazi." I don't know

whether it was attributed to the member for Skeena (Mt. Howard). I

understand that he was on his feet, but I can't directly say that he

did that.

"Fascism" and "Nazi" seem to be degrading words

for what were National Socialists. I would not suggest that they are

National Socialists. After all, they do not support the philosophy of

their national party in Ottawa. So how could they be National

Socialists? They don't support the crow rate or the uranium philosophy

of the socialists in Saskatchewan. So how could they be National

Socialists? I would deny that they are National Socialists.

But

National Socialists would be people who would prevent representation in

a democratically elected legislature. They would be a government of

National Socialists that would not allow the public to be represented.

I wouldn't say they're National Socialists, even if they look like it.

Even if they act like fascists and Nazis, they're not that, Mr.

Speaker. They may follow the same philosophies. I don't know, Mr.

Speaker. I wouldn't call them that. If they look like it and sound like

it, what could they be? But they could not be that.

No, what

we're hearing in the arguments from the other side is really quite

ludicrous. They have not put forward any arguments to the commissioner

to assist him in drawing up his report. They are accusing us of

gerrymandering. There have been population changes in the communities.

The people in these communities where there has been an increase in

population are entitled to representation in this House. That is what

Mr. Warren is recommending — that they have representation in this

House. And we are accused of gerrymandering? Giving these people

representation here? No, I suggest that the New un-Democratic Party are

gerrymandering in their arguments. They're the gerrymanderers. They do

not wish to give these people representation. They wish to keep it at

the status quo. They're the gerrymanderers, not us in accepting this

report. They will even use the argument of three-quarters of a million

dollars as being not worth it and too expensive for this

representation. What price democracy? Democratic people are prepared to

pay a large price for democracy. Democratic people paid a great price

during 1914 and 1918 and between 1939 and 1945 for democracy. But the

people in the opposition across the floor here, Mr. Speaker, are not

prepared for three-quarters of a million dollars for democracy. There's

no price that we can pay that's too high to maintain our democracy of

this country. I cannot accept any argument of restrictions and costs to

support a restriction on representation.

We have not had any

discussion from the members opposite as to the commission to be

appointed in this bill. This bill has recommended a three-member

commission be appointed for each parliament and that the commission

should delve into, look at and make recommendations with respect to

boundaries and representations throughout the province. I think this is

a point that should be commended and be brought to the attention of

this House. It is a recommendation from Mr. Warren in his report and I

commend it. The opposition haven't suggested that. They are suggesting

that we don't adopt any of this bill, including the portion with

respect to the provision of a commission. They are suggesting that this

bill be deleted in toto. If we get into an election now, then maybe for

the next four or five years there is no representation on for the

increased population. We are at least saying that if there is an

election, these additional people should be represented and if we have

a report from the commission with respect to any boundary changes, they

should not be disfranchised in the meantime.

I found it

again quite ludicrous to listen to the member for Burnaby North talking

about colours of reports having something to do.... The Social Credit

are the blue. I've always been partial to blue. I'm really quite

pleased to follow the blue line, particularly when I found a blue cover

on the Norris report. I like that colour. It has the same blue, the

same tone, the same texture — maybe it was a sky blue — that the

[ Page

9167 ]

Eckardt

report had and the Warren report had. But again, they didn't do

anything with the Norris report. They didn't adopt any of it. They

didn't even file it until after they had an election.

AN HON. MEMBER: Play fair!

MR. REE:

Play fair? Mr. Speaker, we've got a gentleman over there — excuse the

looseness of the term "gentleman" — and he's saying "play fair." Their

fairness is to have no changes in the democratic representation. Let's

not do it now. We didn't do the Norris ones. At the time when they were

in government, did they change the double-member ridings? No, they did

not. Have they in the past, up until today, ever made any comments

about their members being elected in double-member ridings? No, they

did not. Have they, in the past up until today, ever made any comments

about their members being elected in double-member ridings, including

the leader of the party? No, they have not. The only things they are

complaining about are new double-member ridings. They are quite happy

with the double-member ridings they have at the moment that have a

smaller population than some of the new ones. They don't want to

provide representation for the people of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not "rep by pop"?

MR. REE:

The member over there talks about fairness. No, they won't provide

fairness. We didn't get fairness from Nazis or fascists. You're not

suggesting any. I'm not saying you're a Nazi or a fascist, but you're

acting the same way.

The member for Nelson-Creston was

saying that if it costs three-quarters of a million dollars or $7

million, what's the difference? There's a lot of difference when you're

dealing with the public's money, Mr. Member. You're spending the

public's money. Maybe you on that side of the House don't know the

difference. It's the same as the member for Burnaby North talking about

the $2 million cost of the Warren report. I'll stack odds with the

member for Burnaby North that it's a lot closer to $100,000 than it is

to $2 million. They don't recognize money. They didn't during 1972 to

1975; they spent it and shovelled it out of the back of a truck, and

they would do it again if they were elected. That's $750,000 as opposed

to $7 million, Mr. Member for Nelson Creston. Referring to Bobway

Brown, if they're talking about those kinds of figures, they'll own all

of Broadway. They'll be shipping it out here for themselves.

MR. LAUK: That's Bobway Broad!

MR. REE: Thank you. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)........

AN HON. MEMBER: The financial wizard.

MR. REE:

No, the commerce critic for the NDP. The first member for Vancouver

Centre has been on his feet in this House. I think he's to be

commended. Since yesterday he's been on his feet probably more than

anybody else. For the last three weeks of this House in July he wasn't

on his feet in this House; he was waltzing around Vienna. Now he's

standing up here, and he's a member from a double-member riding.

AN HON. MEMBER: How big is it?

MR. REE: Oh, it has about 76,000 people, I believe.

MR. LAUK: I just lost 13,000 members of my riding.

MR. REE: Oh? I can get it from the report, if you wish. The Warren report says its 89,000.

MR. KEMPF: And eight square miles.

MR. REE:

The member for Omineca says "eight square miles." Mr. Speaker, I've got

64,000 square miles in my constituency, and I've got approximately

50,000 people in that constituency. I'm probably going to go home this

weekend, and my people will say: "Hey, I need an extra member. After

all, in Vancouver Centre the commerce critic for the NDP has two

members. We're entitled to it here because we've got five times the

area.

I'm going to be supporting this bill. I support the

proposition of an independent commission being appointed. Above all, I

support the need for additional representation in this province for the

areas that have been growing and for the people who should have a voice

here. Mr. Speaker, what price democracy? I think we have to pay that

price in restraint times or in good times. It's a price that the people

are entitled to. It cannot be frustrated by any undemocratic action by

the opposition.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, I see the Deputy Speaker is now in the chair. I commend you on

your appointment. I know you will exercise wisdom and humour in your

deliberations.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, congratulations. Beyond my congratulations I'm not going to extend any to the government of this province.

Let

me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that what we are talking about now is one of

the most amazing coincidences that has occurred in this jurisdiction,

and this jurisdiction is noted for its amazing coincidences. Let me

take you back — and that dear Premier of ours who has now got back from

another living announcement — to December 27, 1981. The Premier thought

that because it was between Christmas and New Year's, his musings would

not be reported. It was December 27 when he made the statement, which

was reported in the Province

on December 28 and reported in the other two newspapers on the 27th.

What did he say that would lead us to consider that this report, this

amazing coincidence, was in the making even then? "Premier Bill Bennett

says that Richmond, Delta, Kamloops, South Okanagan and some northern

ridings are vastly underrepresented." Holy smokes! And Warren got the

idea — I wonder where from?

AN HON. MEMBER: ESP.

MR. COCKE:

Extrasensory perception. That famous Premier of ours, who wants to take

us to the polls on a new gerrymander, that's on top of the old

gerrymander that we had in this province — that was only a year before

that statement was made....

If there was a need for all

these new members, why was that need not seen by Mr. Eckardt? All that

Mr. Eckardt could see at the time was an election approaching and how

best to get rid of three NDP MLAs.

[ Page 9168 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Great idea.

MR. COCKE:

"Great idea," he says. In other words, they're taking the

responsibility that I suggest they do, and that is that they take the

responsibility for the gerrymanders that have happened.

Vancouver

Burrard, where is it now? Gone. Revelstoke, brought into Shuswap —

another NDP MLA. Cowichan-Malahat. Listen to this one: that was the

most amazing aspect of the whole thing that I saw at that time, and it

rarely got reported. Cowichan-Malahat and Nanaimo had virtually the

same population and roughly the same kind of service to be rendered.

They cut Cowichan-Malahat in half practically by taking Ladysmith out,

because it was a strong NDP area, and moving it into Nanaimo, where

they knew we would win anyway. So they threw all the NDPers into one

area and made Cowichan-Malahat vulnerable. It didn't work, nor will

this rotten gerrymander work, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you upset about then?

MR. COCKE:

I'm upset because it's necessary that the people in this province have

an understanding of the historical situation that we are confronting

right now. Two gerrymanders in a row.

Mr. Speaker, North

Peace River, one of the smallest ridings in the province, a riding in

which 8,900 people voted in the last election now is now suddenly going

to have two members along that ribbon of highway. Isn't it an amazing

coincidence that Mr. Bennett said in 1980, just a few short months

after the original Eckardt gerrymander, that "Richmond, Delta,

Kamloops, South Okanagan and some northern ridings are vastly

underrepresented." Well, well, well. Let me talk to you about that

"vastly underrepresented." North Peace River now has 14,130 registered

voters — that is, people who have been registered in this last

registration. Last election they had 8,679 people voting. They have a

total population of 31,336, and they're adding one to that riding. Is

there anybody across the floor who has enough conscience to stand up

and say: "At least we shouldn't do that, nor should we do the Cariboo

situation." Certainly there's every reason to put another member in

Richmond. There was that same reason in 1979, but they didn't do it

because they felt we might win it in 1979. The criterion of this

government is to decide how best to defeat the NDP, not how to serve

the people's needs in this province — perpetuate themselves at all

costs. How can you people hold your heads up? How is it that you don't

have enough conscience to see what you're doing? How is it that this

totally unfair group...?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

I've been elected four times, and each time I get an increased

majority. Can you say the same? Wait. You've been two times and you're

going to be a three-time loser.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

He'll lay me odds. I have a message for the people in

Boundary-Similkameen: if they re-elect the member they now have, they

will do themselves a great disservice.

MS. BROWN: They won't, because he's lazy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I'll ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt) and the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) to come to

order, and would remind the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)

that personal reflections on a member's ability to be in the House, or

just on the member, are unparliamentary.

MR. COCKE:

We know there was a tremendous amount of government influence on the

Eckardt report, and we know it because only NDP MLAs lost their seats

as a result of that report. We know the Eckardt report also suggested

that the "Gracie's Finger" aberration be a part of electoral reform.

Suddenly a little bit of conscience, and so they say they'll eliminate

"Gracie's Finger" in order to give some credibility to this new one.

But when that report was being done in 1978-79, why did they not then,

because they had lots of time, bring in fair distribution? We shouldn't

facing redistribution every two or three years. And isn't it a

coincidence that we face it just before an election? We're going to the

polls. They know we're going to the polls. They don't dare wait a

moment longer, because they're in such disarray. They've taken this

province right down the tube. That's why we're standing here today

fighting this bill.

If we had before us now a fair

distribution, what would this party be doing on this side of the House?

We would be saying: "Fair enough. Let's get out there and go our best

licks; let's have our election on a fair basis." But no, we have to

wait and be gerrymandered again. The thought is seeping into the

general public in this province that they will gerrymander before every

election in the future if they get away with it. If they get away with

it this time, they will continue to gerrymander every election that we

have. We must be the laughingstock of North America, of every free,

western country. Good heavens, what we're seeing before us is old-time

politics. This is Huey Long brought back to life. This is Tammany Hall.

This is all of those things that people say politicians really are:

something else again. This is what creates that thought, that concept.

They ask why we didn't bring in the Norris report when we were government.

HON. MR. FRASER: You hid it.

MR. COCKE: Hid it, nothing! It wasn't even ready when the election was called.

HON. MR. FRASER: You denied democracy.

MR. COCKE:

Now just a minute. I'm going to tell you a few stories about the Norris

report. In the first place, it was a report put together by three

commissioners. Who were they? First, a highly respected judge in our

province, Judge Norris. He was a Conservative, but I'll forgive him

that. The second was the former Deputy Premier under this government,

Lawrie Wallace. A highly respected public servant was the third

commissioner. Who was Mr. Morton? A public servant. He was the

registrar of voters for B.C.

If anybody can tell me that

there can be any criticism of that commission in terms of its integrity

or any other question, I would like them to come forward.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you use it?

[ Page

9169 ]

MR. COCKE: Because the report wasn't ready yet. The report

would not very likely have been used in any event, because it's

important that you make your report so that it's the next campaign that

you work it on. Imagine bringing in a report on September 7 and

enacting it on September 14.

I want to tell you another

couple of things about this report. That very highly respected

barrister from North Vancouver who just sat down talked about the fact

that we would not make a co